Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from Nevada. Mr. President, I am very pleased to see that the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water Appropriations bill makes appropriations for many important water resources projects throughout the country. In particular, the Army Corps of Engineers budget includes $1.57 billion in construction funding for important dredging, flood control, and beach replenishment projects, many of which are in my State. We are extremely grateful that the subcommittee has provided New Jersey with sorely needed funds. And while we understand that the committee has appropriated projects with limited funds, we ask that should funds be made available during conference, that they would consider funding beach replenishment new construction starts. There are several new start projects in my State which are in desperate need of funding, and I would like to draw your attention to several of these projects, and ask that the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee consider funding for these projects. I cannot stress how vital these projects are to the economies of my State, the region, and our Nation.

Mr. TORRICELLI. While we recognize the difficulties involved in providing funding for new starts, we cannot stress how important the construction phase for these projects begin as soon as possible. I would like to note that all of these projects have been authorized by the Water Resources Development Act. The economy of the region depends directly upon the health of its beaches. Unless construction begins in fiscal year 2002, I am concerned that the economies of the beach-towns within the scope of these projects will be seriously damaged.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the fiscal year 2002 energy and water appropriations bill provides appropriations for many important water resources projects for the state of New Jersey. I understand that these appropriations were made with limited funds and I am deeply grateful for the support the Committee has provided to many of my requests. However, there is an important New Jersey project that was not fully appropriated and we respectfully ask the managers that if funds should be made available during conference, that they consider fully funding the President's budget request for the Green Brook Sub-Basin. As you may know, flooding caused by Hurricane Floyd in 1999 caused tremendous damage to the state of New Jersey--especially to the town of Green Brook and the surrounding region. It is estimated that the flooding caused $6 million of damage to the region alone. Unfortunately, the floods from Hurricane Floyd were not the first to have struck the area. Records have shown that floods have continuously struck this area as early 1903. Disastrous flooding to the basin in the summer of 1971 and in the summer of 1973--in which six people were killed. The Green Brook Sub-Basic project, which is located in north-central New Jersey and spans throughout three counties, began in 2000. The project will construct flood levees and flood walls, bridge raisings, closure structures, individual flood proofings, and buyouts. As you can imagine, the completion of this project will provide needed relief and bring economic revitalization to the region. The House of Representatives has already fully funded the project for fiscal year 1002.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I understand the difficulty the managers will have in providing additional funds for the Green Brook Sub-Basin project. However, the full funding of this project will provide stability and economic revitalization to this very important region in the state of New Jersey.

Mr. TORRICELLI. There certainly is no policy reason. In fact, each constituent project has passed a cost-benefit analysis, each has been shown to be in the federal interest, and each is subject to the appropriate cost-share consistent with Water Resource Development Act policy. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey will fund the non-Federal share of each of these projects. Since the Harbor Navigation Project was authorized last year, the Army Corps and the Port Authority have been working to formulate a plan that would allow these projects to be managed as one in order to provide time and cost savings. They have recently concluded that doing this could result in as much as $400 million in savings to the Federal Treasury. But in order to achieve that savings, it is important that we begin looking at joint management of these projects as soon as possible. I ask the distinguished Chairman, if Senators Corzine, Clinton, Schumer and myself can demonstrate that the Army Corps could achieve substantial future Federal savings by jointly managing all four of these projects, would he assist us in our efforts to secure conference report language that would allow the Corps to manage these projects in this manner?

Mr. TORRICELLI. On behalf myself and the Senator from New York, I thank the chairman. mixed oxide fuel

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, in a culture and in an institution where the word ``friendship'' is used so casually that it often has little meaning, it is difficult to express on this anniversary of Paul Coverdell's death what he meant to each of us and the nature of our relationships with him. I am left with few words other than to simply claim that he was a friend, a friend that I admired. I rise today in recognition of his loss because of the injustice of it, and that all of us probably recognize that as much as Paul did, it was but a downpayment on what his life was to be. This is not a man who had made his final contribution. His life had not run its real course. Paul Coverdell was an enormously talented man. He was a very good man. From almost the moment I joined this institution, I came to know Paul and work with him on a very close basis, unlike, perhaps, the relationship I have had with many or maybe all Members of the other party. We fought together for education savings accounts and we failed for years. But it is the best thing I could say about Paul Coverdell, that every time we failed on the education savings accounts, he took out his piece of paper, he worked the list again, and we came back. Few may ever remember that indeed the massive tax reduction plans voted upon and passed by the Congress this year closely resembled the tax plan that Paul Coverdell introduced in 2000 in the midst of the Presidential campaign. I joined with him in that effort. I believe they became an inspiration for what President Bush later proposed himself. This was a creative man. History is filled with what might have been. It is enough for Paul Coverdell's family to live with the notion that he made a great contribution and was a good and decent man, but in truth, many of us will always wonder, had his life lived its natural course, the leadership positions he would have filled and the contributions he might have made. Life was finished with Paul Coverdell, but he was not finished with life. I, like Phil Gramm, believe it is still special that all of us remember him. In that way, he never dies. It also leaves us, in an institution where humility is so rare, to remember that no matter what titles we give to each other, no matter how powerful the institutions might be in our own minds that we build, we are all ultimately so powerless in this life of ours. Paul Coverdell, you were a good man. Wherever you are, we remember you. We thank you. Generations of Americans who may never know your name--because, indeed, history will never have a chance to truly record all that you might have done--will live better lives because of the all-too-brief life that you lived yourself. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

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

