Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, Senator Bayh and I have joined with Senator Coverdell on this amendment. It is simple on its face: to encourage people to engage in modest savings, eliminating $1,000 of capital gains tax for modest savers. Seventy-five percent of the people who will be affected by this earn less than $70,000. It is to encourage the culture of savings so people plan for their own retirements and security in their own families. The Nation today is in the midst of a savings crisis. I know of no better way to encourage people to participate in the growth of this economy and investment than giving this simple $1,000 exclusion on their capital gains. I thank the Chair.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I close by urging my colleagues to join with me in this bipartisan plan for reasonable and affordable tax relief. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, thank you very much. The Senate has had before it three very distinct blueprints for the American future, not a tax plan for the remainder of this year or next year but blueprints that will dictate many priorities and decisions for more than a decade. They are very distinctly different. The Senate has before it a Republican tax reduction plan that will never become law because the President will never sign it. The Senate is considering a Democratic tax reduction plan that will never become law because this Congress will never pass it. And there is a bipartisan tax reduction plan of $500 billion now before the Senate. It is termed a ``bipartisan tax reduction plan,'' but it should be better known as the ``October plan,'' because we may spend July and August debating our partisan proposals. Members of the Senate may not endorse this proposal today, but I suggest that by the time we reach October, it is a plan such as this that will bring us together. This plan, crafted by Senators Breaux, Kerrey, Chafee, Specter, Collins, Snowe, Bayh, myself, and a group of others, is based on a belief that the Nation should have returned to it as much of its tax dollars as possible, while still being prudent to allow the development of a surplus, protecting Social Security and other national priorities. Reducing taxes is a national priority, but so is hiring 100,000 teachers, rebuilding American schools, providing for a pharmaceutical benefit in Medicare, improving the national infrastructure, and reducing the national debt. Like any compromise, this plan is designed to accommodate many of these objectives, and I think we have succeeded. But it is also based on the belief that the American people, after 8 years of economic expansion that was built on hard work, high taxes, and sacrifices, deserve a dividend. This $500 billion tax reduction plan is a fair and reasonable dividend. This surplus developed for a reason. In 1993, appropriately in response to burgeoning deficits, this Congress increased taxes by a quarter of a trillion dollars. In the years that followed, American businesses produced and American workers produced at unprecedented levels. They have provided an economic expansion and also a Government surplus, and they deserve now to have some of it returned. That is the foundation of this plan. But we accomplish nothing by returning these tax revenues if we only prestage a burgeoning deficit in the future or we deny other needs in the country as well. Tax reduction is an economic imperative, in my judgment, but so is education and so is improvement of the national health care system, and so is expansion of the national infrastructure. There is before this Senate but one balanced plan that can achieve these tax reduction goals while meeting these balanced national objectives, and it is this plan, the ``October plan.'' This plan is also based on a recognition that even in good economic times, it is important to recognize that these are not perfect economic times. The United States today faces twin economic problems: First, record levels of consumer debt. The current economic expansion is threatened by mounting middle-class consumer debt more than any other single indicator. Middle-income families with young children are shouldering more debt in home mortgages, credit card bills, and educational expenses than at any time in our national history. This plan is designed to respond to that need by moving 4 million Americans, people who earn $50,000, $60,000, $70,000 in family income, with young children, and moving them from the 28-percent bracket to the 15-percent bracket where they belong. This Government has no right to go to a family that earns $60,000 and $70,000 and struggles every month to educate its children, provide housing, clothing, and food, and take 28 percent of that income for the Federal Government. I do not believe it was ever our intention. Prosperity and inflation moved people into these tax brackets. For a long time, some of us lived with the illusion that people who lived at these modest incomes somehow had expendable income, as if they were living lives of luxury. There is no luxury in American life today on an income of $30,000 to $70,000 with children. This bill recognizes that fact. We also recognize that many senior citizens and many young families supplement their incomes by modest savings--people who earn a few thousand dollars in capital gains, put a little bit of money in the bank, or they invest in the stock market for a little security to participate in American growth. The Federal Government should not be charging capital gains taxes on people who earn $2,000 and $3,000 a year. We should be doing everything we can to encourage these people to save for an emergency, prepare for the future, and this bill deals with that reality, in response to the fact that the other crisis in American economic life today, beyond high consumer debt, is a virtual collapse in national savings. This year, the United States has a national savings rate of minus 1.2 percent, the lowest rate since the second year of the Great Depression. We are the only developed nation in the world with a negative savings rate. This legislation responds to that reality. We eliminate the capital gains taxes on the first few thousand dollars of savings, which, in part, takes 4 million taxpayers off the tax rolls entirely--young families and probably largely senior citizens who want a little security in life. They should pay nothing, and that is what this bill provides. Those are the twin objectives we have: Reduce consumer debt by lowering taxes on the middle class by moving people from the 28-percent bracket to the 15-percent bracket; and, second, by encouraging savings, both as Senator Roth has done by an expansion of the IRA, and in our case from $2,000 to $3,000. This Government should be doing everything possible to encourage Americans to save money, if not for our larger economic purposes, then simply because 50 percent of Americans have no pensions; 60 percent of Americans retire only on Social Security. My colleagues and I know why there is such enormous pressure on this Congress to increase Social Security and other Government benefits: Because people are not saving money, and they do not save money because this Government has made it economically irrational to do so, and the Tax Code is the answer to changing that reality. Our bill, I think, is easily defined and explained. It is simply $500 billion over the course of this next decade. It removes 3 million people entirely from the tax rolls by increasing the standard deduction and eliminating taxes on modest savings. Three million people, largely senior citizens, will pay nothing. Second, as I suggested, we move 4 million people from the 28-percent tax bracket to the 15-percent tax bracket, meaning that a family of four earning $71,000 will now have their taxes arguably reduced in half and have money available for their own family needs. For a single person earning $37,000, this translates into a $600 tax cut. A family earning $71,000, as I suggested, receives a $1,300 tax cut. We also do more. We eliminate the marriage penalty entirely in the standard deduction. We increase and expand the child care tax credit to remove American women from this dilemma where they have to choose between going to work to pay the mortgage and knowing their children are safe by allowing affordable child care.