Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America as they celebrate their 90th anniversary. Hadassah is a non-profit volunteer women's organization dedicated to health care, education, and advocacy. Originally created to bring modern health care to the sick and suffering inhabitants of Palestine, Hadassah has grown into a thriving international organization actively engaged in issues that affect the health and livelihood of Jewish people throughout the United States and Israel. Founded in 1912, Hadassah retains the passion and timeless values of its founder, Henrietta Szold, Jewish scholar and activist, who was dedicated to Judaism, Zionism, and the American ideal. In Israel, the Hadassah Medical Organization, HMO, runs two hospitals, five schools, outpatient clinics, research facilities, and a community health center. With support from over 300,000 Hadassah members worldwide, HMO offers expert treatment and tender care to more than half a million people in Israel each year. In the United States, Hadassah enhances the quality of American and Jewish life through its education and Zionist youth programs. It promotes health awareness and provides personal enrichment and growth for its members. In a year long celebration, Hadassah will commemorate its 90 years of service. To mark this occasion, I would like to applaud Hadassah and its members for their efforts to improve the lives of all the people they serve.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr President, I would like to extend my warmest welcome to the newest democracy to join the family of nations. This week, after a long and arduous struggle, the nation of East Timor officially celebrated it independence from Indonesia. This has been a long and hard fought process for the people of East Timor. For 300 years, they were a colony of Portugal. Then upon the end of colonial rule in 1975, and a brief period of independence, East Timor was annexed to Indonesia. In August of 1999, the people of East Timor voted in favor of independence from Indonesia. This historic moment regrettably set off a tragic wave of violence that left much of the country in devastation. While the people of East Timor have come a great distance since that moment, there is still much rebuilding and healing to do. In January of 2000, the United Nations International Commission of Inquiry into East Timor concluded that the terror, destruction and displacement of people that occurred would not have been possible without the involvement of the Indonesian military during August of 2002. During that same period, some 250,000 East Timorese fled to West Timor, while there are still 55,000 refuges who have not been repatriated. For the people of East Timor to move forward and have positive relations with their Indonesian neighbors, it is vital that these findings be investigated and those who are found guilty of committing crimes against humanity be brought to justice. The Indonesian government has taken an important step in this matter by establishing an ad hoc Human Rights Court for East Timor, however, this court has its own short-comings. By limiting the scope of inquires to atrocities alleged after the August referendum, it has effectively blocked the prosecution of high-level military officials who are believed to have masterminded the violence. Without the ability to investigate and bring to justice those involved in human rights abuses throughout East Timor's time as part of Indonesia, those who have suffered will be unable to move forward in their lives. While we cannot forget the injustices of the past, this week is also a time to look forward. East Timor has the opportunity to build a vibrant and prosperous nation. The task of developing a thriving democracy is an ongoing process. It requires a respect for the rule of law and the ability to share differing opinions. I am confidant that the people of East Timor will met these challenges as they have the others before them; and they have taken a positive step by voting to sign the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights as their legislature's first act. While many of these steps the people of East Timor must take for themselves, the United States and our fellow democracies will still play a vital role in the hopes of East Timorese. Given the level of destruction, it is important that the United States and other nations continue foreign aid in an effort to enable the East Timorese to provide vital services such as education, shelter, and healthcare to their people. Also, the established democracies of the world can provide valuable insight into the running of democratic institutions as the government of East Timor undertakes the responsibilities of full sovereignty. These and other forms of aid will play a vital role in the ability of East Timor to mature as an established nation. Lastly, this momentous occasion would not have been possible without the perserverance of the people of East Timor and supportive non- governmental organizations such as the East Timor Action Network, and I commend them on their efforts. The people of East Timor have endured much to gain their freedom, and I wish them the best in their newfound independence.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I inform the Senate that because of an unavoidable delay, I was unable to arrive in the Senate for a morning vote held on May 22, 2002. Had I been present, I would have voted as set forth below. My vote would not have affected the outcome. On the motion to invoke cloture on the Baucus Substitute Amendment 3401 to H.R. 3009, the Andean Trade Act, I would have voted against cloture. The amendment on which the cloture vote occurred included Trade Promotion Authority, also known as Fast Track Authority, which I oppose because it fails to require strong, enforceable provisions regarding labor rights and environmental protection in future U.S. trade agreements.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, for more than a century, American workers have made enormous progress in their working conditions and securing their most basic rights in the sale of their labor. It is the foundation of our very economy that the United States uniquely created circumstances where those who made products had decent enough wages to buy them. Those who were engaged in the production had sufficient leisure time to enjoy the fruits of their own labor. People fought and died for these rights in the labor movement. They were not given easily, not simply established, but fought for by a generation of workers. Those rights are very much now at issue as the Senate debates the expansion of international trade and fast-track authority for the President in new bilateral agreements. The question arises on the sanctity of these rights and their ability to be defended in an international context. What does it mean to American workers to have the right of association, the right to organize and bargain collectively, the prohibition of forced or compulsory labor, minimum wage, prohibitions on child labor, maximum hours, or safety conditions? Regarding the issue before the Senate, if we are to engage in these new international labor agreements, are we creating a situation where Americans can continue to have pride that we afford these things to our own people, to our own workers, while seeking the benefits of lower prices and cheaper goods through cheaper labor? Are we sending American workers into competition with those who enjoy none of these rights? Is there not some degree of hypocrisy? We want these things for our workers, but we put our workers in a situation of competition with workers in China, Latin America, or Africa who enjoy none of these rights. Indeed, what meaning will it have to claim these things for ourselves if we allow products into America from nations that guarantee none of these rights? The examples around the globe are as striking as they are compelling. Human Rights Watch recently released a report documenting child labor; obstacles to unionizing on banana plantations in Ecuador, the world's largest exporter of bananas. The report cited children as young as 8 years old working long hours in hazardous conditions, exposed to toxic pesticides, drinking contaminated water, using sharp tools, hauling heavy loads and, in some cases, suffering sexual harassment. I am told that it is progressive to be arguing on the Senate floor for fast track, for labor agreements with all nations, with no conditions on labor rights. I am told that is progressive. What is progressive in allowing products into the United States made from child labor, exploited children? What is progressive about not insisting that these basic rights be afforded to those whose products will come into America, those who use the products. Nations who import these goods cannot morally separate themselves from the means of production. If you buy it, if you import it, if you negotiate with the countries that cast a blind eye to the sexual harassment, the exploitation, the long hours, the unsafe conditions, the contamination, the sickness, and the death, you are part of the problem. You are not only condoning it, you are encouraging it by providing a market for it. So I rise today not only for our own workers who will be forced into competition with these conditions to survive, making the right for minimum wage, to organize, for health benefits, for retirement, for safe conditions meaningless given the competitive circumstances in which we place our own companies; I also rise for their people because in this competition no one succeeds. It is a competition of exploitation. Everybody loses. The same report documenting abuses in Ecuador found that workers feared dismissal if they even attempted to unionize and are replaced by ``permanent temporary'' workers. So not only are these conditions horrific, there is no chance through collective bargaining, through the exercise of union rights, to redress the grievance. If you told me that conditions in these nations were abhorrent but that through trade workers would organize themselves, they would be guaranteed better rights, conditions, and labor, it would be something worth