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Chair. Madam President, for more than 4 years, the Senate has been considering various proposals to address the bankruptcy system in the United States. Everyone on all sides of this debate seems to have agreed the bankruptcy system is in need of serious repair. There have, however, been many questions about how to address the problem. In both the 105th and 106th Congresses, efforts to pass bankruptcy reform came very close. In the final days of each session, we could not make the mark. At the start of the 106th Congress when I assumed the role of the ranking Democratic member on the Judiciary subcommittee of jurisdiction, I felt some optimism that we could succeed. In the previous Congress, Senator Durbin had come very close, and we began with an outline of his legislation. During the 106th Congress, literally hundreds of hours were spent with Senators Grassley, Biden, Hatch, Sessions, and Leahy over many of these very difficult issues. The bill before the Senate today is a culmination of all of those hours, months, indeed, years of work. It represents the suggestions of many Members of this Senate now included in provisions of this bill. It is a fair bill. It genuinely represents the sentiments of the Senate and both political parties. It improves the bankruptcy system, eliminating many of its abuses without doing injury to vulnerable Americans and continuing the protection that Americans need to reorganize their lives. It may be tougher than current law, but it is also fair. The best indication, I believe, of our success in this effort is the bipartisan vote in the Senate itself earlier this year when the bill passed by an 83-15 vote. For the Senate to speak in such a loud, consistent, and bipartisan voice is probably a reflection of the understanding of the depth of the problem. In 1998, during the largest economic expansion in American history, 1.4 million Americans sought bankruptcy protection. That is a staggering 350-percent increase since 1980. In 1999, filings were reduced by 100,000 but still remained at the 1.3 million filing level. It is estimated that 70 percent of these filings were made in chapter 7, allowing a debtor to obtain relief from most of their unsecured debts. Conversely, only 30 percent of filings were in chapter 13 which requires a repayment plan. The Department of Justice has estimated that 182,000 people per year, people currently filing under chapter 7 to avoid their debts, properly belong in chapter 13 where they will repay part of their debts. The difference is not insignificant. If those 182,000 people were moved into chapter 13 and were paying those debts which were affordable, $4 billion would be returned to creditors. Critics of the bill argue that $4 billion would only enrich large financial institutions, transferring money from people who live marginal economic lives to wealthy institutions. That claim ignores the fact that much of the debt burden that is avoided by chapter 7 filings also goes to local contractors--the mechanic on the corner, the small retailer, the family business which provides services or goods, only to face someone entering into bankruptcy and avoiding paying their debts. This creates a situation where one debtor passes a debt on to a family business and causes that business to fail and then another family business. It is not fair, and it is not right. Critics have also argued that bankruptcy reform will deny poor people the protection of the bankruptcy system, recognizing the bankruptcy system has always been an important part of American life, giving people a second chance, ensuring that because someone has made a mistake or, more likely, through a problem of health in the family or divorce, illness, they are not denied a chance of fulfilling a prosperous life. This claim simply is not true. No American is being denied access to bankruptcy. Indeed, the bill contains several provisions to ensure that no one genuinely in need of debt cancellation is prevented from receiving a fresh start under chapter 7. It is done in several ways. First, the bill gives the judge discretion to consider the debtor's special circumstances under which they are unable to meet a payment plan, an escape clause where a judge can always ensure that a person with no means is given chapter 7 protection. Second, it contains a safe harbor to ensure that all debtors earning less than the State median income will have access to chapter 7 without qualification. If one is under the median income, one is in chapter 7, period. Third, the bill adds a floor to the means test to guarantee that debtors unable to pay more than $6,000 of their outstanding debt will not be moved into chapter 13: Again, protection for people of modest means. All this gives people of lower income a chance to sweep away their debts and to start again an American life. It has always been our way. Finally, probably the most unfair criticism and the one to which I am most sensitive is the issue of whether this adds a new burden to women and children. The bill contains language that Senator Hatch and I offered in an amendment to protect exactly this element of our society: single parents and children in need of protection. Under current law, when it comes to prioritizing which debts must be paid off first, child support is seventh in bankruptcy court. It ranks after rent, storage garages, accountant fees, tax claims, or other claims by government, and that is wrong. Not only does this new bill not make it worse, we make it better. Under the bill, child support is moved to where it belongs: First, ahead of government, other businesses, or financial institutions. The obligations of a father or mother to their child will never be put behind another debt. Finally, this compromise deals with one other area of the law that is equally important. We were not going to reform bankruptcy laws without doing something about the overreaching efforts by the credit card industry itself. The credit card industry yearly has more than 3.5 billion solicitations of Americans, encouraging them to incur debt. That is 41 mailings for every American household, 14 for every man, woman, and child in the Nation. Not surprisingly, with this level of solicitation, Americans with incomes below the poverty line have doubled their credit usage in the last decade. The result is not surprising. This doubling of credit usage has involved 27 percent of families earning less than $10,000 a year, having consumer debt that is 40 percent or more of their income. If we are going to do something about the abuse of bankruptcy laws, it is only right and fair we do something about the credit industry encouraging Americans to incur debts they cannot afford and in which they should not have become involved. We deal with these abuses of the credit industry in several ways. First, we require that lenders prominently disclose the following aspects of their debt solicitations: The effects of making only the minimum payment every month; second, when late fees will be imposed; third, the date on which introductory or teaser rates will expire, as well as what the permanent rate will be after that time. This is balanced legislation protecting the most vulnerable Americans who have marginal economic lives; ensuring that single parents and children are protected; ensuring that the credit industry itself has new obligations but also ensuring that bankruptcy laws are not misused and do not become an opportunity for Americans to escape the financial obligations they have willfully encountered and passing that burden on to other small businesses or institutions that cannot afford them. Madam President, $4 billion of unpaid bills, unfairly passed on to others, is more than American businesses, industries, family firms, and farms should have to incur. At long last we have reached reform of our bankruptcy laws. It is a good moment for the Senate and for the Judiciary Committee for these years of struggle with this legislation. I commend again Senator Leahy, Senator Hatch, and all who joined in the process through the years. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, no matter what other issues are discussed in this Senate, what other concerns are brought before the body, the Nation's attention is turned again to the issue of campaign finance reform, the seemingly never-ending effort to restore integrity to this process and change the Nation's campaign finance laws. In March, the Senate passed a comprehensive and workable piece of legislation; it required 2 weeks and 22 amendments. One of those amendments I offered together with my colleagues, Senator Corzine, Senator Durbin, and Senator Ensign. It was the other part of the equation: As we reduce the amount of money that is raised, to reduce the amount that must by necessity be spent. Campaign spending in America is easily defined. It is used for television overwhelmingly: 80 or 85 percent of the cost of the Senate campaign goes to a television network. This amendment was passed overwhelmingly by the Senate. I take the floor today because it is now in jeopardy. It is unconscionable, while the American people have demanded a control on the amount of political money being spent in America, unconscionable while this Congress has fought for campaign finance reform, the broadcast industry is fighting to the death to reverse this amendment in the House of Representatives and allow the television networks to charge whatever they want to charge for political advertising. I take the floor today as one who has voted for campaign finance reform since I came to the Congress 18 years ago. I have always voted for campaign finance reform. I always want to vote for it because I believe the system must be fundamentally changed to restore integrity to the system and gain the confidence of the American people. I take the floor to make this very clear: Reducing campaign fundraising without reducing the cost of campaigns is not reform. That reduces the amount of communication. It makes it more difficult for the political parties and candidates to communicate their message. This cannot be reform. This is silencing political debate in America. The bill that passed this Senate reduced the amount of soft money, eliminated the amount of soft money and, correspondingly, in a balanced fashion, dealt with this cost of advertising. In 1971, the Congress believed we had faced this problem and required the charging of the lowest unit charge. Over 30 years, the law became ineffective. That is why I offered this amendment. This chart shows, by 1990, an audit by the FEC found that 80 percent of television stations were failing to give the lowest rate. These are examples from around the country. The price of a typical ad is a percent greater than the lowest rate that should have been offered: NBC in New York, 21 percent higher than by law should have been charged; WXYZ in Detroit, 124 percent; KGO, San Francisco, 62 percent higher than the lowest rate. These are the numbers that convinced 69 Democrats and Republicans in the Senate to pass this amendment. The second reason for the amendment is that stations are charging candidates the lowest rate, looking back 365 days. So they cannot simply charge the lowest rate available on that day, which they were not doing anyway, but had to look back for what was the lowest rate during the course of the year. The fact is, the broadcast industry in America has been profiteering at the expense of the political system. There is not another democracy in the world where the public airwaves, licensed to private companies, are used for profiteering and price gouging when a public candidate attempts to communicate with people in the country. The patterns are quite clear. This chart indicates the percentage of ads sold above or below the lowest unit cost per station. Below the unit rate, Philadelphia, KYW, 9 percent; Detroit, XYZ, 8 percent; Los Angeles, one of the better in the country, is only 63 percent. NBC in New York, 15 percent of their ads are sold in accordance with the 1971 law at the lowest unit rate. It isn't that the law is not being obeyed; it is being violated wholesale. Compliance with the law is the rare, rare, exception. Here is the magnitude of the problem. In the 2000 political season, political advertisers spent $1 billion on television ads; $1 billion was raised, fundraiser by fundraiser, mailer by mailer, telephone call by telephone call. And an extraordinary percentage of this advertising, if it had been paid for at the lowest unit rate, would have saved hundreds of millions of dollars in political fundraising. My message out of this, I hope, is clear. I speak not to my colleagues, but I speak to the broadcast industry, to the network televisions, which since the 2000 Presidential campaign have carried on a campaign of their own, criticizing the political community, attacking individual candidates, railing against the problems of political fundraising. Instead of being part of the problem, be part of the solution. Campaign finance reform does not simply mean the Democrat and Republican Parties. It means ABC, NBC, CBS. It means you. Get your lobbyists out of the House of Representatives, out of these Chambers, and be part of a solution of campaign finance reform. Allow a balanced piece of legislation to pass this Congress that deals with this problem. The National Association of Broadcasters has been fighting against this provision in an exercise of their own greed on two myths: First, that this will lead to perpetual campaigns because the low rates will mean this will go on and on forever in advertising. That simply is not the case. The look-back will only allow the lowest rates for 365 days. Mr. Shays and Meehan have only proposed 180 days. That is the extent, in the primary season, campaigns are taking place anyway. The campaigns will not be longer; they will just be less expensive. And that is the problem for the broadcasters. Second, that this is somehow unconstitutional, that we are taking private property. For 30 years this has already been the law. The broadcasters, as a condition of their license, are required to do public broadcasting, sometimes children's broadcasting. They comply with all kinds of Federal requirements as a condition of having a public license. This is one more, but it is not even a new requirement. For 30 years we have required them to sell at the lowest unit rate. They simply are not doing it. We are just strengthening the law; we are not fundamentally changing the law. Third, they allege the amendment could force a TV station to sell a 30-second spot during a prime time television show for a de minimus amount of money. Actually, that would not be bad if it were true, but it is not. The FCC, in mediating pricing disputes under the law as it now stands, has always taken viewership levels into account, that they must be comparable. You cannot take a 2 o'clock in the morning television show that sells at a discount rate and compare it with prime time. It simply is not true. Fourth, the broadcasters say lowering the costs of candidate advertising will result in candidates running more ads. As my friend Mitch McConnell commented on occasion, the Nation does not suffer from too much political discussion. It would not be a bad thing if there were more advertising, discussing more issues. But that is probably not the result of this amendment. It simply means candidates will raise less money because of campaign finance reform and hopefully be able to have the same amount of advertising because rates are lower. This is all part and parcel of eliminating a major source of revenue for the broadcasters, and that is the problem. Political advertising is a paid form, in my judgment, of community service. This is not running a public service ad for the Boy Scouts, but it should not be akin to charging General Motors to advertise a new car either. And that is exactly