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, by any measure, this is an extraordinary time in the life of our country. It appears that as the American century comes to a conclusion, the chances are good that what the world is going to witness is simply another American century, where our dominance may be exercised by different technologies, our power may be measured by different means, but our dominance is just as certain. The quality of life in America is rising to new heights. Our economic strength could be measured by many means, but it is considerable. Home ownership is now at the highest rate in the Nation's history. In 6 years the United States has created 18 million new jobs, more than all of Western Europe and Japan combined. Unemployment is near record lows in the postwar period--genuinely an extraordinary time. Nothing surprises Americans more than that we are witnessing not simply the growth of an economy, employment and economic opportunities, but the Federal Government itself is participating in this extraordinary transformation. The United States is about to accumulate in our Government budget not only the largest surplus in American history but the largest surplus in the history of any nation in any government budget. Indeed, it is now projected to be $1 trillion larger than was anticipated only several years ago. By the year 2009, the total accumulated surplus of the U.S. Government could be an astonishing $2.9 trillion. The fundamental question now before this Government as we begin to plan for the next decade, the beginning of a new century, is how to allocate these resources. The U.S. Government is in a new experience. For more than 50 years we have been in the business of allocating pain. The dominating issues before the U.S. Government were winning the cold war and overcoming the budget deficit. All decisions were seen through these twin prisms. Many of our hopes and ambitions for our country and our people needed to be postponed. In 1993, the Deficit Reduction Act was a defining moment in that struggle. This Congress, with the Clinton administration's leadership, was facing deficits as high as $300 or $400 billion per year. It was artificially raising interest rates, causing problems with private investment, and difficulties in economic growth. The extraordinary vote of that year, passing each institution of the Congress by a single vote, did as much to change American economic history as any single act of the 20th century. (Mr. CRAPO assumed the Chair.)

Mr. TORRICELLI. For all of us who participated in the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, it is probably the singular achievement and the greatest source of pride in our careers. For the American people, it is more than a source of pride; it is a source of new freedom. These surpluses allow us to dream again about rebuilding schools, providing child care, improving the quality of instruction, repairing American infrastructure, funding higher education. Things that were postponed by all these years of debt, struggle, and sacrifice have been made possible again. But it is important to remember in this transformation, in these last 6 years, there are other heroes, too, more important than the Members of Congress who cast these votes--the people who gave up more and did more to create this new American prosperity. They are simple American families who did without Government programs, Government employees who saw Federal employment decline, people who suffered at declines in Government spending in all measures, and American taxpayers who paid more in Federal taxes to reduce the debt. It is important to remember because, as we think about the opportunities for education and health care and other Government programs this Federal surplus provides, so, too, is the American taxpayer to be remembered. I do not quarrel with the administration-- indeed, I support their notion--that the first obligation in committing these new surplus funds is to protect Medicare and Social Security. It is our first obligation. It is not our only obligation. Of the approximately $3 trillion of Federal surpluses to be allocated in the next 10 years, $2 billion of it will be required to ensure that Social Security and Medicare are protected. But certainly, with the remaining $1 trillion in accumulated surpluses over the next decade, there is the ability in this Congress to provide some tax relief for working American families. The tax burden of the United States is now the highest since the Second World War. Middle-class families, who were once in low-income brackets, through prosperity and inflation, have seen themselves, while still facing the enormous costs of education and housing and the requirements of an ordinary American life, facing tax brackets of 28 and 33 percent. Today, a family of four, living on a combined income of $72,000, which can be the simple income of a schoolteacher or a police officer or a public servant, is taxed at 28 percent, instead of the 15 percent which should, and once did, represent the Federal tax rate of middle-class Americans. It is wrong--it is even unconscionable--to ask a young mother and father trying to raise children, with the high cost of living in the United States, to postpone educational decisions or housing decisions, the requirements of building a family, to pay a 28-percent tax on a combined family income of $50,000, $60,000 or $70,000. It is not right. But mostly, with a Federal surplus of $1 trillion in the next decade, after protecting Social Security and Medicare, it is not necessary. I believe the first obligation of a Federal tax relief is to expand the 15-percent bracket to genuinely include Americans who are in the middle class, to place them in the tax bracket where they belong. The Roth plan participates in this strategy by expanding the bracket and by lowering the 15-percent bracket to 14 percent. It is a good beginning, but it is not a complete plan. The other twin tax crisis in America is not high rates but disincentives for savings which are causing a crisis in savings in America. The national savings rate in the United States is now the lowest since the Second World War. In May, our national savings rate was a minus 1.2 percent--a negative rate of savings not seen since the Great Depression. It has no corollary in the Western World, and it is a long-term, economic, Governmental and social problem. Sixty percent of all Americans who retire rely solely on Social Security. More than 50 percent of Americans effectively have no net worth of any appreciable value, other than their home. It is a rational economic response to a tax system that provides discouragement for savings and encouragement for consumption. I believe this tax reduction legislation about to be considered by the Congress can provide a new beginning, first, by expanding the traditional IRA from $2,000 to $3,000. It is notable that when the IRAs were first instituted at $2,000, had they merely kept pace with inflation all these years, it would now allow for a $5,000 deduction rather than the continuing $2,000 level. Second, people who accumulate $10,000 in a savings account in America to provide themselves some security from the crisis of life, or for their retirements or to prepare for their children's futures, should not be taxed. The Federal Government has no business--indeed, it should have a disincentive--to ever tax an American family who wants to save a modest $5,000 or $10,000. We have an interest in them doing so and should not be providing a disincentive by taxing them on the modest interest they would accumulate. This simple provision of $10,000 in tax-free savings, exempting the first $500 in dividends and interest, would make the savings of 30 million Americans tax-free. Third, every American should be encouraged to participate in the new prosperity, burgeoning industries, new technologies, and growing market. The Federal Government should not be taxing the modest capital gains of people who earn $1,000, $2,000, or a few thousand dollars in the stock market, or from the sale of real estate. We should be encouraging every American to participate by investing, to gather some wealth for