Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Integrity Lodge #51 Prince Hall Masons, who will be celebrating 100 years of service to the community of Paterson, NJ, this month. Prince Hall Masons, the founders of this organization, are the oldest African American fraternity in the United States. This celebration will truly highlight the contributions as well as the many accomplishments that this fine organization has made to its community. Under the direction of Prince Hall Masons, the Integrity Lodge has enjoyed countless success stories. The Integrity Lodge has been recognized for guiding and providing leadership to African Americans. Additionally, the Integrity Lodge has made countless charitable contributions which in turn have positively affected many lives. Through the efforts of this group of people, the community of Paterson has been enriched. I am confident that there are many lives that this organization has changed and I am sure that they find victories on a daily basis. It is my firm belief that the Integrity Lodge will continue this fine tradition of community service in the years to come, and will serve with distinction as tireless advocates on behalf of Paterson, NJ. I congratulate the Integrity Lodge #51 for their 100 years of dedicated service.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Sexual Assault Prosecution Act. This legislation will ensure that no rapist will evade prosecution when there is reliable evidence of their guilt. As Federal law is written today, a rapist can walk away scot-free if they are not charged within five years of committing their crime. This is true even if overwhelming evidence of the offender's guilt, such as a DNA match with evidence taken from the crime scene, is later discovered. Some States, including my home State of New Jersey, have recognized the injustice presented by this situation and have already abolished their statutes of limitations on sexual assault crimes, and many other States are considering similar measures. Given the power and precision of DNA evidence, it is now time that the Federal Government abolish the current statute of limitations on Federal sexual assault crimes. The precision with which DNA evidence can identify a criminal assailant has increased dramatically over the past couple decades. Because of its exactness, DNA evidence is now routinely collected by law enforcement personnel in the course of investigating many crimes, including sexual assault crimes. The DNA profile of evidence collected at a sexual assault crime scene can be compared to the DNA profiles of convicted criminals, or the profile of a particular suspect, in order to determine who committed the crime. Moreover, because of the longevity of DNA evidence, it can be used to positively identify a rapist many years after the actual sexual assault. The enormous advancements in DNA science have greatly expanded law enforcement's ability to investigate and prosecute sexual assault crimes. Unfortunately, the law has not kept pace with science. Given the precise accuracy and reliability of DNA testing, however, the legal and moral justifications for continuing to impose a statute of limitations on sexual assault crimes are extremely weak. To that end, I am introducing the ``Sexual Assault Prosecution Act'' which will eliminate the statue of limitations for sexual assault crimes. This legislation will not affect the burdens of proof and the government will still have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before any person could be convicted of a crime. Currently, the statue of limitations for arson and financial institution crimes is 10 years and is 20 years for crimes involving the theft of major artwork. If it made sense to extend the traditional five-year limitations period for these offenses, surely it makes sense to do so for sexual assault crimes, particularly when DNA technology makes it possible to identify an offender many years after the commission of the crime. By eliminating this ticking clock, we can see to if that no victim of sexual assault is denied justice simply because the clock ran out. I look forward to working with each and every one of you in order to get this legislation enacted into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to extend my support and thanks to the members of the National Police Defense Foundation (NPDF). The NPDF is dedicating this year's Annual Awards Dinner to the many heroes of September 11. The events of September 11 represent one of the most tragic events in American history. However, in the horror of the moment, many of our bravest set aside all of their conflicting emotions and rose to the occasion. Many risked and sacrificed their lives to save others, and we are grateful for all they achieved. I would like to extend my congratulations to former NYC Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik for being honored as ``Man of the Year'' and Dr. Deborah Mandell as ``Woman of the Year.'' Both have given a great deal of themselves and provided invaluable leadership during this time of crisis. Commissioner Kerik is to be commended for his leadership and the support he provided to many in the aftermath of this tragedy. Dr. Mandell should also be commended for spearheading the NPDF's emergency response team that provided critical grief counseling and support services to many of the survivors, family members, and rescue workers. I would also like to extend my congratulations to: Chief Robert Caron for receiving the Special Achievement Award Sgt. John McLaughlin and P.O. William Jimeno for receiving the Profile in Courage Award P.O. Joseph Zarrelli and Stephanie Matoursek for receiving the Operation Kids Special Achievement Award All of the men and women of the NYPD, NY/NJ Port Authority Police, U.S. Customs, U.S. Secret Service and the FBI for receiving the Special Unit Citation Award for their efforts on the Great Kills Landfill Task Force. I am proud to join the NPDF in honoring these individuals and the tireless efforts of all of the men and women who on September 11 and its aftermath have worked to help their fellow Americans. They represent all that is truly great about our nation.