what has happened. Here, political ads have now become the third highest source of revenue for the broadcasters. In 1998, the automobile industry was the source of 25 percent of advertising dollars in America. Political candidates, using the public airwaves to discuss public policy issues under campaign finance law restrictions, are 10 percent of advertising dollars in America. This is growing faster than any other component of advertising in the Nation. Political advertising is not an industry; it is how we conduct public policy in a democracy. That is why we have offered this amendment as well. This legislation will be voted upon in the House of Representatives in only another day. The House of Representatives has a choice that was before this Senate. The national broadcasters have spent $19 million since 1996 to lobby this Congress. They have spent $11 million to defeat no fewer than 12 campaign finance bills that would have reduced the cost of candidate advertising. It is unconscionable and it is wrong. It is also hypocrisy. The very news departments and executives that come to this Congress and complain about the state of politics in America, the lack of public confidence, the declining levels of integrity in the public discourse because of campaign fundraisers, are now a principal obstacle to reform. I want to vote for McCain-Feingold when that legislation returns to this Senate after a conference, but I will make it very clear: Restricting campaign fundraising with no restriction on the cost of campaign advertising, in the region of the country in which I live, and Los Angeles and Chicago and Miami and Boston and other large cities in America, means that candidates will not be able to communicate with the public. There will be no independent means of the political parties actually getting their message to American voters. I am prepared to vote to limit campaign spending, to eliminate soft money, but the test, in my judgment, at least for the region of the country in which I live, is whether we can overcome this hurdle of the broadcasters as well. Mr. President, I hope the House of Representatives meets its responsibility. I hope we can get a bill that in good conscience many of us in the Senate can vote to support. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, during my nearly 5 years in the Senate I have heard the debate of managed care reform many times. I have participated in repeating statistics, engaged in legal analyses, participated in political analyses, all of which convinced me a long time ago of the need for this Patients' Bill of Rights. But there is no substituting that which many of my colleagues have brought to this Chamber; that is, the life experience of American families with the system as it is currently designed and how it has dealt with the tragedies of their own lives. Many of my colleagues have brought the experiences of frustrated families: People who get up every morning, go to work, pay for medical insurance, and participate in a managed care plan, only to find that in a moment of crisis in their own families, that which they purchased, that which they have relied upon, was not available to them. As do my colleagues, I want to now share with you just two stories that give meaning to all the statistics and illustrate all the failures of the system. I begin with Kristin Bollinger, a young girl from Spottswood, NJ. Kristin's experiences illustrate some of the troubling practices of HMOs and how ineffective and unresponsive they can be in dealing with the needs of a child who requires long-term care when chronically ill. Kristin suffers from a unique condition of seizures and scoliosis, both of which can be managed with proper treatment and care. Her family was forced in an HMO by their family's employer in 1993. Kristin's parents have been fighting to ensure their daughter receives specialized services ever since. The HMO told Kristin's family she could no longer see a pediatrician and the specialists who had treated her all of her life. From birth, she had this condition. She saw a certain specialist, received specialized care. When Kristin needed to see a neurologist and other specialists, her parents had to pay for the specialists because they were not in her managed care plan. After a major surgery in 1997, Kristin's specialized nursing care was canceled without notice. She wasn't even told. The HMO even discontinued coverage for physical therapy because it was deemed medically unnecessary. Eventually, after fighting months and even years, the care was restored. But here is a family dealing with repeated seizures, a child who was not able to function, massive medical bills, although they were in a managed care plan, an inability to get the specialists who were deemed medically necessary, and they had to fight their way back to coverage while caring for a child--case in point. What would have worked? First, a right to get to a specialist; second, after you have been receiving care from a specialist and your plan changes, the right to keep the specialist; third, when you are denied the right to an appeal, for someone without an interest to hear your need where you can explain the need. In three important ways, this Patients' Bill of Rights would have addressed Kristin's problem and dealt with the problem of her family. None of those three rights exists in law, and so she was failed three times. Second, Morgan Earle, a 10-year-old from Chatham, NJ, born with cortical dysplagia, a devastating developmental brain injury that causes severe seizures. Morgan's parents, like any parents, were unprepared for dealing with the care of an infant experiencing these seizures--sometimes every 6 minutes--making it impossible for her to even eat or sleep. When Morgan was 3 months old, her parents sought treatment from a team of pediatric neurologists and neurosurgeons to develop a strategy for dealing with Morgan's lifelong medical needs. By the time she was 8, Morgan had endured extensive tests, clinical trials, and two major brain surgeries. Through the unbelievable genius of medical science, her team of specialists reduced her seizures that were interrupting her life. But in 1999, one of the specialists who headed Morgan's medical team, through changes in his own career, abruptly transferred to another hospital in Chicago. Morgan's parents were shocked to learn that the specialists selected by her new medical team were not part of the HMO. Throughout her life, she had relied upon these same doctors. Medical science had found a way to control these continuing seizures that were interrupting her own life and the life of her family. She had found an answer. But the new team was not part of her managed care. Imagine the frustration, that the genius of medical science found a way to deal with the suffering of your child in continuous seizures only to find that now you could not avail yourself of it. Morgan's parents appealed the decision to the HMO. They were denied. Doctors wrote that they and only their specialists could provide an answer. They were denied. In fact, the doctors report their letters weren't even answered. The HMO provided Morgan's parents instead with a list of in-network specialists. They were not even board certified. They could not perform. They were not capable. They could not even understand the kind of medical care Morgan was receiving. Last Friday, after 2 years of fighting an appeal, Morgan's parents received a two-sentence e-mail from her HMO that her original specialists, the doctors they had requested, would now be covered--2 years, no money, no care, no answers. It isn't right. It is not a system that anyone in this Chamber can defend, to Kristin, to Morgan, to her parents, or to millions of other Americans who are paying for this managed care or whose employers are paying for it, believing they are covered, and tomorrow morning they are but a single tragedy in life away from