attempting. The marketplace will not improve these conditions. Forcing American workers to compete with these companies in these circumstances will become a near permanent condition. There are many industries that are facing these same circumstances. It is not simply agriculture. It is the garment industry, it is the footwear industry, and it is not simply Latin America. Indeed, China in some cases may be the most egregious, offering low wages, weak labor laws, and suppression or control of all trade activity. In China, this has been particularly true in garments and footwear in which retailers subcontract orders to the absolutely lowest bidders with no inquiry, no control, perhaps not even any interest, in the degree of exploitation. There is something wrong with this system, and I do not know how it is corrected. Amendment after amendment is lost on this Senate floor. People rise for footwear, but it can be lost for garments and for agriculture. If it was exploitation of somebody else in another country, it is their problem, not ours. On the contrary. I want affordable goods for the constituents of my State as much as any Senator. I believe in free, fair, open competition as much as anybody. I believe in the ability of the American worker, American business to compete with anybody, anywhere, anytime on a free and fair basis. But who here believes there is something to be gained by competing with what amounts to slave labor in conditions of death and exploitation? Who believes any American worker in any industry could survive that competition? And, indeed, are we not replete with examples of the fact that they cannot? I do not know how these circumstances ever change. I know that if America were going to the lowest bidder for businessmen, I know if we were looking around the world for the cheapest possible bankers and financiers, I know if there were no working conditions for lawyers in India, Pakistan, or Latin America and we were importing that labor, it would get someone's attention. But garment workers, footwear workers, agricultural workers, have they no advocates? Is there no concern for the competition in which we put our people in these circumstances? There is concern, but there is a minority. I have heard enough of this debate. I have watched enough votes. I have seen every Member defeated on every amendment to know mine will be no different. They are hollow words, but they will be read again. We do an injustice to the American workers. We do an injustice to those in developing countries who only want the right to form their own unions, the basic protection of themselves and their families. The monarchies of Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries faced similar circumstances. Europeans, even in those governments, could have raised their standard of living by getting cheaper products from nations that practiced slavery, and very often they would not; they would not be part of it. What, I say to my colleagues, is the difference from importing products during that exploitation--from the exploitation of children who are worked at 8 years old for little or no wages; people who are locked in dormitories at night so they cannot leave the factory; people who are paid in script, not money; people who work because they have no choice or die? Different centuries, different words, same results: Human exploitation. The President wants authority to negotiate with a series of Third World nations to enter into free trade agreements with the United States. If we were here on a different basis, I not only would vote for that authority, I would offer the bill. I would be here arguing for it every day. What separates us is not a desire to open markets or have free trade, it is the simple conditions of doing so. If I believed George W. Bush would negotiate free trade agreements insisting on the rights of foreign workers to organize, or a minimum wage, or child labor, this would be the right thing to do. The language before this Senate does not contain any requirements to bring the domestic laws of any nation into the compliance of the ILO conventions, guaranteeing protection against the most egregious violations of workers. It requires nothing, so that is exactly the kind of support I intend to give it: Nothing. Under my amendment, workers' rights provisions would be assured just as we are protecting intellectual property or investor rights because it is not as if there are not some assurances to some Americans in fast track. If you own a patent, we will defend you. If you have intellectual property, the U.S. Government will respect it. But if you are the heirs of garment workers and agricultural workers, the rights you fought for--protection from being in competition with a child for labor, not to compete with someone who earns under the minimum wage-- you will get none of those protections at all. I regret the Senate has come to this point, and I regret that we could not come to common terms in how to engage in international agreements to open borders. It did not have to be. While I know my amendment may not succeed, I assure the Senate we will visit this subject again. There is just so much we can lose, so many industries that can be lost, so many American workers we put in competition with people in desperate circumstances. The downward spiral of living circumstances of working families in America, the loss of benefits, wages, industries, communities, is just so much of a burden that can be borne until we insist not simply on opening markets, but opening them on some common basis of respect for human rights and human dignities in international labor. I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to offer the amendment and to address this subject.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Under American law, the moment the President of the United States has certified there is a free election in Cuba, by law there is no embargo. I know Senator Dorgan and I will address the Senate on this issue at another day, another time, on another piece of legislation. It is an important debate for the Senate. On this day I did not want Cuban Americans to believe that this Senate is of one mind. I believe in defeating Fidel Castro. I believe the Cuban people can still live to see a free day. I don't intend to yield the fight until we reach that day. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for yielding the time.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I ask for 1 more minute.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for yielding me this time. There are profound differences in the Senate over American policy towards Cuba, as there are divisions in the United States. For 40 years, the Cuban people have seen their nation enslaved by an alien ideology. The Cuban people, who by their nature are independent, industrious people, entrepreneurial in spirit, strong of faith and nationalism, have seen their country's independence compromised by foreign alliances, their sense of entrepreneurship compromised by communism, and the free spirit of the Cuban people dampened by state control over almost every facet of life. Ten years ago, this Congress recognized that America was maintaining a fiction in its policy toward Cuba. We pretended to have an embargo but allowed American corporations to trade with Cuba through Europe. We said we were offended at human rights violations in Cuba, the denial of all basic rights, but we maintained normal economic enterprise through our allies. The Cuban Democracy Act and then the Helms-Burton Act, under the Clinton administration, changed these circumstances. That issue is now before the Congress again, and it is a good debate. As certainly as Senator Dorgan feels the need for change, I rise in the belief that what is required is not change but more time. It has admittedly been a long time. I cannot say with any satisfaction that the policy has yielded any results. I can only tell you that American policy is justifiable, morally and strategically, and that the burden of change is not with us. The United States Government has no argument with the Cuban people. It is for this reason that American law has exempted food and medicine and cultural exchanges and media visits from the embargo. For 10 years since the modern embargo was written, the U.S. Government has made concession after concession. To the Castro government we allowed the opening of news bureaus in the hope that Castro would institute some reform, and there was none. The Clinton administration allowed charter flights so tourists could visit in the hope there would be some concession from Castro, and there was none. We believed that if we would loosen up visas for tourists to begin to visit in some small numbers, we would get some reciprocal action by Castro, and there was none--time and time and time again. Indeed, in the licensing of food deliveries and other economic enterprise, every single request that was made of the Treasury Department was granted, concession after concession. What is it we sought? Some small indication from Havana of change. If Fidel Castro had done anything, a single opposition newspaper, one; an election in a small town, one province; a single political party in opposition--anything--there would be no embargo today.