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Sexual Assault Prosecution Act. This legislation will ensure that no rapist will evade prosecution when there is reliable evidence of their guilt. As Federal law is written today, a rapist can walk away scot-free if they are not charged within five years of committing their crime. This is true even if overwhelming evidence of the offender's guilt, such as a DNA match with evidence taken from the crime scene, is later discovered. Some States, including my home State of New Jersey, have recognized the injustice presented by this situation and have already abolished their statutes of limitations on sexual assault crimes, and many other States are considering similar measures. Given the power and precision of DNA evidence, it is now time that the Federal Government abolish the current statute of limitations on Federal sexual assault crimes. The precision with which DNA evidence can identify a criminal assailant has increased dramatically over the past couple decades. Because of its exactness, DNA evidence is now routinely collected by law enforcement personnel in the course of investigating many crimes, including sexual assault crimes. The DNA profile of evidence collected at a sexual assault crime scene can be compared to the DNA profiles of convicted criminals, or the profile of a particular suspect, in order to determine who committed the crime. Moreover, because of the longevity of DNA evidence, it can be used to positively identify a rapist many years after the actual sexual assault. The enormous advancements in DNA science have greatly expanded law enforcement's ability to investigate and prosecute sexual assault crimes. Unfortunately, the law has not kept pace with science. Given the precise accuracy and reliability of DNA testing, however, the legal and moral justifications for continuing to impose a statute of limitations on sexual assault crimes are extremely weak. To that end, I am introducing the ``Sexual Assault Prosecution Act'' which will eliminate the statue of limitations for sexual assault crimes. This legislation will not affect the burdens of proof and the government will still have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before any person could be convicted of a crime. Currently, the statue of limitations for arson and financial institution crimes is 10 years and is 20 years for crimes involving the theft of major artwork. If it made sense to extend the traditional five-year limitations period for these offenses, surely it makes sense to do so for sexual assault crimes, particularly when DNA technology makes it possible to identify an offender many years after the commission of the crime. By eliminating this ticking clock, we can see to if that no victim of sexual assault is denied justice simply because the clock ran out. I look forward to working with each and every one of you in order to get this legislation enacted into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Gun Kingpin Penalty Act. In introducing this bill, I hope that my colleagues will soon join me in sending a clear and strong signal to gunrunners, your actions will no longer be tolerated. Data gathered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms clearly demonstrates what many of us already know all too well, several of our Nation's highways have become pipelines for merchants of death who deal in illegal firearms. My own State of New Jersey is proud to have some of the toughest gun control laws in the Nation. But for far too long, the courageous efforts of New Jersey citizens in enacting these tough laws have been weakened by out of State gunrunners who treat our State like their own personal retail outlet. ATF data shows that in 1996 New Jersey exported fewer guns used in crimes, per capita, than any other State, less than one gun per 100,000 residents, or 75 total guns. Meanwhile, an incredible number of guns used to commit crimes in New Jersey came from out of State, 944 guns were imported, a net import of 869 illegal guns used to commit crimes against the people of New Jersey. This represents a one way street, guns come from, States with lax gun laws straight to States, like New Jersey, with strong laws. It is clear that New Jersey's strong gun control laws offer criminals little choice but to import their guns from States with weak laws. We must act on a Federal level to send a clear message that this cannot continue and will not be tolerated. The Gun Kingpin Penalty Act would create a new Federal gunrunning offense for any person who, within a twelve-month period, transports more than 5 guns to another State with the intent of transferring all of the weapons to another person. The Act would establish mandatory minimum penalties for gunrunning as follows: a mandatory 3 year minimum sentence for a first offense involving 5-50 guns; a mandatory 5 year minimum sentence for second offense involving 5-50 guns; and a mandatory 15 year minimum sentence for any offense involving more than 50 guns. We can never rest when it comes to gun violence. This problem will not just go away, and we cannot standby and watch as innocent men, women and children die at the hands of criminals armed with these guns. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Gun Kingpin Penalty Act. In introducing this bill, I hope that my colleagues will soon join me in sending a clear and strong signal to gunrunners, your actions will no longer be tolerated. Data gathered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms clearly demonstrates what many of us already know all too well, several of our Nation's highways have become pipelines for merchants of death who deal in illegal firearms. My own State of New Jersey is proud to have some of the toughest gun control laws in the Nation. But for far too long, the courageous efforts of New Jersey citizens in enacting these tough laws have been weakened by out of State gunrunners who treat our State like their own personal retail outlet. ATF data shows that in 1996 New Jersey exported fewer guns used in crimes, per capita, than any other State, less than one gun per 100,000 residents, or 75 total guns. Meanwhile, an incredible number of guns used to commit crimes in New Jersey came from out of State, 944 guns were imported, a net import of 869 illegal guns used to commit crimes against the people of New Jersey. This represents a one way street, guns come from, States with lax gun laws straight to States, like New Jersey, with strong laws. It is clear that New Jersey's strong gun control laws offer criminals little choice but to import their guns from States with weak laws. We must act on a Federal level to send a clear message that this cannot continue and will not be tolerated. The Gun Kingpin Penalty Act would create a new Federal gunrunning offense for any person who, within a twelve-month period, transports more than 5 guns to another State with the intent of transferring all of the weapons to another person. The Act would establish mandatory minimum penalties for gunrunning as follows: a mandatory 3 year minimum sentence for a first offense involving 5-50 guns; a mandatory 5 year minimum sentence for second offense involving 5-50 guns; and a mandatory 15 year minimum sentence for any offense involving more than 50 guns. We can never rest when it comes to gun violence. This problem will not just go away, and we cannot standby and watch as innocent men, women and children die at the hands of criminals armed with these guns. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for yielding time and offer my congratulations to Senator Feingold and Senator McCain for an extraordinary effort against all the odds over a long period of time which brings the Senate to this moment. Like many of my colleagues, I intend to join in only a matter of moments in voting for the most fundamental campaign finance reform to reach this Congress in several decades. It is an important moment for the Congress. It is an attempt to restore public confidence and also to give ourselves a sense of confidence. None of us feels good about the financial pressures under which this institution operates. None of us feels good knowing that the public believes that all Americans do not stand equally in the eyes of the Senate. It is a situation that cannot endure. Today, we decide that it will not endure. I have supported every form of campaign finance reform for each of the 20 years in which I have served in the Congress. This is the most important. There are critical components of the legislation that I think make a great contribution: Elimination of soft money, raising the hard money limits, and the controlling of independent expenditures in the final weeks of a campaign. But I also think it is important not to raise expectations that all problems are being solved or that this is the last time our generation will need to make adjustments in the manner in which campaigns operate in America. First, the legislative fight over campaign finance reform is about to end. The judicial fight is about to begin. All of us recognize that the attempt to control independent expenditures may not be constitutional. If the courts indeed find that this is an infringement on free speech, the delicate balance of this legislation will be broken. Soft money will have been eliminated and fundraising by the political parties will be controlled. But independent groups would largely operate without restriction. It would be regrettable. I believe the courts will be in error. But it could happen. If it happens, and if the courts rule that the control of independent expenditures is unconstitutional, there is a risk that both the political parties and Federal candidates are to be nothing more than spectators in American elections with interest groups controlling the debate, raising the funds, and distorting the process. The challenge for this Congress, if that is the ruling of the court, is that we must return and find a way to ensure that candidates and political parties are not dominated by these independent voices. Second, this is an extraordinary victory for the controlling of campaign fundraising in large amounts to restore some sense of equality among donors, and, more importantly, among citizens. But the greatest unfinished aspect of the agenda in political reform is campaign spending. Campaign fundraising will never be brought into permissible limits with an acceptable demand on candidate time or amounts of money raised until the fundamental problem of campaign expenditures is addressed. This Senate met that responsibility. By a vote of 69 to 31, the Senate voted to reduce the cost of television advertising to the lowest unit cost. It was a critical reform, because most Federal candidates will tell you, it isn't just how much money is being raised, it is the time spent raising it, the extraordinary amounts of money that need to be accumulated. And 85 percent of that money is going to television networks. In an extraordinary act of hypocrisy, the same television networks, which have championed the cause of campaign finance reform, spent millions of dollars on lobbyists and exerted the very kind of financial pressure this legislation is intended to eliminate in saving themselves from being part of campaign finance reform. The provisions reducing the cost of television advertising were eliminated in the House of Representatives. We must never give up on that fight. Without these provisions reducing the costs of Federal campaigns by some manner or some form, money will find its way into the political system. In this legislation, we may vote to eliminate soft money to political parties, but if that demand remains on Federal candidates, some system will be invented or found, some loophole developed, to get the money into the system. I am proud to vote for this legislation. But I challenge the Senate, as McCain-Feingold is passed: Make it the beginning of a reform, not the end of reform. Let us return, next year, or even in the coming months, and challenge ourselves to do better: reduce the cost of campaigns, continue to find the mechanisms to assure every American that they have an equal chance and an equal voice to be heard. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Melvin R. Scott, Jr., who will be receiving the Nelson Mandela Education Award from the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists. Throughout his distinguished career, Mr. Scott has served his fellow Americans in two vital capacities, serving in the U.S. Army and as an educator. After serving as a Training Officer at Fort Campbell and undertaking advance training at the Infantry School at Fort Benning, he went overseas and served in the Korean War. During his service in Korea, Mr. Scott was honored with the Bronze Star, a Medal of Commendation, and an Expert Infantry Badge with clusters. After Mr. Scott's tour of duty in Korea, he returned to the United States and began his career in education. He began as a substitute teacher in Pittsburgh and through hard work became a member of the Vineland Board of Education in New Jersey on which he still currently serves. As a member of the board, Mr. Scott has overseen all federally funded programs since 1965. He has also been named Teacher of the Year and served in interim capacities as Principal of the Bridgeton Summer Program and Vice-Principal at Bridgeton Elementary School. In addition to his military service and time as an educator, Mr. Scott has also been an active member of his community. He was President of the Health Service Committee for the City of Vineland for eleven years, is a member of the South Jersey Umpires Association, on the Red Cross Advisory Committee for the City of Vineland, and is a member of numerous other organizations. Mr. Scott is truly a distinguished American. We are all better off for the dedication he has shown to protecting his nation and to bettering the lives of his fellow New Jerseyans.