Morgan's or Kristin's experience. It could be anyone in this Chamber. It could be anyone we represent. That is what this legislation is about. It is not a gift. It is not some benefit provided by the larger society, as if that in itself would not be right or fair. It is something that has been earned and paid for, but it is not being provided. That is why we call it a Patients' Bill of Rights. It is not a gift. It is a right. It is a contract. And it is our responsibility to provide it. That is what this legislation is about: One, ensure that patients with disability conditions have standing referrals to specialists so they don't have to get permission; the 2- year wait of suffering and bills and lost care never happens. Two, allow patients in these circumstances to designate a specialist as their primary care doctor. It is right, and it is efficient. Three, require HMOs to allow access to out-of-network specialists, if in-network specialists are inadequate, at no cost. It just makes sense. Four, ensure that chronically ill patients can keep their doctors even if they are forced to change plans or their doctors leave the HMO. That is not only right and fair; it is just not being cruel to patients and children in these circumstances. The truth is, the alternative Republican plan does not allow these decisions to be made by patients and doctors. It means that an HMO that does not have a pediatric neurologist can force a child to see someone who is not trained or capable. What are the costs of all this? If you take this one element of the Patients' Bill of Rights I have addressed, just this one narrow, critical element for the chronically ill who need these specialists and a continuum of care, if you just take this small element I have addressed, CBO estimates that it would add .2 percent to the cost of insurance. Is there a family in America, given these circumstances, who would not bear that burden? Is there an employer in the country that would not want their employees to have this peace of mind in coverage, just knowing that what they are already purchasing might now be relevant and available in a moment of need? Mr. President, I have participated in this debate over these years. I have offered the statistics. I have offered the case. I have argued the politics. I have discussed the merits. I have reviewed the bill. Now I submit Kristin and Morgan's cases as the most compelling cases of all of why there is only one piece of legislation available on this floor that truly addresses these circumstances. It is offered by Senators Kennedy, McCain, and Edwards. The case is overwhelming, and I urge my colleagues across the aisle to join us. They will be proud and pleased that they did it. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Jacob Mellinger of New Jersey, who will soon be celebrating his 100th birthday. Mr. Mellinger will reach this momentous milestone on July 5th of this year, and I would like to acknowledge this special moment. Jacob Mellinger emigrated to the United States at the tender age of six, from Remenyia, Austria-Hungary. Since then, Mr. Mellinger has lived a life full of accomplishment, compassion and service. Upon graduating from the New Jersey Law School in 1927, he went on to build a successful law practice that lasted for 60 years. During that time, he established himself as an outstanding practitioner of the law and he also earned the right to argue cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. However, he has also used his success to serve his community. He has demonstrated his generous nature by distinguishing himself as a strong supporter of several prominent charities, including the United Jewish Appeal and Hadassah. I wish Mr. Mellinger the best on his 100th birthday. As he and his family reflect on this joyous occasion it is my sincere hope that he will continue to share his wisdom from the last century with his family and friends for many more years to come.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which builds on the most well received provisions of the highly successful Low to Moderate Income Housing Tax Credit bill, LIHTC, of 1986. The evidence is clear that the entrepreneurial spirit that has been harnessed over the last 15 years in favor of aggressively addressing the Nation's need for rental housing can and should be channeled in response to the dire need for affordable single family hosing in urban America. Although the economic prosperity enjoyed by this country for a decade led to a home ownership rate that has reached levels of nearly 70 percent, sadly the rate for central cities is 52 percent. One unfortunate reality is that having a good job does not guarantee a family a decent place to live at an affordable rate. According to one report; ``More than 220,000 teachers, police and public safety officers across the country spend more than half their incomes for housing and the problem is, in fact, getting worse.'' Housing experts continually tell us that low homeownership in our urban communities is a result of the lack of quality homes to purchase and not the lack of potential homeowners. Developers have expressed that the high costs associated with building homes in urban areas have acted as a disincentive to developing or redeveloping communities. If supply drives demand as it often does in the case of other commodities then the key to revitalizing neighborhoods that were once jewels is the entrepreneural spirit to build homes. The use of tax credits to provide a source of capital to dramatically increase the rental housing stock has been a wonderful success. In recent meetings with developers and community development officials in my State of New Jersey, a consistent answer to the question of ``what can we do to spur the development of single family homes'' has been ``just build on the success of the low income housing tax credit program''. Using tax incentives for such critical economic development purposes, such as overcoming capital market shortages is a proven method. In that regard, inclusion of certain industry practice development costs in the ``eligible costs'' basis of the property for computing tax credits and exclusion of the first $10,000 would quite often be just enough to keep developers out of the ``red'' in many urban communities. In many respects it is only proper that we begin this century recapturing space that once served as home of vibrant neighborhoods and bustling businesses since the middle of the 19th century. Certainly, effective development of space at the core of our urban centers requires building on the pride of ownership, rehabilitating classic structures that are found in all of our older cities and reclaiming land that has served us well. As we move ahead as a nation it is critical that we not leave many of our urban communities behind. AHEAD, (Affordable Housing and Environmental Action through Development), is a sound approach that cannot be implemented too soon. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that is intended to build upon a bi-partisan effort that has spanned over a decade culminating with the passage of S. 350. In August of 1997, this body approved a potentially significant brownfield tax incentive. This tax incentive referred to as the ``expensing'' provision allowed new owners of these contaminated sites to write off clean-up costs from their taxes in the year they are deducted. Despite this stride forward there have been issues pertaining to the provision that have represented barriers to re-development efforts. The barriers which have thwarted re-development efforts have been: (1) the sunset of the bill contributed to uncertainty associated with the time needed to clean-up, obtain financing and re-develop these properties; (2) the exclusion of petroleum related products and pesticides from the definition of ``hazardous substances'' which required that the treatment of these clean up costs as (non-deductable) capital expenditures rather than expenses; and (3) the recapturing as ordinary income, at the time of sale, qualified environmental remediation expenses that have received exemptions. My bill will eliminate the sunset provision. Eliminating the sunset for this expensing provision would be a major stride forward. Obtaining sufficient financing for brownfield re-development is generally difficult enough without the specter of a looming sunset. Petroleum products in the form of fuel oil, heating oil or gasoline and pesticides are quite often found at these brownfield sites. Unfortunately, ``hazardous substance'' as it relates to brownfields does not include these particular substances. Therefore, the exclusion of substances commonly found at brownfields increases the costs of brownfield re-development significantly. This bill will expand the definition of hazardous items to include petroleum and pesticides. In an effort to give true value to brownfields tax incentives, this bill will repeal the recapture provision related to brownfield tax incentives, section 193 e. Currently, any qualified environmental remediation expenditure which has been deducted is subject to recapture as ordinary income when sold or otherwise disposed. Because the tax liability for ordinary income is taxed higher, there is no incentive to redevelop contaminated sites and then sell the property for beneficial use. The repeal of this exclusion will give developers an opportunity to realize their tax incentives if they intend to sell property shortly after redevelopment. The passage of the expensing provisions and the recently passed S. 350 represent critical steps in enhancing the public/private partnership in brownfield re-development but more must be done. An effective partnership will utilize tax incentives to help attract affordable private investment. Using tax incentives to overcome capital shortages, in the marketplace, to achieve greater public benefits, is a proven formula for success. This can reverse negative trends and start new constructive trends.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which builds on the most well received provisions of the highly successful Low to Moderate Income Housing Tax Credit bill, LIHTC, of 1986. The evidence is clear that the entrepreneurial spirit that has been harnessed over the last 15 years in favor of aggressively addressing the Nation's need for rental housing can and should be channeled in response to the dire need for affordable single family hosing in urban America. Although the economic prosperity enjoyed by this country for a decade led to a home ownership rate that has reached levels of nearly 70 percent, sadly the rate for central cities is 52 percent. One unfortunate reality is that having a good job does not guarantee a family a decent place to live at an affordable rate. According to one report; ``More than 220,000 teachers, police and public safety officers across the country spend more than half their incomes for housing and the problem is, in fact, getting worse.'' Housing experts continually tell us that low homeownership in our urban communities is a result of the lack of quality homes to purchase and not the lack of potential homeowners. Developers have expressed that the high costs associated with building homes in urban areas have acted as a disincentive to developing or redeveloping communities. If supply drives demand as it often does in the case of other commodities then the key to revitalizing neighborhoods that were once jewels is the entrepreneural spirit to build homes. The use of tax credits to provide a source of capital to dramatically increase the rental housing stock has been a wonderful success. In recent meetings with developers and community development officials in my State of New Jersey, a consistent answer to the question of ``what can we do to spur the development of single family homes'' has been ``just build on the success of the low income housing tax credit program''. Using tax incentives for such critical economic development purposes, such as overcoming capital market shortages is a proven method. In that regard, inclusion of certain industry practice development costs in the ``eligible costs'' basis of the property for computing tax credits and exclusion of the first $10,000 would quite often be just enough to keep developers out of the ``red'' in many urban communities. In many respects it is only proper that we begin this century recapturing space that once served as home of vibrant neighborhoods and bustling businesses since the middle of the 19th century. Certainly, effective development of space at the core of our urban centers requires building on the pride of ownership, rehabilitating classic structures that are found in all of our older cities and reclaiming land that has served us well. As we move ahead as a nation it is critical that we not leave many of our urban communities behind. AHEAD, (Affordable Housing and Environmental Action through Development), is a sound approach that cannot be implemented too soon. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that is intended to build upon a bi-partisan effort that has spanned over a decade culminating with the passage of S. 350. In August of 1997, this body approved a potentially significant brownfield tax incentive. This tax incentive referred to as the ``expensing'' provision allowed new owners of these contaminated sites to write off clean-up costs from their taxes in the year they are deducted. Despite this stride forward there have been issues pertaining to the provision that have represented barriers to re-development efforts. The barriers which have thwarted re-development efforts have been: (1) the sunset of the bill contributed to uncertainty associated with the time needed to clean-up, obtain financing and re-develop these properties; (2) the exclusion of petroleum related products and pesticides from the definition of ``hazardous substances'' which required that the treatment of these clean up costs as (non-deductable) capital expenditures rather than expenses; and (3) the recapturing as ordinary income, at the time of sale, qualified environmental remediation expenses that have received exemptions. My bill will eliminate the sunset provision. Eliminating the sunset for this expensing provision would be a major stride forward. Obtaining sufficient financing for brownfield re-development is generally difficult enough without the specter of a looming sunset. Petroleum products in the form of fuel oil, heating oil or gasoline and pesticides are quite often found at these brownfield sites. Unfortunately, ``hazardous substance'' as it relates to brownfields does not include these particular substances. Therefore, the exclusion of substances commonly found at brownfields increases the costs of brownfield re-development significantly. This bill will expand the definition of hazardous items to include petroleum and pesticides. In an effort to give true value to brownfields tax incentives, this bill will repeal the recapture provision related to brownfield tax incentives, section 193 e. Currently, any qualified environmental remediation expenditure which has been deducted is subject to recapture as ordinary income when sold or otherwise disposed. Because the tax liability for ordinary income is taxed higher, there is no incentive to redevelop contaminated sites and then sell the property for beneficial use. The repeal of this exclusion will give developers an opportunity to realize their tax incentives if they intend to sell property shortly after redevelopment. The passage of the expensing provisions and the recently passed S. 350 represent critical steps in enhancing the public/private partnership in brownfield re-development but more must be done. An effective partnership will utilize tax incentives to help attract affordable private investment. Using tax incentives to overcome capital shortages, in the marketplace, to achieve greater public benefits, is a proven formula for success. This can reverse negative trends and start new constructive trends.