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, on October 19, 2000, more than 50 years after the end of World War II, Congress passed the Wartime Violation of Italian American Civil Liberties Act. I am pleased to have been the Senate sponsor of that bill which directed the U.S. Department of Justice to study the treatment of Italian-Americans at the hand of the Federal Government during the War and to deliver a report on its findings to the Congress. This report has now been completed. The 42-page report, prepared by the Department's Civil Rights Division concludes: ``After the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, citizens and aliens of Italian-American descent were subjected to restrictions, including curfews, searches, confiscations of property, the loss of livelihood, and internment.'' While the report can obviously not undo the injustices suffered by Italian Americans in the past, it is important that mistakes of the past be understood and acknowledged so that they are not repeated. This report will finally shine light on a largely unknown era of this nation's history--the injustices perpetrated by our government against thousands of Americans of Italian descent during the war. While most Americans are aware of the mass evacuation and internment of Americans of Japanese descent shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor on 1941, very few are aware that because the United States was also at war with Mussolini's Italy, approximately 250 Americans of Italian descent were arrested and detained in internment camps throughout the United States. Like Japanese Americans, the internees were not informed of the charges against them or provided legal counsel, and the vast majority were arrested and detained without any evidence that they had done anything wrong. Their only crime was their Italian heritage or their involvement in Italian organizations. By early 1942, all Italian immigrants, estimated to be approximately 600,000 people, were labeled ``enemy aliens'' and were forced to register at local post offices around the country. They were fingerprinted, photographed and required to carry photo-bearing ``enemy alien registration cards'' at all times. Their travel was restricted to no further than five miles from their home and any ``signaling devices''--cameras, shortwave radios, flashlights--or weapons were considered contraband and had to be turned in to authorities or were confiscated. Italian Americans living on the West coast were subject to a curfew from 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. and some were forced to evacuate areas the military deemed sensitive military zones, leaving their homes and jobs behind. Ironically, in areas where Italian Americans were the majority population, these restrictions caused serious employment and food- supply problems at a time when all human and food resources were needed for the war effort. The injustices suffered by Italian Americans during the war touched all socioeconomic classes. The parents of baseball legend Joe DiMaggio were forbidden to go any further than five miles from their home without a permit. Enrico Fermi, a leading Italian physicist who was instrumental in America's development of the atomic bomb, could not travel freely along the East Coast. The most disturbing irony was that at the time these injustices were being perpetrated, Italian Americans were the largest immigrant group in the United States Armed Forces and were fighting abroad to defend this country. Twelve years ago, Congress passed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 and rightfully admitted and apologized for the atrocities committed against American citizens and immigrants of Japanese ancestry during World War II. With the passage of the Wartime Violation of Italian American Civil Liberties Act, the truth has now been told about the mistreatment of Americans of Italian descent during the war. This should not only be important to the Italian-Americans whose rights were violated and unjustly disrupted during the war but to every American who values our Constitutional freedoms. By increasing our Nation's awareness of these tragic events, we ensure that such discrimination will never happen again in this country.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Rev. David Arias, Auxiliary Bishop of Newark and Regional Bishop of Hudson County on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of his Ordination. Rev. Arias' background is as wide and as varied as the United States. Born and ordained to the priesthood in Spain, he has worked in Spain, Mexico City, Texas, Kansas City, California, and now Hudson County, NJ. In 1996, as a member of the Archdiocese of New York, Rev. Arias was named head of the Spanish Cursillo Movement and later named director of Hispanic Affairs for the Archdiocese of New York by Cardinal Terrence Cooke. He was named the Auxiliary Bishop of Newark, NJ in 1983 and has served as Pastor of St. Joseph of the Palisades in West New York, NJ since 1994. The Archdiocese of Newark has been fortunate to have the services. of Rev. Arias and I wish him the best in his continued ministry.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 7th Annual Asian Spring Festival. This special event was initiated by the Asian American Civic Association in 1996. The Asian Spring Festival is annually held in conjunction with Asian Pacific American Heritage Month in May. This event provides a unique opportunity for members of this diverse community to come together and celebrate the unique aspects of their culture. It is also an opportunity to honor outstanding Asian-Americans within their communities. Throughout its history, our Nation has grown and evolved in a positive way as peoples of many backgrounds, beliefs, and ideas have come together to make America the greatest Nation on Earth. With this in mind, it is important to honor the special aspects of our society that create this unique whole. I wish the Asian-American community the best on this special occasion.

Mr. TORRICELLI

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

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, on four occasions since September 11, 2001, I have come to the Chamber to recommend to my colleagues that the Senate immediately consider the establishment of a national commission concerning the events of September 11, 2001. My request has been based on no motivation but the belief that the American people deserve honest answers and that the only means of preventing another terrorist attack on the United States is a fair, honest, and dispassionate view of what happened and what didn't happen, what was known, and what should have occurred. The historic basis of such an honest approach to the tragedy of New York and the Pentagon is overwhelming. Ten days after December 7, 1941, Franklin Delano Roosevelt recognized that he could not reassure the American people about their Government and could not unify the country for the war ahead unless he gave them an explanation about what failed at Pearl Harbor. Lyndon Johnson recognized almost immediately the same need to reassure the American people about the operations of their Government and the integrity of its officers after the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963. Ronald Reagan drew upon the same precedent establishing the Challenger Commission to assure the American people that they would receive an honest answer to prevent any recurrence in the loss of life in the Challenger. What I recommend has not only had precedents, it was the rule. Democratic and Republican administrations, for a century, have seen the need to assure the American people about the operation of their Government and that indeed we were a confident enough people under the rule of law to face honestly our own failings--all based on the belief that the only means of assuring that there would not be a recurrence would be to discover the reasons for the failings of the past. On those four occasions, there have been reasons to postpone, excuses to not act, and the debate has continued. The debate continued after it was revealed that the FBI had in its possession Zacarias Moussaoui, a Frenchman of Moroccan descent who, in August, was discovered in a flight training school. The Justice Department denied access to his computer. The debate continued after it was learned that French intelligence had warned American intelligence officials that they had knowledge of a possible terrorist plot to hijack aircraft. The debate continued after it was learned that Philippine intelligence and law enforcement authorities had warned United States Government officials of possible targeting of American aircraft. The debate continued after it was revealed that the FBI office in Phoenix had written a memorandum warning that large numbers of suspicious individuals were seeking pilot and security training at American flight schools. The debate continued. The debate has to end. Revelations that the Central Intelligence Agency might have intercepted suspicious communications as early as last July indicating a possible terrorist attack on American installations or facilities and that indeed the President of the United States himself was informed of this information should effectively end any debate. I do not rise to cast blame or aspersions on any individuals or institutions. I believe the officials of this Government have acted honorably, and I would never believe any American institution or individual, for a moment, would not have done everything possible to defend the people of this country if sufficiently warned. Something is wrong. The United States of America has a defense establishment of over $330 billion a year. Public accounts estimate intelligence budgets at over $30 billion a year. The heart of our greatest city was struck, the center of our military power was hit by 19 people, funded by $250,000. Something is wrong. I do not know whether there has been a failure to collect intelligence or an inability to share intelligence. I don't know whether law enforcement and intelligence agencies have failed to work together. I don't know whether they acted properly and a reasoned, rational person never could have put these pieces together. I don't know. But neither does anybody else in this Government. It was always going to be difficult to face the families of those who lost their lives on September 11. It just became impossible. Without some dispassionate and honest review of what was known by this Government and its agencies, without an honest assessment of how agencies performed and coordinated their activities, without a dispassionate assessment of what failed, not only can we not look the victims' families in the eyes and tell them, ``Your Government met its responsibility,'' we cannot assure this country that it will not happen again. Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn't have a Pearl Harbor commission, Earl Warren didn't have a commission on the Kennedy assassination, and Ronald Reagan didn't have a Challenger commission to assign blame. It wasn't about partisanship. It was about assuring the American people of the future that the Government had taken actions to assure it would never happen again. Who here would assure one of their constituents in any of our States that we have the confidence or the simple good judgment to undertake such a review? On March 21 of this year, the Governmental Affairs Committee voted on S. 1867, introduced by Senators Lieberman, McCain, Grassley, and myself, a bill to establish the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. That bill is ready for consideration. What reason do we offer for not acting immediately? What is the excuse to the American people? I trust that based on current revelations, law enforcement officials of the Justice Department, intelligence officials of the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency, and, indeed, the national leadership of the White House itself will now end all excuses, stop all efforts to block this legislation or similar reviews, and join with us in one complete analysis of what happened, what went wrong, what was known, and, most importantly, what we do about it. There will be those who say this is a matter for the Senate and its Intelligence Committee. This is a matter for this Government and all of its representatives. Some secret analysis by a committee reviewing one aspect of the actions of the U.S. Government on classified material making recommendations unto itself is not what the country requires. Every element, every aspect of the Government should be reviewed on how it acted and how it should be changed, including this Congress. I suggest a reserve of analysis of no one and nothing from law enforcement, to the national intelligence community, to the executive branch, to the operations of this Congress itself. We all share the responsibility for the future of the country. We all share the responsibility for the security of our communities and our families. An honest analysis must involve all of us, including this Congress. Madam President, I hope the President of the United States and the relevant agencies accept this invitation to work with us. This legislation should be offensive to no one and, if successful, provide reassurance to everyone. There may be attempts to delay this legislation and put this review off for months or years. History is a demanding master, and ultimately it governs all of us. History will never settle for the excuse that we are not ready or it needed more time or it would offend someone. History will demand an answer of how the greatest Nation on Earth, with the greatest intelligence and military capabilities ever conceived by man, was laid vulnerable by a small band of terrorists who brought destruction to our greatest city and the very seat of our military authority. History will demand it, and we should answer it. It is not the responsibility of another generation to revisit this matter in 20 years. It is not the responsibility of our successors to return to this in another decade. The responsibility for the safety of the country and governance of its institutions is ours, and this legislation is ours. It should be adopted. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TORRICELLI

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

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, throughout all of my adult life, I have traveled frequently to Israel. I have had the honor of knowing almost all of Israel's principal leaders. As many Americans though I am of the Christian faith, I have always felt a strong identity with the struggle of the Jewish people and the survival of the Jewish State. I believe the American relationship with Israel is complex: Our sense that Israel represents the edges of Western civilization; the identity of a struggling people simply desiring to survive; the sense of humanity's obligation to the Jewish people who have survived the Holocaust; and, of course, an inevitable American identity with a democracy, a pluralist state that shares our most basic value. Through this association, I have witnessed Israel in many struggles. Years ago, all Americans marveled at Israel's ability to overcome extraordinary military adversity in the 1967 war facing overwhelming conventional arms against them. In 1973, a similar array of armed forces having entered the very heart of Israel and being turned back was a demonstration of remarkable courage and sacrifice by the Israeli people. In the years that followed, there was the conventional conflict in which Israel's triumph was matched by her ability to stand down mounting strategic armaments from the Syrians, the launching of limited missiles from Lebanon. In each of these conflicts, courage, determination, guile, and skill allowed Israel to survive. None of these things, however, would have prepared any of us for the conflict in which Israel is now engaged. Previous generations overcoming strategic weapons and conventional weapons and the guerrilla warfare of the war of independence are in some ways little preparation for what the current generation of Israelis are experiencing. It is the ultimate test of any Western society. It goes to the heart of the ability of any country to be able to endure when terrorism strikes the center of our cities, destroys our families, interrupts our means of transportation, denies the ability of our economies to function, our democracies to vibrantly engage in debate in the prospect of such terror. It is a conflict not simply between two sides but two centuries, two concepts of life, two abilities to organize society. I felt confident in Israel's previous wars, despite the odds, the overwhelming weapons, or the disparity of manpower because courage and intellect would dictate the result. There is no amount of courage, no amount of intellect that can face down a terrorist bombing. This is a different war. It is dangerous. My concern is amplified by the voices in Asia and Europe that were once so sympathetic to the struggling Jewish State that are now at best silent and often giving comfort to Israel's enemies. Those Europeans which shared American responsibility for the children of the Holocaust somehow have forgotten. Those in Europe who admired the courage of the Israelis in building a democracy are silent. Those Europeans who in every case would reach out to another democratic society with an identification, a brotherhood of pluralist democracies, now seem to fail to find any identity in Israel. There are so many emotions that this brings forward for Americans. It should thus be said at the outset, if in this struggle Israel and America must stand alone, then Israel and America never stood in better company. In this struggle, victory will not be by the numbers. We will not be intimidated by the coalitions or silenced by the critics. This is a fight about principle. And the strength of the Jewish cause in Israel may best be defined by its objectives. Jews want to survive in their own homeland. This is not a struggle about conquest or wealth or national pride; it is survival. Jews stay in Israel or they die with their backs to the sea. That is what the struggle is about. I recognize that many of our European friends, for their own economic or political reasons, may no longer identify with Israel. They may have made their arrangements elsewhere. History has a short memory. To them, the obligations of the Holocaust or the promise to the Jewish people of their homeland may be a distant memory. Maybe Israel and America will fight alone, but it should not be forgotten that we may fight alone, but this is not our fight alone. If terrorism succeeds in Israel, who among us would doubt that its next battlefield will be Europe? Certainly no one in my State of New Jersey doubts that it will be America. We have seen terrorism. Woodrow Wilson once said that America's two best friends were the Atlantic and the Pacific. They have become very little friends. Terrorism in another part of the world, halfway around the globe, offers no comfort to any American by its distance; it can be here tomorrow. The fight for Israel's security is the fight for the security of every free nation, whether they are aligned with Israel, whether they wish Israel well. She fights our fight, and her fate is our fate. There are many obstacles to a peaceful resolution in the Middle East. I believe profoundly that there will never be a military answer to the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis. These are two people of some common ancestry who live in a shared land. Both will learn to live together. As profoundly as I believe in a peace process, I am also convinced that unless the Palestinian Authority understands that terrorism will not succeed, that there is no military answer, and that at all costs Israel will survive, no negotiated settlement is possible. There are those who may think that their military operations at the moment give them advantage in negotiations. There are others who believe their military operations hold not the promise of the West Bank and Gaza as a Palestinian State, but the destruction of the Jewish State in its entirety. To them, there is not a Palestinian State envisioned in the West Bank and Gaza, but in Haifa and Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. I have never represented any cause in the Middle East other than a negotiated settlement. I believe profoundly in the peace process as essential to the survival of Israel and in the interest of the Palestinian people, but I refuse to counsel Israel that it should negotiate with people bent on its destruction, or that it is of any value to engage in peace negotiations as long as their adversaries believe that a military victory is possible and Israel's entire destruction conceivable. It is almost axiomatic to declare that peace negotiations and peace settlements are historically nothing but a reflection of the realities on the battlefield. The reality that Americans and Israelis see is two people in a common land who need their own homelands. That makes peace negotiations by Americans or Israelis not only possible but inevitable. But no nation can negotiate with itself, nor