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today I rise to honor Ernest D. Coursey, a true citizen and servant of Atlantic City, New Jersey. As a leader of the City's Council, he has worked diligently to improve the daily lives of his neighbors and bring opportunity and hope to the thousands who call Atlantic City home. For his work and commitment, Mr. Coursey will receive the Charles A. Hayes Award, named for an outstanding public servant, a veteran of the United States Congress, and passionate defender of civil, human, and worker's rights. First elected Third Ward Councilman on the Atlantic City Council in 1991, Mr. Coursey quickly emerged as a leader. He rose first to Council Vice President and later to Council President, while never forgetting his constituents, focusing on the needs of children and Seniors. His annual holiday events, food drives and Senior and Youth Days united the entire city and increased the sense of community. After serving on the City's Council, he was appointed Confidential Aide to the Mayor. This new role has enabled Mr. Coursey to bring his considerable leadership skills and knowledge of the residents' needs to the entire City. As a life-long Atlantic City resident, Ernest D. Coursey has demonstrated his commitment to public service and to the citizens of his hometown. His receipt of the Charles D. Hayes Award is not only a fitting recognition of his many accomplishments, but is also an appropriate tribute to the legacy of Charles Hayes. It is my privilege to acknowledge Mr. Coursey today.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the distinguished career of one of my constituents, Mrs. Beatrice Corbin of Vineland, New Jersey. She truly exemplifies a life, selflessly dedicated to service, and she is held in the highest regard by the members of her community. As evidence of Mrs. Corbin's widespread admiration and appreciation, she has been honored with the Alzada Clark Community Activism Award by the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists in New Jersey. This award is a magnificent recognition of an individual who has tirelessly given of herself throughout her career, and it is my privilege to acknowledge her today in the United States Senate. In her capacity as Commissioner of the Vineland Housing Authority, she has brought hope to an entire community through her leadership and dedication. Indeed, her career is marked by an unyielding commitment to young people and uplifting those living in poverty as she has served as an advisor to the Martin Luther King Academy for Youth and Center and Field Director for the Southwest Citizens Organization for Poverty Elimination. Her outstanding record of service is also distinguished by a long list of prestigious awards including the Harriet Tubman Award, the Liberty Bell Award, the National Political Congress of Black Women Award, the NAACP and Bridgeton African American Award and an induction into the Comberland County Black Hall of Fame. Mrs. Corbin has met every challenge, every task and every duty with unwavering faith and an unflinching commitment to the people she serves. I am proud to recognize her today as one of New Jersey's Best.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Leamon Hood, who will soon receive the Nelson ``Jack'' Hood Award for his commitment to the labor community, and his political and social activism. Leamon was born in 1937 in Jackson Georgia, a small town outside of Atlanta. The fifth of seven children to former sharecroppers, Leamon lived there for the first 15 years of his life, before moving to Atlanta after the death of his mother. In his senior year in high school, Leamon dropped out to join the United States Navy, where he subsequently earned his G.E.D. and was trained as a Certified Air Mechanic. It was after he left the Navy in 1960 that Mr. Hood first experienced the string of job discrimination, when racist hiring practices prevented him from getting employment as a civilian aircraft mechanic. As a result, Leamon went to work as a janitor in a paint manufacturing company. However, he again was confronted with discrimination when in 1962 he was fired from his job as a janitor after refusing to join the Teamsters Union, which at the time contractually restricted blacks to jobs in the service department. Ultimately, Leamon became a school custodian in Atlanta and helped organize the Classified School employees into AFSCME. Yet even though he helped to organize his peers into AFSCME, Leamon himself refused to join again as a result of the persistent segregation and discrimination he found in the union. That finally changed in 1964, when the new President of AFSCME, Jerry Wurf, removed all official racial barriers of segregation and discrimination. Leamon joined the union, and became one of its most active members, at one point even seeking to become President of his local. Though he lost that bid, Leamon remained active and in 1967 he became one of the charter members in the Union's Staff Intern Program, which trained members to organize. Since 1970 Leamon has served as an organizer throughout the country, including stints as an Area Director in Michigan, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, and several other states. In 1999 he was appointed a Regional Director responsible for Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, where he currently serves. It is my firm belief that Leamon will continue this fine tradition of service in the years to come, and will remain a tireless advocate on behalf of those in the labor community. I congratulate him on receiving the Nelson ``Jack'' Hood Award, and consider it a privilege to honor him today on the Senate floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Nottingham Insurance & Financial Services which is being honored by the Mercer County Chamber of Commerce with its Outstanding Small Business of the Year. Nottingham Insurance & Financial Services represents one of the great success stories of family owned businesses. Since its founding in 1917, it has seen 4 generations of family members in successful perpetuation grow and expand its business. Over the years, it has grown from providing property and casualty services to the residents of Central New Jersey to providing group health and life insurance, and financial services. While also providing valuable insurance and financial services to the residents of Central New Jersey, Nottingham Insurance & Financial Services has also played a vital role in the community. They support numerous youth leagues and teams while also serving on several local board and organizations such as the Hamilton Township Library Board of Trustees and Meals on Wheels of Hamilton. Nottingham Insurance & Financial Services is a fine example of the positive and vital role that local businesses play within our communities.