their own security, so that in retirement they don't rely solely on the Government, or continue to live paycheck-to-paycheck. Even if this accumulates only modest amounts of money in savings or investment, it is a beginning for a new economic freedom for American families. Many of these ideas were included in the tax reduction legislation I offered with Senator Coverdell. I am enormously proud that in Senator Roth's proposal, and indeed now in a bipartisan tax bill being discussed by Senator Breaux and Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, many of these same elements are included. I am glad Senator Coverdell and I have made that contribution. But now the question becomes not simply which elements of Federal taxes are to be reduced but by how much. Therein lies the argument. I believe, as many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have come to believe, that this Congress can responsibly afford, while protecting Social Security and Medicare, to enact a $500 billion tax reduction program over the course of the next decade. That would allow an additional $500 billion for discretionary spending, a prescription drug benefit, or other national needs beyond protecting Social Security and Medicare. It is modest. But it would have an appreciable impact on the quality of life of American families, and genuinely give tax relief to middle-income Americans. Finally, every Senator must come to the judgment about not only the size of this tax relief program, which I believe should be $500 billion but, indeed, where it should be targeted. It is middle-income families who have seen the rates of their taxes rise through the years as they were pushed into higher brackets by the cost of living and our national prosperity. They should be our first priority. Our principal national economic problem, even in extraordinarily good times, is the collapse of national savings. Reduction in taxes on savings should be a high priority. But I believe, as many Democrats and Republicans have come to conclude, that most of this tax reduction program should be for people who are paying most of the taxes in America. In the 1993 bill, this Congress can be very proud that with the earned-income tax credit we reduced the burden and, indeed, gave assistance to lower income Americans. They deserved and needed the help. This tax program should be for people who are paying taxes, bearing the burden, and need the help. This is an important moment for this Congress. This vote on a tax reduction program will say a lot about our priorities. We will chart a course for another decade. I believe we can reach across this aisle and find a reasonable compromise that gives genuine tax relief. I want the people of the State of New Jersey to know that I have committed myself to be part of that effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to thank Chairman Gregg and Senator Hollings for accepting an amendment I offered to the FY2000 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill that will provide $500,000 for a truck safety program in New Jersey. This critical initiative will allow the State Police to finally purchase much needed portable scales and accompanying computer equipment that will enable them to better monitor and control large trucks that utilize local roads. This amendment was necessary because more than 5,300 people, including 660 children, died in highway crashes with big trucks last year, and the number of carriers on local roads throughout the nation continues to rise. This problem has become particularly acute in New Jersey. For example, Route 31 in the northwest part of the state previously accommodated several hundreds trucks a day. That number has now grown to well over 3,000 trucks a day, and four people have died in truck related accidents on this road in the past 24 months. In order to increase safety through improved enforcement efforts, I introduced this amendment to provide the New Jersey State Police with the modern equipment necessary to effectively regulate these oversized vehicles. This additional funding will be used to purchase almost 120 new mobile truck scales and 60 mobile data computers. The current scales, which often break down and require heavy, outdated batteries, will be replaced with lighter scales that are maintenance free. The new computers, which can be mounted in trooper's vehicles, would allow the police direct access to the Commercial Vehicle Information Safety Network and enable them to perform immediate checks on truckers who are violating the law. This new equipment will go a long way towards keeping these oversized carriers off of smaller, undivided local roads and will send a strong message that we remain committed to protecting our communities. Again, I am grateful to Senators Gregg and Hollings for their support.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, to introduce an amendment regarding the issue of area code conservation. The rapid proliferation of area codes is a problem facing the citizens of New Jersey, as well as the rest of the nation. The extraordinary growth of the telecommunications industry in recent years has created a unique new problem. In just the last four years, the number of area codes in the United States has increased almost 60 percent. Continued growth will require that even the newest area codes be split and replaced again in the near future. This problem has been particularly acute in New Jersey. Prior to 1991, the state went almost thirty years without a new area code. But in the last eight years, four new area codes have been added in the state and more are on the way. While this is not the most pressing problem this country faces; it is a serious one. The costs and inconvenience of introducing new area codes are real. Small businesses must pay to reprint stationery, advertising, and signs, and to inform customers of new numbers. Communities throughout New Jersey, such as Willingboro, Medford, and Monroe, have faced the possibility of being split between two area codes, requiring many residents to dial an area code just to call a neighbor across the street. These costs get even higher when new area codes are introduced repeatedly in the same area after only a few years, forcing residents and businesses to make the same adjustments all over again. Many people blame the demand for new phone numbers as the sole cause of so many new area codes. But there is another cause. Each area code has 7.9 million potential phone numbers. Today, less than half of the potential phone numbers in existing area codes are being used, leaving a total of 1.3 billion unused phone numbers in the United States. The real problem is that new area codes are being created before old ones are exhausted. The inefficient use of available phone numbers is a product of the outdated system by which numbers are distributed within each area code. Phone numbers are allotted to telecommunications companies in blocks of 10,000, regardless of whether those companies have the capacity to use every number. Undoubtedly, this system made sense when there was only one telephone company because it would, eventually, use every number available. But, as we all know, the new era of telecommunications competition has introduced dozens of smaller companies. Today, there are over 100 such companies in New Jersey alone. Under the current allocation system, these companies still receive phone numbers in blocks of 10,000. Even if a company does not use its full allocation, unused numbers remain dormant while new area codes are being created. This unnecessary nuisance can be alleviated relatively easily. All it requires is a little planning and foresight. Given the enormous demand for new phone numbers and the growth of smaller phone companies, we should overhaul the system for allocating phone numbers. The Federal Communication Commission is currently reviewing ways to do just that. But, while their efforts are encouraging, the process may not work fast enough to prevent the next round of needless new area codes in New Jersey. The Amendment I have introduced with Senator Collins expresses the sense of the Senate that the Federal Communications Commission should complete its ongoing rulemaking regarding number resource optimization by March 31, 2000. This action will help ensure that the FCC rapidly implements practical number conservation measures. New area codes are inevitable as the population and electronic communications continue to grow. But there are reasonable, practical ways to soften the impact of these changes. Ensuring that new area codes are implemented only when current ones have been exhausted will save time, energy, and money for countless residents and businesses, in New Jersey and around the country.