can peace be unilaterally declared. Unless the Palestinians, and not simply the Palestinian Authority but important elements of the society, recognize that such military outcomes are impossible, only then will peace negotiations be meaningful. There are those in America who genuinely believe that by pressuring Israel not to respond militarily, not to seek terrorists in their own territory, we are giving good advice to the Israeli Government. It is a difficult argument to understand in an American context. Who in this Senate would be counseling the U.S. Government, after a terrorist attack, to exercise restraint? Which Member of the Senate would suggest to our own military, if Chicago or Miami or Los Angeles were to fall victim to a terrorist attack, that we should not respond? Which part of the American arsenal would you withhold if it were American cities experiencing bombings, American buses being destroyed, American children losing their limbs? I dare to say there is not a Member of this Senate who would urge restraint or withhold a single weapon in our arsenal. The Palestinians may believe there is little for them to be grateful for today. Their cities are being destroyed. The Israeli Army has occupied parts of the West Bank. Gaza awaits an invasion. There is something, however, for which they should be grateful. If it were the United States of America that endured these attacks and not Israel, the response they have experienced from the Israeli Army would be a small shadow of the problems that would be visited upon them. Finally, there are those in the Senate who wonder, with Israelis having to respond with their lives, the Israeli economy in shambles, what is it any American can do? How is it that in this moment of crisis we can exercise true fidelity with Israel in its fight for survival? Our words are important. So is our presence in Israel. Nothing would demonstrate more our commitment to Israel than Members of Congress, like the American people themselves, being present, exhibiting courage, showing our commitment. In this Senate, we 100 have a different opportunity. The fight for Israel's survival is not only militarily decided, it is also economically decided. The Clinton administration 18 months ago, after the withdrawal from Lebanon, pledged Israel $450 million for supplemental assistance. It was to compensate for the withdrawal, to help recreate a security zone in the north of Israel, and for missile defense. That money was never provided. Regrettably, the Bush administration never even included it in its recommendations for the Congress this year. At a time when Israelis look across the sea to America for confidence of their own survival, broken American promises are not helpful. Indeed, they are troubling. The first thing this Congress can do is ensure that every commitment is kept, all resources are given. In the current stage of this fight against terrorism, despite all the sacrifices of September 11 and the courage of our soldiers in Afghanistan, at this moment most Americans are not asked to sacrifice with their lives. We have experienced that before. It may come again. At this moment, the sacrifice is Israeli. The least we can do is help them with the means to win this war. All of us look for the words telegraphed around the world to those who believe that the Jewish state was both created and will die in a single generation, words to put at rest those who are committing their energy and their resources to this war on terrorism against Israel. Here are mine: Israel is forever. As long as there is a United States of America, there will be an Israel. It took 2,000 years for the Jewish people to get home. They have been there for a single generation. They are not leaving. Those in Europe who would counsel or comfort her enemies, those in the Middle East who are bent on her destruction, would do best to accept that reality. There is land enough for all peoples to decide their own governments and design their own futures. Let there be no question, for those who respect the will and the power of the United States of America, one of those peoples will be Jewish and one of those countries will be Israel. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the efforts of Pastor Alvin Stokes, Sr. of Trinity A.M.E. Church and congratulate him on his forthcoming retirement. Pastor Stokes has served as a positive and energetic force within the New Jersey communities he has served. In his efforts as a member of the clergy, he organized the United Black Clergy Association of Bridgeton and aided in obtaining plans to build the new Grant A.M.E. Church. Perhaps his most important work, however, has been through his ministry to his parishioners at Trinity A.M.E. Church, where he has been pastor since 1979. While Pastor Stokes has a strong presence outside of his ministry, some of his greatest efforts have been on behalf of the schoolchildren of New Jersey. During his time in Chesilhurst, he served on the School board and organized efforts that led to the construction of the community's first elementary school. He has also served on the New Jersey Federation of District School Boards, a county Task Force for school dropouts and teen pregnancy, and the Fairfield Township's School Crisis Committee. I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the efforts of Pastor Stokes to improve the lives of those around him. The people of New Jersey are truly grateful for his service.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I rise today to acknowledge the Reverend Dr. S. Howard Woodson, Jr., after whom Calhoun St. in Trenton is being renamed. It has been an honor for the State of New Jersey to have the service of an individual with the immense talents of the Reverend Woodson. In his efforts to serve the community, Reverend Woodson has used his leadership skills to effect positive change throughout the State. After moving to Trenton in 1946 and becoming pastor of Shiloh Baptist Church, the Reverend Woodson became actively involved in the civil rights movement. As Chairman of the segregated board of the Carver YMCA, he fought to be granted independent status by the National YMCA, which led to the establishment of its own branch, freeing it from the supervision of the central office. This was a first for the Nation. During his time as President of the State Conference of the NAACP, he convinced then Governor Richard Hughes to convene the first state-wide conference on housing discrimination, out of which grew important minority housing legislation. Over the course of his political career, the Reverend Woodson had the distinction of being the first person of color elected as councilman-at-large in Trenton. He was also the first person of color to serve as Chairman of the Ranking Legislative Committee, Assistant Democratic Leader, and Speaker of the State House. But, the impact of the Reverend Woodson extends beyond his work in the areas of civil rights and politics. Through his leadership, Shiloh Baptist Church was able to erect a new center of worship and began numerous community outreach programs such as the Clean Neighborhood Drive and a Neighborhood Get Acquainted program. I am proud to extend my congratulations to the Reverend Woodson on this special occasion.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I rise today to recognize the Community Problem Solving Team at the Dr. John Howard Jr. School in East Rutherford. The group, consisting of 12 fourth and fifth graders, has assisted persons who have experienced personal tragedy in their lives in hopes that they can be of help in improving their situation. This group of youngsters has worked incredibly hard to help so many get through the most difficult of times. They have volunteered 20 times in an after school program for homeless children at the Whitney Houston School, visited the Brookhaven Health Care Center to uplift patients' spirits, and have already volunteered a total of 600 hours towards this project. The group has also collected 150 new toys to be given during the holiday season and collected over 1,500 canned goods and perishable foods for needy families and a local food pantry. Besides gathering these material goods, the Community Problem Solving Team has been able to contribute fiscally. They applied for and were awarded a $500 grant towards their cause, in addition to raising $1,180 through the sales of candy bars and lollipops. In the coming weeks the group plans to present a high school senior in their community, whose sister was tragically struck and killed by a stolen automobile, a scholarship check to help her further her education. Through the efforts of these grade school children, many members of their community are now living happier lives. Even at their young ages, they are being active in their community and working towards making this world a better place. I would like to take this opportunity to salute the Community Problem Solving Team at the Dr. John Howard Jr. School's for their service to the community, their countless acts of compassion, and commitment to their fellow citizens. May their spirit of service and community be a model for all of us to admire and emulate.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the outstanding career of Rev. Dr. Calvin McKinney, Pastor of the Calvary Baptist Church of Garfield. For the past 30 years, he has given dedicated and distinguished service to his community. Rev. Dr. McKinney, a native of Passaic, NJ, has lead a remarkable and memorable life with many accomplishments such as serving as the youngest Moderator in the history of the North Jersey District Missionary Baptist Association. Additionally, he served from 1996 to 2000 in an unprecedented tenure as one of the youngest Presidents in the history of the 300,000 member General Baptist Convention of New Jersey. In addition to his role as Pastor of the Calvary Baptist Church, Rev. Dr. McKinney has served his community in numerous capacities ranging from Commissioner of the Housing Authority of the City of Passaic, NJ to Executive Board member of the Garfield/Lodi, NJ Branch of the NAACP. Under the leadership of Rev. Dr. McKinney, the Calvary Baptist Church has enjoyed tremendous growth and development in its membership and its ministry to the community. It is my firm belief that Rev. Dr. McKinney will continue this fine tradition of community service in the years to come, and will serve with distinction as both Pastor to his community and father to his three children. I am proud to recognize the many accomplishments and contributions of Rev. Dr. Calvin McKinney and I am confident that the Calvary Baptist Church will continue to flourish under his leadership.