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Mayor Douglas Palmer of Trenton, NJ who is being honored by the Mercer County Chamber of Commerce as its Citizen of the Year. Mayor Palmer has achieved a long list of accomplishments since becoming the mayor of his hometown. Under Mayor Palmer's leadership, tremendous strides have been made in the Trenton area. He has overseen the construction and rehabilitation of hundreds of new homes for working families and created numerous economic development projects that have led to the lowest unemployment rate in a decade. Some of Mayor Palmer's most impressive achievements include the work he has done for the children of Trenton. He established the ``Trenton Loves Children'' program, representing the city's first comprehensive program for children that ensures preschoolers will receive free immunizations against childhood diseases. He also brought the country's first federally funded Weed and Seed anti-drug program to Trenton. In light of Mayor Palmer's achievements as mayor of Trenton, he serves as an exemplar of the positive goals that can be achieved by a mayor who is a tireless advocate for his community.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to honor The Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital. At the forthcoming 132nd Mercer County Chamber of Commerce annual awards dinner, the Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital will be recognized with the Mercer County Chamber of Commerce's Distinguished Corporation of the Year Award for its outstanding efforts in providing support for the postal workers facing the potential exposure to anthrax. As our nation's Capitol, Florida, and the New York/New Jersey Area faced the fallout of anthrax laced letters, the Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital did its part to help our nation. After it came to light on October 13th that the anthrax-tainted letter sent to the NBC offices was processed at the United States Post Office on Route 130 in Hamilton, the Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital stepped forward to meet the needs of the community. Under the dynamic leadership of Christy Stephenson, the hospital assessed the potential need for Cipro within the community and took steps to secure the amount of Cipro the situation required. Further, understanding the urgent need for its services, the hospital accommodated its schedule to treat the patients from the anthrax exposure area while continuing to keep its appointments with regular clients. As an exemplary corporate citizen of the Mercer County community, Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital's efforts during this time of crisis were of life saving importance to over sixteen hundred individuals. I am proud to know that we have such fine institutions looking after the healthcare of New Jersey residents.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Oscar Micheaux, one of the pioneers of American film. Though Mr. Micheaux passed away over fifty years ago, the Fort Lee Film Commission has chosen to honor his historic contributions to the American film industry as part of its Black History Month celebrations. In every age, in every walk of life, there is an individual who possesses the vision to move their craft forward in previously unimaginable ways. Oscar Micheaux opened a door for many visionary film makers who were too follow him. With the production of ``The Homesteader,'' Mr. Micheaux became the first African-American to produce a silent film. In 1931, his production, ``The Exile,'' became the first African-American ``talkie'' to be produced. He also holds the distinction of being the first African-American to have one of his films open in a white owned theater. As a credit to his work, Oscar Micheaux has been honored for his work with a star on Hollywood's ``Walk of Fame''. As the Fort Lee Film Commission honors this groundbreaking individual, I wish to express my gratitude at being able to honor such an influential film producer. The film industry has truly been enriched for his contributions.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Lillian Ciufo, a New Jersey resident and distinguished member of the Fort Lee community, who will be honored as Person of the Year by the Fort Lee Rotary Club on March 3, 2002. Lillian, a resident of River Vale, currently serves as an Executive Director of the Fort Lee Housing Authority. The Housing Authority plays an important role in Fort Lee, a community in New Jersey situated right on the Hudson River, directly across from Manhattan, with limited space but a fast growing population. As Executive Director, Lillian is responsible for operating public housing and administering rent subsidies for hundreds of low-income seniors and families. Under Lillian's direction, the Fort Lee Housing Authority has enjoyed quite a renaissance. In the past five years that she has been Executive Director, over eight affordable housing projects have been constructed. Additionally, the housing authority has been nationally recognized for operating successful projects such as the Family Self Sufficiency Program, FSS, and an affordable child daycare program. The FSS program is a model which I truly believe all communities should examine closely as they look to solve their housing problems. The program provides career planning, job training, educational opportunities, home ownership opportunities and support services, while honoring personal dignity and one's self worth. Among other notable distinctions, Lillian also serves as Vice President of Community Revitalization on the Board of trustees of the New Jersey Association of Housing and Redevelopment, a branch of the National Housing Organization, and as Treasurer of the Board of Trustees of Heightened Independent and Progress, an agency that serves the disabled. It is my firm belief that Lillian will continue this fine tradition of community service in the years to come, and will serve with distinction as a tireless advocate on behalf of those in need of housing. As she continues her career as Executive Director of the Fort Lee Housing Authority, I look forward to further recognition of her outstanding work from both the Rotary club and other service organizations.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today I salute the retirement of Bob Krick, Chairman of the Civil War Preservation Group and Chief Historian at the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park. Throughout his long career, Bob has been a dedicated advocate for the preservation of American Civil War battlefields. As a Civil War historian, Bob has written nearly a dozen books, most notably ``Stonewall Jackson at Cedar Mountain.'' Bob has also written four unit histories, including a roster of Confederate soldiers killed at the Battle of Gettysburg and a book about a Marine Corps infantryman at the Battle of Iwo Jima. His dedication to preserving Civil War sites has saved literally thousands of battlefield acres every year. Bob, who lived in Fredericksburg when he began his career as a Civil War preservationist, did extensive work at the Fredericksburg Battlefield site, including significantly increasing the size of the park. During his time at Fredericksburg, Bob also taught the historians at nearly half of the Civil War Battlefield parks across our country. Despite the fact that Bob is retiring, his effect on preserving one of the defining periods in our Nation's history will continue to make an impact long after his departure. Although much has been accomplished during Bob's tremendous career, there is still more to do. Therefore, Bob plans to serve on the Board of the Richmond Battlefield Association, write more books and continue advocating for the protection of Civil War Battlefields. I wish Bob the best of luck and look forward to our continued friendship.