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will assist with the financial costs of relocating the Battleship U.S.S. New Jersey to a place of honored retirement in her namesake state. After fifty-six years of service to our Nation, this proud ship is ready to serve America in a new and invaluable role as an educational museum and historic center. The U.S.S. New Jersey is believed to be the most decorated warship in the annals of the U.S. Navy, with sixteen battle stars and thirteen other ribbons and medals. She is one of the four battleships of the 45,000 ton Iowa class, which are the largest, fastest and most powerful we ever built. Beyond her imposing size and physical characteristics though, the New Jersey has an unmatched record of service to her country. With the easing of world tensions, the battleship was decommissioned in February of 1991 and she now lays in reserve, ready, but destined never to sail again. In January 1995, the New Jersey was stricken by the Navy, meaning that she was available to become a museum. For 24 years, the people of New Jersey have been organizing at the grass roots level to prepare for the eventual return to the ship. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing will authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to mint silver coins commemorating the U.S.S. New Jersey. Millions of dollars have already been raised through the purchase of Battleship License Plates, an annual Tax Check Off and contributions by many of New Jersey's leading civic and business organizations. The issuance of a U.S.S. New Jersey coin will add to these efforts and help commemorate this national treasure. Mr. President, I ask that the text of bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will assist with the financial costs of relocating the Battleship U.S.S. New Jersey to a place of honored retirement in her namesake state. After fifty-six years of service to our Nation, this proud ship is ready to serve America in a new and invaluable role as an educational museum and historic center. The U.S.S. New Jersey is believed to be the most decorated warship in the annals of the U.S. Navy, with sixteen battle stars and thirteen other ribbons and medals. She is one of the four battleships of the 45,000 ton Iowa class, which are the largest, fastest and most powerful we ever built. Beyond her imposing size and physical characteristics though, the New Jersey has an unmatched record of service to her country. With the easing of world tensions, the battleship was decommissioned in February of 1991 and she now lays in reserve, ready, but destined never to sail again. In January 1995, the New Jersey was stricken by the Navy, meaning that she was available to become a museum. For 24 years, the people of New Jersey have been organizing at the grass roots level to prepare for the eventual return to the ship. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing will authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to mint silver coins commemorating the U.S.S. New Jersey. Millions of dollars have already been raised through the purchase of Battleship License Plates, an annual Tax Check Off and contributions by many of New Jersey's leading civic and business organizations. The issuance of a U.S.S. New Jersey coin will add to these efforts and help commemorate this national treasure. Mr. President, I ask that the text of bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate one of the most tragic events of the 20th century. 25 years ago today, Turkey invaded Cyprus, and it has occupied part of the island ever since. In fact, 35,000 Turkish troops continue to occupy almost 40 percent of Cyprus' territory. Turkey's invasion forced the relocation of thousands of Greek Cypriots, it has led to the brutal treatment of the enclaved people in the Karpas, and it has resulted in greater instability in the region. When Turkey occupied a portion of Cyprus in 1974, almost 200,000 Greek Cypriots were evicted from their homes and became refugees in their own country. 1,618 Greek Cypriots, including four Americans, have been missing ever since. After 25 years, the refugees have never been allowed to return to their homes in occupied Cyprus, and the missing are still unaccounted for. At the same time, Turkey has brought in over 80,000 settlers to the occupied part of the island. These settlers were given the lands and homes belonging to Greek Cypriots, in violation of international law. For the few Greek Cypriots that were allowed to remain in the occupied Karpas Peninsula, the situation has been equally grim. A 1975 humanitarian agreement allowed 20,000 Greek Cypriots to stay in this area, but only 500 live in the Karpas today. These people have been subjected to harassment and intimidation despite the terms of the 1975 agreement. Land travel in the north is heavily restricted, as is secondary schooling and access to religious institutions. The United Nations itself has observed that the terms of the agreement have not been honored. As we reflect on the past 25 years, it is clear that the rights of the Greek Cypriot population continue to be violated, that tensions have not lessened, and that instability has become a greater threat. Rather than lose hope, we must make a concerted effort to encourage dialogue and discussion among the parties. I have long advocated a just and peaceful resolution to the Cyprus conflict, and I hope that we will make progress toward a solution before the next anniversary comes to pass. Ending this impasse is in the best interests of the Greek Cypriot population, the region, and the international community as a whole. I urge this Congress and the Administration, as we mark the 25th anniversary of the Cyprus occupation, to evaluate the current situation and increase our efforts to ensure that a peaceful solution becomes a reality for Cyprus.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. This is a great opportunity to provide fairness and access. It is the last chance to do something decent in this debate for the American people. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, in the last few days, the Senate has revealed a lot about itself and where it stands. Members of the Senate have had a chance to respond to the needs of American women in allowing OB/GYNs to be their primary health care provider, and they failed. Members of the Senate have had a chance to protect traveling Americans across the country, allowing access to emergency rooms, and they declined. Americans have asked that doctors make final medical judgments. That issue was brought to the Senate. The Senate declined. Senator Durbin now brings to the floor of the Senate one last chance for the Senate to do something fair and decent for the American people in this plan to protect people in Health Maintenance Organizations--to give them the right afforded every other American with every other industry to bring their grievance to a court of law. It is ultimately the choice between a Patients' Bill of Rights or an insurance protection plan. If we fail, make no mistake about it, this debate and this vote will be noted for the fact that the Senate balanced the interests of 120 million Americans against several dozen insurance companies and made the wrong choice. In a nation in which we pride ourselves on access to the system of justice and equal rights for all people in this land, there are two privileged classes. By international treaty, foreign diplomats cannot be sued; and by ERISA, insurance companies in the health insurance industry cannot be sued. Here is a chance to reduce that list and make insurance companies and those responsible for our health accountable like everybody else. Every small business in America is responsible if they do damage to a customer, every dry cleaner, every trucking company, every mom and pop store. This industry, and this industry alone, is treated differently. Under the Republican proposal, that status quo is protected. Under Mr. Durbin's amendment, they will be held accountable. As other Members of the Senate, I have heard constituents come forward where an HMO has failed to diagnose cancer in a small child and months later, because they could not get access to an oncologist, a leg or an arm is lost. Tell that parent they cannot go to court.