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, earlier this morning, Senators Corzine, Clinton, Schumer, and Durbin were all here to join with me in making a common case. I hope they will be joining me during the course of the day, if they are able to return. If not, I would like to deliver what I believe is a common concern. This morning Senators heard from my colleagues about the pressing problems of financing education in America in a difficult budget environment. I share in that concern. I rise with a matter of equal importance for each of our States and all of our communities; that is, the rising pressure on medical care in America as a result of our difficult budget circumstances. In the next few months the Senate Finance Committee and then the Senate itself is going to be debating the question of how to fund different components of American health care in this difficult budgetary environment. That debate will affect doctors and their ability to maintain their practices and the integrity of their profession; home health care providers and their ability to provide service to those who are often locked in their own homes and need desperately to have care; nursing homes, in many cases not simply the quality of their care but whether hundreds of nursing homes around the country continue to operate at all; and teaching hospitals. It is teaching hospitals this morning that I want to address in detail because in some ways their plight is the most perilous and the issue most immediate. Since 1983, this Congress has recognized the unique role of teaching hospitals in the delivery of American health care. They have a particular contribution to make, providing technology dealing with difficult cases and providing the doctors themselves for each of our States and all of our hospitals. In recognition of these unique costs, the Congress created the Medicare indirect medical education funding, IME. For more than these 20 years, there was an adjustment for the 1,100 teaching hospitals around the country; that is, they were given a 6.5-percent additional payment for Medicare to fund their unique contributions, recognizing that all hospitals and all communities benefited by these few flagship hospitals in the Nation, these 1,100 institutions that made unique contributions. This 6.5-percent payment was maintained in good years and bad years, years of deficits and surpluses, because we recognized that without them the medical system in the country simply could not be maintained at its current quality. That is until now. On October 1 the 6.5-percent payment for 1,100 teaching hospitals will be reduced to a 5.5-percent additional payment. It is important that Members of the Senate understand the consequences. The first is to medical technology. All hospitals in America are important, but all do not make an equal contribution. The 1,100 teaching hospitals in America are the source of almost every major medical breakthrough in the country: drug-coated stents which prop open clogged arteries and prevent scar tissue from closing up the artery again--teaching hospitals; implanted cardio defibrillators, such as the one used by Vice President Cheney, to keep heart rhythm regular--teaching hospitals; EKGs or heart-lung machines, open heart surgery, and angioplasties--teaching hospitals. Indeed, if you were to go through every major medical advance of our generation, they would come back to the best minds and the best facilities and the best medical departments --in teaching hospitals. That is what is in jeopardy. Certainly, as it is the leadership of technology in the medical profession, so, too, it is with the most important delivery of services. The chart on my left shows the difference in the burden being carried by these relatively few hospitals. Crisis prevention services are delivered by 11 percent of other hospitals; teaching hospitals, 52 percent. Teaching hospitals, 91 percent of them deal with AIDS service deliveries, 24 percent of other hospitals; geriatric services, 75 percent of teaching hospitals are in geriatric cases, 35 percent of other hospitals; substance abuse, 47 percent compared to 14; nutrition programs, 84 percent of teaching hospitals deal with nutrition programs, 58 percent of other hospitals. This extraordinary concentration of the development of technology, and dealing with the most difficult and most pressing of the Nation's medical problems, is the basis--the reason why we have additionally provided 6.5 percent. This addition to Medicare is something on which we have never before compromised in recognition of the higher costs and societal contributions. I recognize in the Senate there is a belief that these teaching hospitals are simply a matter for northern New Jersey or Manhattan, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, or Miami--a few urban centers servicing a small part of the population. That could not be further from the truth. Last year, teaching hospitals around the Nation admitted 15 million people and provided care to 41 million Americans in emergency rooms. These teaching hospitals may have elite talent and give important care with advanced technology, but it is not for a select few; they are facilities used by all Americans in every State wherever you live. I cannot overstate that in my region of the country or in my State it will not be a particular problem. It will be. But that burden is shared by all States. Because of this, when we confronted the issue of two previous Medicare give-back bills to compensate for the balanced budget amendment, Congress in 2000 and 2001 maintained the 6.5-percent IME adjustment. As I have noted to my colleagues, that expires on October 1. Automatically, it will return to a 5.5-percent adjustment. This is a 28-percent reduction in funding at teaching hospitals. The consequences are that over 5 years, $5.6 billion will not go for medical breakthroughs in AIDS, cancer, or heart disease; $5.6 billion is not available to teach and train the next generation of America's doctors; and $5.6 billion is not available to deal with the most difficult medical problems in the country. This chart illustrates the degree of loss. Mr. President, 1,116 teaching hospitals in America will lose next year $784 million and, over 5 years, $4.2 billion. In my State of New Jersey, this is as acute as anyplace in the country. In some ways, it is more so. Next year, New Jersey's teaching hospitals will lose $31 million. This is a State where 60 percent of our hospitals are now losing money. Those that are making money on average are making less than a 1 percent return on capital. Over 5 years, New Jersey's teaching hospitals will lose $166 million. This does not just mean a reduction in services. It does not mean just a reduction in quality of care. It means that many will close. I recognize the perception is that this is our problem, or New York's, or California's, or Illinois'. Allow me to share with my colleagues this information, lest you think this is our problem alone. We may have more teaching hospitals than anyplace in the country, but this is your problem, too. Arizona will lose $40 million; Arkansas, $13 million; Florida, $98 million; Massachusetts, $248 million; Maine, $15 million; New Mexico, $7 million; North Dakota, $3.7 million; and Oklahoma, $30 million. My colleagues, we are in this together. The infrastructure that has created the greatest medical care in the world has been strained. Now it will be broken. Doctors will not be trained. These medical breakthroughs do not occur by chance. It has taken generations over a century to build these institutions and generations of building teaching staff and trained professionals to give us the greatest medical profession in the world. It may be that this is concentrated in a dozen States. But the great medical centers of New York, Chicago, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Florida, and California are sending doctors to every State in the Nation. There is not one State in this country that will not this year or next year have had a doctor trained at a teaching hospital in New Jersey, or several from New York, or several from Boston, or Chicago, or Los Angeles. They go to Montana and the Dakotas. They go to New Mexico. They go to the Great Plains. They go to the Deep South. But most of them are trained in our urban centers. Their ability to continue to train is now at its end. I don't know how the medical profession continues on its current basis. Doctors are closing offices for insurance reasons. Because Medicare payments are no longer adequate to meet the cost of service, offices are closing. Doctors move instead to practice at other hospitals. Now we are going to reduce reimbursements to hospitals. Some of those will close. We have known for a long time that the current quality of medical care in America and the extent of service through different levels of income and class cannot be maintained. We have postponed it. The inability of this Congress and the country to have a national system of health care delivery with privately or nationally based insurance has strained every degree of health care delivery. We have done our business to maintain it. We have even been able to maintain these hospitals by maintaining the IME system. Now that is at its end. There is introduced in the Senate the American Hospital Preservation Act which would maintain the current IME adjustment at 6.5 percent. I am a cosponsor. Its major provisions will be before the Senate Finance Committee when we consider how to deal with the medical crisis in America. I cannot more strongly urge my colleagues to follow the leadership of this legislation and consider seriously the consequences of allowing expiration of IME adjustment, what it will mean to these hospitals, what it will mean to the medical care profession, and what it will mean to every one of your communities and every one of your States when the local doctor who went away to the big city to become trained no longer comes home with his or her training and special skills and ability to save lives. The spigot is closed. Everybody is on their own. The teaching hospital just closed. That, my colleagues, is no longer on the horizon. It is no longer speculation. That is exactly what we are faced with--the real consequences of losing our leadership in these technological breakthroughs and providing these very specially trained people. I know earlier in the day Senator Schumer, Senator Clinton, Senator Corzine, and Senator Durbin were to be here to share in these remarks. Regrettably, they were delayed because our colleagues were speaking, understandably and justifiably, on other issues. I know that on other days they will come to the Chamber to speak about these same concerns. Each of them would like to be identified with this case. We will come back to fight this on other days. This is not going away. We are not going to be silent. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I will be happy to if the Senator has time.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, last year, the Senate made significant strides in easing the burdens of American families facing the mounting costs of a college education. In an initiative that I have sponsored, and in which I take enormous pride--the tax reduction legislation of last year--there is a provision allowing partial tuition, for the first time in American history, to become tax deductible. Another measure that I successfully authored raised a cap on interest on student loans so that they could become deductible. In many ways, for middle-income families--indeed, for all American families--this was enormously helpful in easing the burden of an expensive college education. You can imagine how distressed I was to discover in recent days that the administration has a new initiative that would now increase the burden of financing a college education--just as we were making all of this progress. The proposal, of course, is to prohibit the consolidation of student loans at low, fixed interest rates. This will compound the problems of millions of American families who rely upon student loans to finance a college education. Under their current program, a family can take their various student loans, consolidate them in a single loan, and fix them at a determined interest rate, which is predictable and will not alter for the life of the loan. The savings, obviously, will allow students to consider going beyond college to graduate education. It allows young people who have these debts to begin families, buy homes, and start their lives. Under the alternative proposal by the administration, students graduating from college will have variable interest loans. That would make it impossible to plan young lives. The debts begin at high interest rates and they are then subject to the market. Young families having children, buying homes, in 5 years could find interest rates at significantly higher levels. They can go from college to graduate school and in the middle of graduate school discover their interest rates are going up and they cannot remain in school. This will affect an incredible 700,000 students per year who will have their finances radically changed by this inability to consolidate loans. The administration argues that most of this consolidation is being done by medical students or law students who are going to have very high incomes so they can face this burden. First, that is inaccurate. The average consolidated loan is $15,000. There are hundreds of thousands of students with these loans. Most of them are college students. They are getting bachelor's degrees. They may be going into teaching or social work or business; they may be young entrepreneurs; they could be of any walk of life; but they are at a stage of life when they cannot afford what amounts to a tax. Make no mistake, this is a tax proposed by the Bush administration on middle-income families and college students. There is scarcely a segment of American society that can less afford a tax increase. This Senate recognized that fact last year. That is why my amendments to make college tuition tax deductible and to raise the cap on the deduction of student loans were accepted. We wanted to reduce the costs of college education, not increase them. Even if the administration were right and many of these loans were going for medical students or law students or business students, does that make it the right priority for the country? Do we really want to make it even more expensive for people to go into medicine when doctors are already leaving the profession? Do we really want to make it harder for people to go to graduate school when we need engineers and businesspeople with real talents? This cannot be the right priority for the country. I hope the administration will reconsider this proposal. The administration needs revenue. This cannot be the right way to approach it. Strangely, in this same Congress, while raising taxes on middle- income families and college students, the administration is proposing to revisit the estate tax, which we have already lowered, and increase the threshold so that only less than half of a percentage point of Americans are even subjected to the tax. And the rates on those people have been lowered. We are going to revisit that tax while taxing college students and middle-income families. I cannot be the only person in this institution who thinks this does not make any sense for the country or the Congress. I hope we do not have a confrontation with the Bush administration on this point. I hope they reconsider it. I hope they withdraw it. It is just the wrong thing to do. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum and the time be charged equally against both sides.

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

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I am pleased to join Senators Leahy and Daschle today as an original cosponsor of the Seniors Safety Act, legislation that has been referred to as ``a new safety net for seniors.'' It is that, but it is also much more. Indeed, this bill is a potent weapon designed to track down and punish those criminals who would prey on the trust and good will of America's seniors. This bill puts crooks on notice that crimes against seniors, from violent assaults in the streets, to abuses in nursing homes, to frauds perpetrated over the telephone lines, will not be tolerated. Seniors represent the most rapidly growing sector of our population. In the next 50 years, the number of Americans over the age of 65 will more than double. Unless we take action now, the frequency and sophistication of crimes against seniors will likewise skyrocket. The Seniors Safety Act was developed to address, head-on, the crimes which most directly affect the senior community, including telemarketing fraud, and abuse and fraud in the health care and nursing home industries. It increases penalties and provides enhancements to the sentencing guidelines for criminals who target seniors. It protects seniors against the illegal depletion of precious pension and employee benefit plan funds through fraud, graft, and bribery, and helps victimized seniors obtain restitution. And finally, this bill authorizes the Attorney General to study the problem of crime against seniors, and design new techniques to fight it. Criminal enterprises that engage in telemarketing fraud are some of the most insidious predators out there. Americans are fleeced out of over $40 billion dollars every year, and the effect on seniors is grossly disproportionate. According to the American Association of Retired Persons, ``The repeated victimization of the elderly is the cornerstone of illegal telemarketing.'' A study has found that 56 percent of the names on the target lists of fraudulent telemarketers are those of Americans aged 50 or older. Of added concern is the fact that many of the perpetrators have migrated out of the United States for fear of prosecution, and continue to conduct their illegal activities from abroad. In one heartbreaking story, a recently-widowed New Jersey woman was bilked out of $200,000 by a deceitful telemarketing firm from Canada, who claimed that the woman had won a $150,000 sweepstakes, the prize could be hers, for a fee. A series of these calls followed, convincing this poor woman, already in a fragile mind-state after her husband's death, to send more and more money for what they claimed was an increasingly large prize, which, of course, never materialized. Our bill authorizes the Attorney General to effectively put these vultures, even the international criminals, out of business by blocking or terminating their U.S. telephone service. In addition, it authorizes the FTC to create a consumer clearinghouse which would provide seniors, and others who might have questions about the legitimacy of a telephone sales pitch, with information regarding prior complaints about a particular telemarketing company or prior fraud convictions. Furthermore, this clearinghouse would give seniors who may have been cheated an open channel to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. In 1997, older Americans were victimized by violent crime over 680,000 times. The crimes against them range from simple assault, to armed robbery, to rape. While national crime rates in general are falling, seniors have not shared in the benefits of that drop. This Act singles out criminals who prey on the senior population and penalizes them for the physical and economic harm they cause. In addition, we intend to place this growing problem in the spotlight, and urge Congress and Federal and State law enforcement agencies to continue to develop solutions. To this end, we have authorized a comprehensive examination of crimes against seniors, and the inclusion of data on seniors in the National Crime Victims Survey. Seniors across