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the Congress may now be closer to comprehensive campaign finance reform than at any time in 30 years. It holds the promise of restoring public confidence by reducing the amount of money flowing into American politics while simultaneously reducing the costs of campaigns themselves. It gives a fair chance to challengers, an opportunity for people to bring different ideas and a broader national debate because we end the dominance of special interests money. This can be an extraordinary, even historic week in the life of the Congress. But the well-crafted balance reached in the Senate is now in jeopardy. Campaign finance reform has meant a change in various institutions within our political culture. One of those institutions is resisting the change. I am speaking of the network broadcast industry. Just as political candidates would be challenged under the law to raise less money under stricter limits, and the political parties would operate under different rules, and the American people would operate under more restrictions to assure that money did not dominate the process, the broadcast industry, operating under Federal license in the use of the public airways, would be challenged to reduce the costs of advertising for Federal campaigns. The Congress could have insisted on free air time. We could have insisted that time be made available for public debate as in many of the great democracies of Western Europe. Our request was much more modest. Indeed, our request was to put into law that which we believe we had done 30 years ago anyway. In 1971, Congress required that the networks provide advertising rates at the lowest unit rate. Through evasion, by finding loopholes in the law, the television networks have evaded their responsibility under the law. Senators Corzine, Durbin, Enzi, and many of my colleagues offered an amendment on the floor of the Senate, adopted 69 to 31, on a bipartisan basis, requiring once again that the networks provide television advertising at the lowest unit rate in the period immediately before a primary and general election. We did this because a 1990 audit by the FCC found that 80 percent of network television affiliates were failing to make time available as required by law at the lowest unit rate, meaning that a typical candidate ad sold for 65 percent more than what should have been charged--65 percent higher costs than should have been required had the law been followed. If in this debate on campaign finance reform we lower the amount of money raised without lowering the costs of the campaigns themselves, we will have achieved very little. The best funded incumbents will always find the resources to advertise. The question is, What about those candidates for Federal office who do not represent popular ideas or powerful interests? And what of the challengers who would challenge the status quo, represent new ideas or sometimes unpopular ideas? They will never have the resources to enter into the national political debate. The goal of campaign finance reform is not to lessen the national debate. It is not to bring less political discussion to the country. It is to have a more vibrant debate, of more varied ideas, less represented by the requirement of political fundraising. If, indeed, the national broadcasters, represented by millions of dollars' worth of lobbying--and, ironically, the use of their own political contributions--succeed in removing this provision from campaign finance reform, not only have we achieved very little but we add a new distortion to the national political debate. In the New York metropolitan area, it is not uncommon to charge $30,000, $40,000, and $50,000 for a 30-second ad. How will these ads be purchased? This applies in Chicago or Los Angeles or Miami or Boston. We have eliminated soft money; we are adding restrictions to reduce the amount of money. The simple truth is, most candidates will not be able to afford them at all. The costs have not stopped rising. Since 1996, the cost of political advertising in some jurisdictions has increased another 30 percent, and it will keep rising as candidates compete not with each other for time but with General Motors or Ford or General Foods or Procter & Gamble. What have we done to our political system when candidates have to raise money in obscene amounts, from hundreds of thousands of Americans, to buy the public air time on federally licensed stations, air time that belongs to the American people, in order to communicate in the middle of a Federal campaign public policy issues? There is no other Western democracy that has such a system because no one else would tolerate it--and neither should we. How is it that American politics has deteriorated into this endless spiral of campaign finance, where candidates should be spending their time thinking of new ideas, challenging each other for the Nation's future, where Members of Congress should spend their time legislating, spend time with the American people who have problems--not just the American people who have money? How did we get here? How did it happen? It is not by chance. In the average Senate campaign, 85 percent of the money raised is going to the television networks. Every year, it is a larger percentage; every year, a higher bill. Yet the broadcasters are arguing that this is unconstitutional--we are taking their property. For 30 years there has been a requirement that they make the lowest unit rate available. If it was constitutional then, it is constitutional now. They just evaded the law. Every one of them, when they got a Federal license to broadcast, agreed to comply with Federal law and to serve a public purpose. This is no taking. They still will be able to charge exorbitant fees, just the same fees they are charging other corporate customers at different times of the year. We have a right to do it. There is a precedent to do it. And it is fair to put these restrictions on broadcasters. Second, they say this will lead to perpetual campaigns, reducing the cost of advertising so there is nothing but campaigns, year to year, year after year, all year. The legislation passed by the Senate only makes the lowest unit rate available 45 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. There