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today, Senator Kerry and I are introducing the Act to Save America's Forests. When this country was founded over two hundred years ago, there were hundreds of millions of acres of virgin forest land across what is now the United States. Today, 95 percent of those original virgin forests have been cut down. Our Federal forests are unique and precious public assets. Large, unbroken forest watersheds provide high-quality water supplies for drinking, agriculture, industry, as well as habitat for recreational and commercial fisheries and other wildlife. The large scale destruction of natural forests threatens other industries such as tourism and fishing with job loss. As a legacy for the enjoyment, knowledge, and well-being of future generations, provisions must be made for the protection and perpetuation of America's forests. Clearcutting, even aged logging practices, and timber road construction have been the preferred management practices used on our Federal forests in recent years. These practices have caused widespread forest ecosystem fragmentation and degradation. The result is species extinction, soil erosion, flooding, declining water quality, diminishing commercial and sport fisheries, including salmon, and mudslides. Mudslides in Western forest regions during recent winter flooding have caused millions of dollars of environmental and property damage, and resulted in several deaths. An environmentally sustainable alternative to these practices is selection management: the selection system involves the removal of trees of different ages either singly or in small groups in order to preserve the biodiversity of the forest. Destructive forestry practices such as clearcutting on Federal lands was legalized by the passage of the National Forest Management Act of 1976. From 1984 to 1991, an average of 243,000 acres were clearcut annually on Federal lands. During the same time period an average of only 33,000 acres were harvested using the protective selection management practices. Pro-clearcutting interpretations of forestry laws have also been used by Federal managers to promote even age logging and road construction. In addition, the laws are not effective in preserving our forests because in many cases judges do not allow citizens standing in court to ensure that the Forest Service or other agencies follow the environmental protections of the law. I am introducing this legislation to halt and reverse the effects of deforestation on Federal lands by ending the practice of clearcutting, while promoting environmentally compatible and economically sustainable selection management logging. It is important to note this legislation would only apply to Federal forests which are currently supplying less than 6 percent of America's timber consumption. According to a recent Congressional Research Service report we can reduce timber supply from the national forests and still meet our nation's timber needs. The vast majority of the 490 million acres of harvestable timber are privately owned and unaffected by the bill. This legislation puts forward positive alternatives that will achieve two principal policies for our Federal forests. First, the Act would ban logging and road-building in remaining core areas of biodiversity throughout the Federal forest system including roadless areas, specially designated areas and 13 million acres of Northwest Ancient Forests. Second, in non-core areas it would abolish environmentally destructive forms of logging such as clearcutting and even aged logging. The Act requires selection management logging practices to be used. Therefore, timber companies would only be allowed to log a certain percentage of the forests over specified periods of time. Further it takes extra steps to protect watersheds and fisheries by prohibiting logging in buffer areas along streams, lakes, and wetlands. The Act would also call for an independent panel of scientists to develop a plan to restore and rejuvenate those forests and their ecosystems that are damaged from decades of these logging practices. And finally, the legislation would empower citizen involvement in insuring compliance with environmental protections of forest management laws by making certain that all citizens have standing to pursue actions in court.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today, Senator Kerry and I are introducing the Act to Save America's Forests. When this country was founded over two hundred years ago, there were hundreds of millions of acres of virgin forest land across what is now the United States. Today, 95 percent of those original virgin forests have been cut down. Our Federal forests are unique and precious public assets. Large, unbroken forest watersheds provide high-quality water supplies for drinking, agriculture, industry, as well as habitat for recreational and commercial fisheries and other wildlife. The large scale destruction of natural forests threatens other industries such as tourism and fishing with job loss. As a legacy for the enjoyment, knowledge, and well-being of future generations, provisions must be made for the protection and perpetuation of America's forests. Clearcutting, even aged logging practices, and timber road construction have been the preferred management practices used on our Federal forests in recent years. These practices have caused widespread forest ecosystem fragmentation and degradation. The result is species extinction, soil erosion, flooding, declining water quality, diminishing commercial and sport fisheries, including salmon, and mudslides. Mudslides in Western forest regions during recent winter flooding have caused millions of dollars of environmental and property damage, and resulted in several deaths. An environmentally sustainable alternative to these practices is selection management: the selection system involves the removal of trees of different ages either singly or in small groups in order to preserve the biodiversity of the forest. Destructive forestry practices such as clearcutting on Federal lands was legalized by the passage of the National Forest Management Act of 1976. From 1984 to 1991, an average of 243,000 acres were clearcut annually on Federal lands. During the same time period an average of only 33,000 acres were harvested using the protective selection management practices. Pro-clearcutting interpretations of forestry laws have also been used by Federal managers to promote even age logging and road construction. In addition, the laws are not effective in preserving our forests because in many cases judges do not allow citizens standing in court to ensure that the Forest Service or other agencies follow the environmental protections of the law. I am introducing this legislation to halt and reverse the effects of deforestation on Federal lands by ending the practice of clearcutting, while promoting environmentally compatible and economically sustainable selection management logging. It is important to note this legislation would only apply to Federal forests which are currently supplying less than 6 percent of America's timber consumption. According to a recent Congressional Research Service report we can reduce timber supply from the national forests and still meet our nation's timber needs. The vast majority of the 490 million acres of harvestable timber are privately owned and unaffected by the bill. This legislation puts forward positive alternatives that will achieve two principal policies for our Federal forests. First, the Act would ban logging and road-building in remaining core areas of biodiversity throughout the Federal forest system including roadless areas, specially designated areas and 13 million acres of Northwest Ancient Forests. Second, in non-core areas it would abolish environmentally destructive forms of logging such as clearcutting and even aged logging. The Act requires selection management logging practices to be used. Therefore, timber companies would only be allowed to log a certain percentage of the forests over specified periods of time. Further it takes extra steps to protect watersheds and fisheries by prohibiting logging in buffer areas along streams, lakes, and wetlands. The Act would also call for an independent panel of scientists to develop a plan to restore and rejuvenate those forests and their ecosystems that are damaged from decades of these logging practices. And finally, the legislation would empower citizen involvement in insuring compliance with environmental protections of forest management laws by making certain that all citizens have standing to pursue actions in court.