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, when this debate began yesterday on reform of the managed care system in America by establishing a Patients' Bill of Rights, it did so under very uncertain and unfortunate circumstances. There was objection to proceeding to the bill, causing delay and unnecessary confusion with the American people as to whether we intended to deal with this problem. We can all be pleased the Republican minority now has withdrawn its objections. We can now, tomorrow, begin the serious work of actually debating a Patients' Bill of Rights. This is a moment that has been 5 years in the making. Before the Senate is honest, compromised, and reasonable legislation to establish a Patients' Bill of Rights. It is a question that involves our most basic responsibilities to the American people to assure their health and welfare. We all recognize how we arrived at this moment. The Senate may be late, but it is right in dealing with this question. The extraordinary increase in the cost of health care in the 1970s and 1980s radically increased the ranks of the uninsured in America. By establishing a predetermined list of medical providers at established costs with recognized services, it was everybody's hope that these managed care plans could strike a balance between the rights of consumers and providers with reasonably agreed upon costs. It was a sound concept, but practice has established that the power disproportionately came to rest with insurance companies and the doctors and that patients lost control over their professional rights or the needs of their families. During these years that the Federal Government has been unable to deal with this crisis, the ranks of the uninsured have continued to rise to 45 million people despite managed care. The growth of health care costs rose less slowly but has continued to rise, and a feeling of paralysis began to grip the country as doctors no longer believed they could make medical decisions and families could no longer get access to the health care providers that had been a part of the American tradition of family medical practice. While the Federal Government was paralyzed, interestingly, States began to fashion their own responses. In 1997, my own State of New Jersey enacted the Health Care Quality Act--in some respects a model for what the Federal Government is challenged to accomplish. That law in New Jersey prohibited gag clauses. Doctors had the right, the recognized responsibility, to talk to their patients about medical options. An independent health care appeals program was established so, when care was denied by the insurance company, people had someone to go to, to appeal the judgment. There was a requirement that insurers provide clear information on their services and their limitations. Interestingly, in 1997 when that act was passed by the State legislature in New Jersey, it was by a Republican legislature and signed by a Republican Governor, something that should be a challenge to Members of the Senate in the minority party today. But this Senate is now challenged to act because, while that State legislation was properly designed, it was insufficient, not only insufficient in that it was not national in scope but because for many people in my State and across the country in other States, people with similar experiences were exempted by ERISA laws. Mr. President, 124 million Americans, 83 percent of those who get their health care from their employer, are not covered by State laws because of this exemption. Fifty percent of the people in the State of New Jersey enrolled in HMOs are exempted from the very State protections that I just outlined and that my State government wanted and intended to give to our people because of this exemption under the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974. Under this bill, HMOs claimed immunity from State regulations even if there was negligent behavior. It may or may not have ever been the intention of this Congress to exempt managed care in health care, but whether that was our intention or not, that is how the law is operating. So despite the best actions of State government, millions of Americans--124 million Americans--have no protection from the abuses of the managed care system. That is why the responsibility now rests here and why this Senate is the only hope of the American people to get relief from this abuse of power. The American people understand what needs to happen. Only people in this institution seem to doubt it. A recent survey in my own State of New Jersey by Rutgers University found that one in four people in my State are completely dissatisfied with their health care plan, despite the fact they are paying for it and are enrolled in it and cannot get out of it because their employers have contracted for it. Last October a State report found that patients in my State were not only dissatisfied, but they are more dissatisfied than they were a year ago. The situation is deteriorating. The legislation now before this Senate, offered by Senators Kennedy, Edwards, and McCain, is an answer. It is not simply bipartisan. That understates what has been achieved. But 500 organizations of patients and doctors stand behind this legislation to get patient protection to all Americans in HMOs. The confrontation that went on for decades between patients' rights advocates and doctors has not only ended but they have come together in a broad national coalition for this legislation. We have not only achieved what once seemed unlikely, the bill represents what once seemed impossible. This is achieved because specific rights would now be guaranteed to the American people. To many Americans whose children suffer with diseases, whose lives are threatened, this Patients' Bill of Rights, to them, in their suffering or their financial distress, is just as important as the original document which bears the title a ``Bill of Rights.'' The title is borrowed for this health care emergency because to them this has every bit as much significance. What are these rights? One is the right to get to a specialist. Under current law in managed care, you can take a family member to your family doctor, but the cancer or the heart problem, the specialized disease or ailment that may plague you and threaten your life, is beyond the capacity of that family doctor. That is not the exception; that is often the rule. With this bill, you will have the right by law to get to a specialist who can save your life. No. 2 is the right to get to an emergency room. In a nation in which we travel the country every day all across our States, all across our Nation, what kind of system is it, if you have health care insurance and you should be in a car accident or have an illness traveling somewhere in your State or across America and the local emergency room is not in your health care plan? Under this bill, that emergency room will give you coverage, whether they are in the plan or not, because you are there and that is where your illness or your accident happens to be. No. 3 is the right of women to use an OB/GYN as their primary health care provider. Millions of women have made the medical decision to use their OB/GYN as their principal health care provider. It makes no sense that they have to first go to a family doctor, a general practitioner, for a reference. This establishes that right. No. 4, as with every other patient, the right of a child to get to a specialist should never be impaired. A child should be able to get to a pediatric oncologist or heart specialist as a matter of right, directly, without delay, without question, if that is the only person who can deal with their illness and that is established. No. 5, it is unconscionable that, by contract, any doctor should