the country have worked their entire lives, secure in the belief that their pensions and health benefits would be there to provide for them in their retirement years. Unfortunately, far too often, seniors wake up one morning to find that their hard-earned benefits have been stolen. In 1997 alone, $90 million in losses to pension funds were uncovered. Older Americans who depend on that money to live are left out in the cold, while criminals enjoy the fruits of a lifetime of our seniors' labor. The Seniors Safety Act gives Federal prosecutors another powerful weapon to punish pension fund thieves. The Act creates new civil and criminal penalties for defrauding pension of benefit plans, or obtaining money from them under false or fraudulent pretenses. The defrauding of Medicare, Medicaid, and private health insurers has become big business for criminals who prey on the elderly. According to a National Institutes of Health study, losses from fraud and abuse may exceed $100 billion per year. Overbilling and false claims filing have become rampant as automated claims processing is more prevalent. Similarly, the Department of Justice has noted numerous cases where unscrupulous nursing home operators have simply pocketed Medicare funds, rather than providing adequate care for their residents. In one horrendous case, five diabetic patient died from malnutrition and lack of medical care. In another, a patient was burned to death when a mute patient was placed by untrained staff in a tub of scalding water. These terrible abuses would never have occurred had the facilities spent the Federal funds they received to implement proper health and safety procedures. This bill goes after fraud and abuse by providing resources and tools for authorities to investigate and prosecute offenses in civil and criminal courts, and enhances the ability of the Justice Department to use evidence brought in by qui tam, whistleblower, plaintiffs. Together these provisions bring much-needed protections to our seniors. It sends a message to the cowardly perpetrators of fraud and other crimes against older Americans, that their actions will be fiercely prosecuted, whether they be here or abroad. And it clearly states that we refuse to allow seniors to be victimized by this most heinous form of predation.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I am pleased to join Senators Leahy and Daschle today as an original cosponsor of the Seniors Safety Act, legislation that has been referred to as ``a new safety net for seniors.'' It is that, but it is also much more. Indeed, this bill is a potent weapon designed to track down and punish those criminals who would prey on the trust and good will of America's seniors. This bill puts crooks on notice that crimes against seniors, from violent assaults in the streets, to abuses in nursing homes, to frauds perpetrated over the telephone lines, will not be tolerated. Seniors represent the most rapidly growing sector of our population. In the next 50 years, the number of Americans over the age of 65 will more than double. Unless we take action now, the frequency and sophistication of crimes against seniors will likewise skyrocket. The Seniors Safety Act was developed to address, head-on, the crimes which most directly affect the senior community, including telemarketing fraud, and abuse and fraud in the health care and nursing home industries. It increases penalties and provides enhancements to the sentencing guidelines for criminals who target seniors. It protects seniors against the illegal depletion of precious pension and employee benefit plan funds through fraud, graft, and bribery, and helps victimized seniors obtain restitution. And finally, this bill authorizes the Attorney General to study the problem of crime against seniors, and design new techniques to fight it. Criminal enterprises that engage in telemarketing fraud are some of the most insidious predators out there. Americans are fleeced out of over $40 billion dollars every year, and the effect on seniors is grossly disproportionate. According to the American Association of Retired Persons, ``The repeated victimization of the elderly is the cornerstone of illegal telemarketing.'' A study has found that 56 percent of the names on the target lists of fraudulent telemarketers are those of Americans aged 50 or older. Of added concern is the fact that many of the perpetrators have migrated out of the United States for fear of prosecution, and continue to conduct their illegal activities from abroad. In one heartbreaking story, a recently-widowed New Jersey woman was bilked out of $200,000 by a deceitful telemarketing firm from Canada, who claimed that the woman had won a $150,000 sweepstakes, the prize could be hers, for a fee. A series of these calls followed, convincing this poor woman, already in a fragile mind-state after her husband's death, to send more and more money for what they claimed was an increasingly large prize, which, of course, never materialized. Our bill authorizes the Attorney General to effectively put these vultures, even the international criminals, out of business by blocking or terminating their U.S. telephone service. In addition, it authorizes the FTC to create a consumer clearinghouse which would provide seniors, and others who might have questions about the legitimacy of a telephone sales pitch, with information regarding prior complaints about a particular telemarketing company or prior fraud convictions. Furthermore, this clearinghouse would give seniors who may have been cheated an open channel to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. In 1997, older Americans were victimized by violent crime over 680,000 times. The crimes against them range from simple assault, to armed robbery, to rape. While national crime rates in general are falling, seniors have not shared in the benefits of that drop. This Act singles out criminals who prey on the senior population and penalizes them for the physical and economic harm they cause. In addition, we intend to place this growing problem in the spotlight, and urge Congress and Federal and State law enforcement agencies to continue to develop solutions. To this end, we have authorized a comprehensive examination of crimes against seniors, and the inclusion of data on seniors in the National Crime Victims Survey. Seniors across the country have worked their entire lives, secure in the belief that their pensions and health benefits would be there to provide for them in their retirement years. Unfortunately, far too often, seniors wake up one morning to find that their hard-earned benefits have been stolen. In 1997 alone, $90 million in losses to pension funds were uncovered. Older Americans who depend on that money to live are left out in the cold, while criminals enjoy the fruits of a lifetime of our seniors' labor. The Seniors Safety Act gives Federal prosecutors another powerful weapon to punish pension fund thieves. The Act creates new civil and criminal penalties for defrauding pension of benefit plans, or obtaining money from them under false or fraudulent pretenses. The defrauding of Medicare, Medicaid, and private health insurers has become big business for criminals who prey on the elderly. According to a National Institutes of Health study, losses from fraud and abuse may exceed $100 billion per year. Overbilling and false claims filing have become rampant as automated claims processing is more prevalent. Similarly, the Department of Justice has noted numerous cases where unscrupulous nursing home operators have simply pocketed Medicare funds, rather than providing adequate care for their residents. In one horrendous case, five diabetic patient died from malnutrition and lack of medical care. In another, a patient was burned to death when a mute patient was placed by untrained staff in a tub of scalding water. These terrible abuses would never have occurred had the facilities spent the Federal funds they received to implement proper health and safety procedures. This bill goes after fraud and abuse by providing resources and tools for authorities to investigate and prosecute offenses in civil and criminal courts, and enhances the ability of the Justice Department to use evidence brought in by qui tam, whistleblower, plaintiffs. Together these provisions bring much-needed protections to our seniors. It sends a message to the cowardly perpetrators of fraud and other crimes against older Americans, that their actions will be fiercely prosecuted, whether they be here or abroad. And it clearly states that we refuse to allow seniors to be victimized by this most heinous form of predation.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I rise today to recognize Thomas V. Dooley for his years of devotion and commitment to the Middlesex County, NJ AFL-CIO Labor Council. Mr. Dooley is retiring from his position as president after many years of outstanding service. A devoted father and husband, Mr. Dooley has played an important and prominent role in Middlesex County labor. Labor has a long history in this country for speaking up for the concerns of workers who would otherwise not be heard. But through the leadership and guidance of people such as Thomas Dooley their voices are being heard and action is being taken. As the International Representative for the Paper, Allied Industrial, Chemical and Energy Worker International Union of New Jersey, Thomas has been an effective and powerful voice for his members on a variety of critical issues. Thomas Dooley has also been very involved in the community. He is currently vice president of the David B. Crabiel Scholarship Foundation, the Assistant Treasurer for the Middlesex County Board of Social Services and is a member of the Board of Directors for New Brunswick Tomorrow. He has excelled in his career, in his community and has dedicated his entire life towards helping others. So I join with Thomas Dooley's brothers and sisters in the labor movement in recognizing his service to the community, his countless acts of compassion, and his commitment to working men and women. May his spirit of service and community be a model for all of us to admire and emulate.