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, every year, thousands of people are killed or maimed because of the use or misuse of illegal explosive devices, and millions of dollars in property is lost. Between 1991 and 1995, there were more than 14,000 actual and attempted criminal bombings. Three hundred and twenty-six people were killed in those incidents and another 2,970 injured. More than $6 million in property damage resulted. One bombing in particular, is carved into the national memory. On the morning of April 19, 1995, in one horrible moment, an explosion devastated the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, OK, and took the lives of 168 Americans. This tragedy, together with the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, took the lives of many innocent men, women, and children, left others permanently scarred, and caused great suffering for the families of the victims--as well as all of America. These crimes were intended to tear the very fabric of our society; instead, their tragic consequences served to strengthen our resolve to stand firm against the insanity of terrorism and the criminal use of explosives. In the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, I was stunned--as were many--to learn how few restrictions on the use and sale of explosives really exist. I soon after introduced legislation to take a first step towards protecting the American people from those who would use explosives to do them harm. That bill, the Explosives Protection Act, would bring explosives law into line with gun laws. Specifically, it would take the list of categories of people who cannot obtain firearms and would add any of those categories not currently covered under the explosives law. Today, I am taking the next step by introducing the Dangerous Explosives Background Check Requirement Act requiring background checks before the sale of explosives material identical to those already mandated for firearms sales. Current law prohibits felons and others from possessing explosives, but does little to actually stop these materials from getting into the wrong hands. This failure defies logic when we already have a system in place to facilitate background checks and assure that persons who are legally prohibited from purchasing explosives are not able to do so. In November, 1998, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) became operational. NICS is a new national database accessible to licensed firearms dealers that allows them to perform over-the-counter background checks on potential firearms purchasers. NICS, which checks national criminal history databases as well as information on other prohibited categories, such as illegal aliens and persons under domestic violence restraining orders, has already processed more than 3.7 million background checks and has stopped more than 39,000 felons and other prohibited persons from getting guns. In so doing, it has undoubtedly saved lives and prevented crimes from occurring. Once again, it is time to bring the explosives law into line with gun laws by taking advantage of the success of the NICS system and expanding its use to include explosives purchases. In so doing, we will make it harder for many of the most dangerous or least accountable members of society to obtain materials which can result in a great loss of life. My hope is that this bill will, in some small way, prevent future bombings--whether by terrorists of symbolic targets, malcontents of random ones, or even spouses involved in marital disputes. I hope we can quickly move to get this passed and protect Americans from future acts of explosive destruction. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation appear in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, every year, thousands of people are killed or maimed because of the use or misuse of illegal explosive devices, and millions of dollars in property is lost. Between 1991 and 1995, there were more than 14,000 actual and attempted criminal bombings. Three hundred and twenty-six people were killed in those incidents and another 2,970 injured. More than $6 million in property damage resulted. One bombing in particular, is carved into the national memory. On the morning of April 19, 1995, in one horrible moment, an explosion devastated the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, OK, and took the lives of 168 Americans. This tragedy, together with the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, took the lives of many innocent men, women, and children, left others permanently scarred, and caused great suffering for the families of the victims--as well as all of America. These crimes were intended to tear the very fabric of our society; instead, their tragic consequences served to strengthen our resolve to stand firm against the insanity of terrorism and the criminal use of explosives. In the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, I was stunned--as were many--to learn how few restrictions on the use and sale of explosives really exist. I soon after introduced legislation to take a first step towards protecting the American people from those who would use explosives to do them harm. That bill, the Explosives Protection Act, would bring explosives law into line with gun laws. Specifically, it would take the list of categories of people who cannot obtain firearms and would add any of those categories not currently covered under the explosives law. Today, I am taking the next step by introducing the Dangerous Explosives Background Check Requirement Act requiring background checks before the sale of explosives material identical to those already mandated for firearms sales. Current law prohibits felons and others from possessing explosives, but does little to actually stop these materials from getting into the wrong hands. This failure defies logic when we already have a system in place to facilitate background checks and assure that persons who are legally prohibited from purchasing explosives are not able to do so. In November, 1998, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) became operational. NICS is a new national database accessible to licensed firearms dealers that allows them to perform over-the-counter background checks on potential firearms purchasers. NICS, which checks national criminal history databases as well as information on other prohibited categories, such as illegal aliens and persons under domestic violence restraining orders, has already processed more than 3.7 million background checks and has stopped more than 39,000 felons and other prohibited persons from getting guns. In so doing, it has undoubtedly saved lives and prevented crimes from occurring. Once again, it is time to bring the explosives law into line with gun laws by taking advantage of the success of the NICS system and expanding its use to include explosives purchases. In so doing, we will make it harder for many of the most dangerous or least accountable members of society to obtain materials which can result in a great loss of life. My hope is that this bill will, in some small way, prevent future bombings--whether by terrorists of symbolic targets, malcontents of random ones, or even spouses involved in marital disputes. I hope we can quickly move to get this passed and protect Americans from future acts of explosive destruction. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation appear in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my distinguished colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, to introduce legislation that will provide Americans more choices and control in their health care decisions. Since becoming available in 1996, medical savings accounts (MSA's) have proven to be an effective solution for Americans who are self- employed, unsatisfied with their current health plan or working for a company unable to provide health insurance. By allowing consumers to save money tax-free to cover medical expenses, MSA's have ensured that people who previously were unable to acquire health coverage, such as single parents, the self-employed, small businesses and their employees, and working families, now have affordable medical coverage. In fact, since MSA's became available, the General Accounting Office reports that 37 percent of all MSA's have been purchased by people who were previously uninsured. Due to current restrictions, however, the size of the market is limited. Congress must allow the benefits from MSA's to reach more Americans. Our bill, the Medical Savings Account Effectiveness Act of 1999, will make MSA's a permanent health care option for all Americans by expanding enrollment beyond the current cap. This legislation will allow both employers and employees to contribute to an MSA and will allow policyholders to fully fund the deductible. In addition, it will lower the individual deductible to $1,000 and the family deductible to $2,000. Finally, it will allow MSA's to be offered through ``cafeteria plans.'' By expanding MSA's, this legislation will give policyholders direct control over medical expenditures, offer them a new freedom to select the physician or specialist of their choice, and make insurance affordable for millions of Americans.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my distinguished colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, to introduce legislation that will provide Americans more choices and control in their health care decisions. Since becoming available in 1996, medical savings accounts (MSA's) have proven to be an effective solution for Americans who are self- employed, unsatisfied with their current health plan or working for a company unable to provide health insurance. By allowing consumers to save money tax-free to cover medical expenses, MSA's have ensured that people who previously were unable to acquire health coverage, such as single parents, the self-employed, small businesses and their employees, and working families, now have affordable medical coverage. In fact, since MSA's became available, the General Accounting Office reports that 37 percent of all MSA's have been purchased by people who were previously uninsured. Due to current restrictions, however, the size of the market is limited. Congress must allow the benefits from MSA's to reach more Americans. Our bill, the Medical Savings Account Effectiveness Act of 1999, will make MSA's a permanent health care option for all Americans by expanding enrollment beyond the current cap. This legislation will allow both employers and employees to contribute to an MSA and will allow policyholders to fully fund the deductible. In addition, it will lower the individual deductible to $1,000 and the family deductible to $2,000. Finally, it will allow MSA's to be offered through ``cafeteria plans.'' By expanding MSA's, this legislation will give policyholders direct control over medical expenditures, offer them a new freedom to select the physician or specialist of their choice, and make insurance affordable for millions of Americans.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I have this evening withdrawn consideration of an amendment that I offered with Senator Lieberman, Senator Dodd, and Senator Lautenberg. But I do so in the hope that in the intervening weeks the Finance Committee will consider this measure with the near certainty that my colleagues from Connecticut and I will return with Senator Lautenberg and offer this in the coming weeks. I rise tonight very simply and very briefly to make our case. There is nothing more fundamental in this Federal union than the equal protection of all of our citizens. It is the very purpose of the union. A citizen can travel State-by-State, live anywhere in this Nation, and be subject to the same application of the law. This principle, while 200 years old, is now tested again. Some weeks ago, the State of New York repealed the commuter tax for commuters into the city of New York. That tax had been in place for more than 30 years. But they did a peculiar thing that is offensive to our concept of national union. They repealed the tax for people who live in New York State and commute to New York City, but they retained the tax for the citizens of Connecticut, 80,000 strong, and 250,000 commuters in the State of New Jersey. Those people who I represent alone were contributing $110 million to the city of New York. It is not as if the legislature of the State of New York in doing this did not recognize they were trampling upon sacred constitutional grounds, because indeed in their State legislation they put a provision that if this was found unconstitutional for anybody, the law would be revoked. It was a political statement. It was not a sincere effort to legislate. Indeed, as could be predicted, last week a judge did, indeed, rule that it was not only unfair to repeal this tax for New York commuters while imposing it on Connecticut and New Jersey, but it was unconstitutional and a violation of the privileges in the immunity clause of the U.S. Constitution. I quote the judge who called this residency tax ``arbitrary and irrational.'' The judge further recognized that ``the only substantial difference between the two classes of commuters is in the State in which they reside.'' It might be argued that the State of New York, having recognized this might be unconstitutional, a judge now having ruled it is unconstitutional, that we might let the matter rest. I do not believe that would be in the best interests of the Congress. Indeed, last week, the House of Representatives on a voice vote, without apparent objection, unanimously found this is bad policy and it should never happen again. The legislation, the Computer Tax Fairness Act, that I have introduced with Senators Dodd, Lieberman, and Lautenberg, would have this Senate reach the same conclusion. I rise tonight not to offer an amendment but in the hopes of asking the Finance Committee in the next few weeks to review, as the Ways and Means in the House of Representatives has done, to review this legislation, and to reach its own judgment, so in future weeks we can come back to the floor of the Senate and ask the Senate to make an informed judgment. I believe it is important. Today it may be the people of Connecticut and New Jersey. This is a principle we will visit again. People who live in Indiana may one day commute to Chicago and find the city of Chicago thinks it is a good idea to tax somebody else for their services. I daresay the people of Alabama may one day find they are commuting to Mississippi and finding they are paying a tax subjected only on their own citizens. This is anathema to our national union. It is taxation without representation. It is a violation of privilege of immunities. It is a problem of equal protection. Indeed, it violates our sense of union. While I do not insist on the amendment tonight, we will return to this moment in the hope that as the courts have found and as the House of Representatives has found, we can once again establish this principle.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for his consideration.