be restricted from discussing with any patient their health care options-- the technology, the specialist, the choices that the genius of American technology in medicine has made available. But that is not a theoretical problem, it is something that doctors are facing in America every day, a contractual wall placed between a doctor's knowledge and a patient's need. This bill tears down that wall. No doctor in any managed care plan will ever be told again: In spite of what you know, in spite of what you think is in your patient's best interest, you cannot tell them the choices available. Now they will know as a matter of right. No. 6 is the right to a review. If a doctor is prescribing a test or a procedure and believes it is vital to a patient and that is denied, that manager of a health care plan, that businessman, is not the last word. There is a right of appeal to a health care specialist, independently placed to oversee the managed care plan, so not only is a doctor making the recommendation but a doctor is the final, independent word. Finally, the right of accountability. I once heard Bill Clinton say there were only two classes of people in this country by right who are immune from accountability by the legal procedures: Foreign diplomats by treaty and HMO bureaucrats. One of those will be taken away by this bill. Can you imagine what an American automobile would be like if auto companies did not have the threat of lawsuits if their cars were not safe? We would still be manufacturing clothing in America that was flammable. We might still be living in houses that had carcinogens in them. I guarantee, our cars, our trains, our airplanes would not be as safe. The threat of liability, the knowledge that the courts will hold a company accountable if they do not do whatever is required to be safe, is a great protection for the American people. We have extended it to every other industry in America except to managed health care plans. This bill will change that. There will be access to court. There will be damages. There will be an expense if managed care health care plans are not ensuring that the right decisions are made, that the law is followed and people are as safe as possible. It is the right judgment. There are those who are going to come to this floor in the coming days and argue: Oh, that may all be true, that may all be right, but if you give these rights to the American people, those 124 million Americans in managed care who are not getting these rights, the costs will rise so high that the number of uninsured will grow and the problem will become worse and not better. It would be a sound argument but for the facts. The CBO has estimated that if this legislation is put in place, the average cost per employee will be $1 per month. That is a lot of protection for millions of Americans at a very modest cost. The CBO continues that, over 10 years, it is estimated premiums would rise by 4.2 percent. That is a lot of protection for a lot of years for very little cost. But what of the argument that even these modest costs would throw more people into the ranks of the uninsured? The experience has been just the opposite. In 2000, when health insurance premiums increased by 10 percent, more than twice the amount estimated would happen under this bill, the number of uninsured not only didn't rise but the number of uninsured dropped. There is no reason to believe--and the empirical evidence suggests overwhelmingly--that we will not cause a rise in the uninsured. We will simply cause better insurance by passing this bill. This is good legislation. This goes to our most fundamental responsibility to the American people. If this Congress and if this Senate does nothing else in this session, if nothing else is accomplished, we can reach the lives of millions of Americans who live in fear every day that during the night a child will get ill, a parent will contract a disease, or someone in a family will suffer, and in spite of the fact that family members get up every morning, work every day and pay their health care premiums, when they need their insurance it will not be there for them. It is not a theoretical fear; it is real. We can do something about it. It is reflected in this bill. If we are ever going to stand with the American people, stand with them now. If we are ever going to do something to change their lives, do it with this bill. I am proud to be associated with it. I am more than a little proud that the first legislation brought to this floor by a new Democratic majority in the Senate and by our majority leader, Tom Daschle, is a Patients' Bill of Rights. That speaks volumes about the Democratic caucus in this Senate. It says everything you need to know about Tom Daschle, and it says a lot about why there is still a great chance to be proud of this Senate and this session of this Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate passed, by unanimous consent, an important amendment that will protect our children from pesticide exposure in our Nation's schools. Inadvertently, Senators Boxer and Reid were left off this amendment as original cosponsors. I would like the record to reflect that Senator Boxer and Senator Reid should have been listed as original cosponsors of amendment #805 to H.R. 1, the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act. I regret this unfortunate oversight, as these two Senators are largely responsible for the passage of this amendment. They have as much claim to authorship of this important effort as any Member of this body. If not for their commitment to the protection of our Nation's children, we would not be celebrating the passage of this amendment today. Were it not for Senator Boxer's unwavering commitment to protecting our children, as she has done with the introduction of the Children's Environmental Protection Act, the Senate would not even be having this debate. Were it not for Senator Reid's understanding of the important issues facing the Senate, and his advocacy as a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, this amendment would not have enjoyed the support that it has. I thank my friends for their support and ask that the Senate recognize Senator Boxer and Senator Reid as original cosponsors of the School Environmental Protection Amendment.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 20, 2001, at 4 p.m., in executive session to meet with NATO Secretary General the Right Honorable Lord Robertson of Port Ellen to discuss alliance matters.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 20, 2001, to conduct a hearing on ``The Condition of the U.S. Banking System.''

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 20 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing. The committee will consider the nominations of Patricia Lynn Scarlett to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior (for Policy, Management, and Budget); William Gerry Myers III to be the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior; and Bennett William Raley to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior (for Water and Science).

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 20, 2001, to hear testimony regarding Trade Promotion Authority.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 20, 2001 at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing titled, ``U.S. Security Interests in Europe'' as follows: ``U.S. Security Interests in Europe,'' Wednesday, June 20, 2001, 10 a.m., SD-419. Witness: The Honorable Colin Powell, Secretary of State, Department of State, Washington, DC.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 20, 2001 at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing to examine the Role of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Associated with the Restructuring of Energy Industries.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, June 20, 2001, at 1:00 p.m. in Dirksen 226.