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this amendment and the preservation of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. It is important that we maintain our commitment to the Armenian people. One of the greatest foreign policy priorities in the post-Cold War world is to assist former Communist countries in making the difficult transition to democracy. The fall of the Soviet Union was not the final victory of the Cold War. That will come only when all of these former adversaries embrace liberty, free markets, and the rule of law. Senator Brownback's underlying amendment has the potential to further economic and political progress in the Caucasus and Caspian Sea regions. In its current form, however, it severely weakens one of Congress' central achievements of the post-Cold War era. The 102nd Congress in 1992, passed the Freedom Support Act. This bill acknowledged that we can help countries make the transition to democracy both with the carrot of economic aid and the stick of withholding such assistance. It included a provision, Section 907, which mandated that Azerbaijan will not receive any direct economic aid until it ceases the blockade of neighboring Armenia and the Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. Even still, the United States has supported the Azeri people with over $180 million in humanitarian assistance through NGOs since 1992. The Foreign Operations Appropriations bill itself also allows OPIC and TDA activities in Azerbaijan which we approved last year. The Azeri blockade of Armenia and of Karabakh is a direct result of the dispute between the two countries over the status of Karabakh. This is the longest-running ethnic conflict in the former Soviet Union. So far, the human cost has been 35,000 lives and 1.4 million refugees. Outside of the conflict, the brutality of the Azeri blockade has been equally devastating for Armenia. As a land-locked country where only 17 percent of the land is arable, its ties to the outside world are its lifeline. Humanitarian assistance cannot get to Armenia, which is still trying to rebuild from the devastating earthquake of a decade ago. In Karabakh, the blockade has produced a critical shortage of medical equipment. True regional cooperation is unrealistic as long as this conflict continues. By passing the underlying amendment in its current form, we are virtually guaranteeing that the OSCE peace process will fail. Armenia will have little incentive to participate in the future, and Azerbaijan will receive the message that its rejection of any future peace proposals is acceptable. I support Senator Brownback's attempts to promote an East-West axis in the region, and I believe it is critical that we encourage these former republics to look westward. By allowing the blockade to endure, however, we are leaving Armenia with only North-South options. If our intent is to truly improve the quality of life in the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea, we must make a positive impact on the Caucasus without undermining our commitment to the Armenian people. I urge my colleagues to support the McConnell-Abraham amendment and allow Section 907 to remain in place.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, a case has been made that Americans cannot travel to Cuba. Indeed, the facts reveal that Americans travel to Cuba by the thousands. The policy that this Congress has endorsed, President Reagan, President Bush, and President Clinton have supported. There has been a calculated policy of American contacts in travel to Cuba. Today American students, journalists, people with archeological interests, cultural interests, travel to Cuba by the thousands. Cuban Americans travel to visit family members who have problems, medical emergencies, by the thousands. The restriction of the U.S. Government is not about travel. We are using travel as a weapon to help convince the Cuban people to put pressure on the Cuban Government, support for democracy, free markets, that their contact with Americans is helpful in changing the politics of the repression of Cuba. Restrictions in travel is not about denying Americans the right to go to Cuba. It is about denying Fidel Castro the economic benefits of American tourism. Travel that enhances knowledge, causes political difficulties, we not only allow but we have encouraged. Travel that simply provides Fidel Castro with millions of dollars to support his regime, his military, his security forces, we are denying, and appropriately so. Nor is it a static policy. On January 9 of this year, President Clinton revised the policy again, for the second time in 2 years, to add new remittances by American citizens to Cuba, so that people can send money and support their families at appropriate levels that are humanitarian, to help with medical or food emergencies but not so much that it would allow Fidel Castro to profit by it. President Clinton has allowed charter passenger flights to cities other than Havana for the first time, and the measure permits direct mail service to Cuba. The measure also authorizes the sale of food and agricultural inputs to independent nongovernment entities. New regulations for all of this were issued on May 10--flights, new authority for travel, food and medicine--as part of a calculated policy to always test Castro: When you are ready to talk about democracy, to respect human rights, American policy will begin to change. Several days after President Clinton announced these new initiatives, the Cuban Government responded and Castro announced that it constituted a policy of ``aggression.'' Once again, as President Carter found, as did Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, every time you make an act of concession--in this case, a legitimate concession--to test Fidel Castro to see whether he is interested in a bilateral relationship, we are denounced for redressing the Cuban nation by disallowing travel. My colleagues offer an amendment now to remove these restrictions and open travel and allow Fidel Castro to get the full economic benefit of millions, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars worth of travel. What kind of regime is it that they will be visiting? If Castro is to receive the benefit of our tourist dollars, what is it he would be doing with this money? It is worth taking a look at Cuba, not of 1961 when the cold war brought us to sanctions, but the Cuba of 1999. It is suggested by my friend and colleague from Vermont that the cold war is over, implying that perhaps we have no argument with this regime. Our argument with Cuba is about more than the cold war. It is about all the things that have always motivated the United States: human rights, human decency, the nature of the regime itself. Our argument with Fidel Castro is not over. The causes of that argument still endure. While the United States has been seeking to ease sanctions, look at the record in the last 24 months in response to our review and change of policy. In February, Fidel Castro criminalized all forms of cooperation or participation in any prodemocracy efforts--not a fine, not an arrest, but 20 years in jail if you participate in a prodemocracy effort. This is the Cuba you will be visiting. He imposes a 30-year jail term on anybody who cooperates with an agency of the U.S. Government. That includes Radio Marti, distribution of food or medicine by a government agency, or anyone acting on behalf of anyone associating with this Government. On March 1, the law was tested. Four prominent human rights dissidents were tried in secrecy for their criticism of the Communist Party of Cuba. International diplomats who traveled to Cuba to witness the trial were barred from attending any of the proceedings. After being held without charges for 1 year--no foreign press, no foreign visitors, no diplomats, held in secrecy for 1 year--they were found guilty and sentenced for up to 5 years in jail. This is the Cuba of 1999. Amnesty International, in its recent report, concludes that there are now 350 political prisoners in Cuba. Ten unarmed civilians, in the meantime, have been shot by Cuban security officials on the streets of Havana. I do not ask the Senate to do anything it has not done before. Just on March 25, the Senate voted 98-0, stating that the United States should make all efforts to criticize Cuba and condemn its human rights record. What is the price of this conduct? They hold hundreds of political prisoners, people are shot in the streets, people are held in secret trials, and our response is: Let's go for a visit. Let's go see how they are doing and have a good meal in Havana. No. My colleague is right. There is no cold war, but there is a great deal at issue that this country cares a great deal about.