are no perpetual campaigns. The time limits are actually quite strict. Then the broadcasters argue that this is such an onerous burden that they can financially not survive, they can't deal with the cost of making the lowest unit rate available. They are charging political candidates $1 billion to advertise. It is estimated that this will be a reduction of $250 million. I believe the networks, still collecting three-quarters of a billion dollars in political advertising, are doing quite well by this system. Indeed, the reduction from making the lowest unit rate available would equal less than 1 percent of the $41 billion in ad revenue. If every other segment of our society can deal with change in order to restore integrity in this political process--the political parties forego soft money, Federal candidates eliminate soft money, the American people live with these restrictions, American business accepts these restrictions--can the broadcasters themselves under Federal license, challenged to use the airwaves for the public good, not accept a 1-percent reduction in ad revenue? It is an extraordinary irony that the media, having rightfully challenged the Congress to change the political fundraising system, having put so much scrutiny on campaign fundraising, has played a vital role in bringing us to this historic moment. But what an irony. While the network anchors rail against the campaign finance system, challenging the Congress to change it, their corporate executives pay millions of dollars in lobbying fees, as we speak, to lobbyists who line the Halls of the House of Representatives, and PAC directors who use the leverage of their political contributions to attempt to intimidate the Congress into eliminating them from this process of change. I hope this provision of campaign finance reform remains intact. But, if it fails, this Senate will face a difficult moment: The specter of a new campaign finance system in which the amount of money raised will be dramatically reduced, but the cost of the campaigns themselves will continue to dramatically rise. I recognize that most Members of this Senate can adjust to the new system. Powerful incumbents will find the means to raise the money. But what of the young man or woman who has different ideas, one who represents no powerful interests, who may not live in a State of great wealth or come from a wealthy family? They, too, would like to serve in the Senate. They, too, have contributions to make to our political system. They, too, believe in our country. There is a chance that by the reforms that we passed they will be silenced; for who among them, in raising campaigns funded only by hard money, with access to no other resources, can pay their share of the $1 billion in advertising costs that are the modern equivalent of a gold soap box that the Founding Fathers would have had as a restriction to the exercise of free speech? What free speech is there, what kind of open political system do we have, if the only means of running for public office is purchasing the gold soap box of our time, a $1 billion price of entry to the network television affiliates? Indeed, that is no free speech at all. That is not an open, competitive political process. So the next great hurdle of campaign finance reform is now. Do we hold firm, those 69 of us on a bipartisan basis who insisted that as fundraising is controlled, so, too, must be the costs? I ask my colleagues to remain committed, not for themselves or their interests but for those who would follow us and for those who believe this political system is open and fair to all those who wish to serve their country in the years to come. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, it would appear that after more than a decade of discussions about campaign finance reform, the House of Representatives and the Senate may be nearer an accord on a historic change of how Federal elections are conducted in the United States. It is none too soon. Confidence in our political process has been undermined, the integrity of the Congress itself has been questioned, and the system is badly in need of repair. We are very indebted to a number of people in this institution and different institutions around the country, but in a strange irony, at a stroke before midnight, one of the elements that has been driving reform is undermining a critical component of the change. Much of what America knows about the abuses of campaign reform has come through the media. Across the Congress today, the Broadcasters Association, led by scores of lobbyists representing millions of dollars of donations of the very type and scale that we seek to control, is undermining the bill. Campaign finance reform, as passed by this Senate and the legislation pending in the House, includes a critical component for controlling and reducing the cost of television advertising. The amendment, widely accepted in both Houses of Congress, is based on the proposition that controlling the amount of money raised must be met by an ability to control the amount of money spent. Controlling campaign fundraising without helping with the cost of campaigns will simply result in a diminished national political debate. Candidates will raise less money, and if the cost of advertising remains as high, we will lose the competitive debate, the exchange of ideas so vital to our democracy. As any candidate for Federal office in the United States is painfully aware, the cost of campaigns is the cost of television advertising. Eighty-five percent of the cost of a Senate campaign goes to the television networks. Under the amendment as passed by this institution, the networks would be required to sell time at the lowest unit rate available; that is, whatever rate they have set for their customers and sold at their lowest cost they must make available to a candidate for Federal office. This provision was in previous Federal law since 1971, but in 1990 an FCC audit found that 80 percent of the stations had failed to give the lowest rate available. During the 2000 elections, a typical candidate had 65 percent of their advertising sold at above that lowest rate. With my amendment now placed in the McCain-Feingold bill, passed by this Senate by a 69-to-31 vote on a bipartisan basis, that provision is now strengthened. It becomes mandatory, and it has the best chance of controlling these costs. The chart on my left shows the scale of the problem: The percentage of ads actually sold at the lowest unit rate in the fall of 2000. Congress believed it made this a requirement before, but it has been evaded in the majority of cases. Let's look at a few examples: Minneapolis, WCCO, 95 percent of the ads sold were not at the lowest rate; Detroit, WXYZ, 88 percent were not sold at the lowest rate. In my own market in northern New Jersey, WNBC New York, 78 percent were not sold at the lowest rate. In the year 2000, the buying of these television ads cost candidates $1 billion. This chart indicates as well the deluge of these ads, the amount of them now being placed on television. Very simply, if we cannot hold in the McCain-Feingold bill and the Shays-Meehan bill in the House this element of controlling cost, this vital compromise that is campaign finance reform will be broken. It must be raising and it must be spending, and I ask the television networks to forgo these excess profits on the Federal airways, licensed by the Federal Government for the public good. Be part of reform. Don't undermine the reform. Let's change the system now for everybody's benefit. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. The Senator has 5 minutes. Mr. President, I hate to get into a bidding process, but I would like to have a reasonable amount of time to be recognized after Senator Dorgan.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I withdraw my objection.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I request at the conclusion of Senator Dorgan that I be recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the President of the United States has challenged the Nation to commit an additional $120 billion in resources for our Armed Forces. Indeed, when the Nation is attacked, that is as it should be. The President has asked us to commit $40 billion to deal with internal security in our country. With the loss of life we have suffered and all of our apprehension about terrorism, that is as it should be. It is, however, an extraordinary request. While our willingness to commit resources is endless to guarantee the security of our country, our national curiosity about these circumstances and how our country was so vulnerable seems to be very limited indeed. It has been 5 months since the lives of our people were taken in the most devastating attack on America in history. There have been words of rage and revenge, vows to strengthen our security and to commit endless resources. There has been everything except a voice of inquiry. On September 10, this Nation was not without resources, with a $320 billion defense establishment larger than a dozen other industrial nations combined; a massive internal law enforcement apparatus; and, by press accounts, a $30 billion intelligence establishment. The terrorist attack on September 11 apparently was waged with the combined financial resources of $250,000. It was implemented by 19 people. Why is it I believe that probably financial resources were not determinative in the success of this evil attack? Why is it that I suspect it was probably not the numbers of personnel available? The country was not without resources on September 10. But something went terribly wrong. The allocation of resources, quality of leadership, strategy--I don't know. The real point is neither does anybody else, including the President of the United States and Members of the Senate. At some point, 260 million Americans, with all the rage they feel against our enemy, with all the anger they feel, and with all the sympathy they feel for the victims, are going to want to know what happened and why. There is no limit to the resources that I will vote to make available to the Commander in Chief to defend this Nation. But there is no limit to the efforts I will make to get accountability in this Government for our people. In my State, there are hundreds--indeed, there are several thousands--of widows and orphans. As much as any American, as much as history itself, these people are going to demand answers in the course of their lives. The President has suggested his preference is that we hold private hearings in the intelligence community. That is not how we conduct this Government. There was not an attack on the intelligence committee, nor is it their responsibility alone. Our accountability is to the people of the country. Yet the administration claims that such hearings or inquiries would be a distraction from the war on terrorism. That is not our history or how we conduct our Government. Ten days after Pearl Harbor, with half of the American fleet in ruins and with fears of an attack on California by the Imperial Japanese Navy, FDR ordered an inquiry into how indeed we were so undefended. The Challenger lay in ruins with all of our ambitions for a space program, and Ronald Reagan did the same for NASA. This instance deserves no less. Accountability is at the core of any representative government. On behalf of the people of my State and the victims--their wives, husbands, parents, and children--I demand it now. This Nation needs a board of inquiry to determine the events of September 11--how it occurred and why; where we succeeded and why we failed--not for the sake of revenge, not to cast blame, but to ensure that it never happens again. Armed only with that knowledge--more than any funding or any new weapon--can we genuinely assure our people that those events will not be repeated. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, since last January, economic growth has slowed in our country and nearly 2 million Americans have lost their jobs. Behind them are children whose tuition is in danger and families who are in trouble with mortgage payments or rents that are due. There is an enormous loss of family security. The tragedy of terrorist attacks in September only exacerbated the already slowing economy. As Americans continue to suffer the effects of this economic decline, Congress simply needs to implement a plan to deal with their pain and to help the recovery. That opportunity was lost in the closing weeks of last year. It cannot be lost again. The Democratic leadership has brought to the Senate floor a modest proposal to stimulate economic growth and national recovery. It contains four principal provisions that both parties included in their economic recovery plans last year. One would assume, therefore, since they are four common elements previously proposed by both parties, they should be acceptable now. The four elements combined provide effective short-term stimulus to bring the most economic activity with the least damage to the Nation's fiscal health. They provide broad-based, rather than industry-specific, stimulus, and they are directed to individuals who are most likely to need and spend the tax reductions rather than people generally. These more targeted, more thoughtful approaches minimize loss in revenue, preserve the balance of the Federal budget, and give more relief. The four provisions are: First, the extension of unemployment benefits. In December, the unemployment rate reached 5.8 percent. It was the fifth consecutive month with a rise in unemployment. At least 1.1 million jobs were lost in the last 4 months of 2001 alone. In times of economic recession, people turn to unemployment insurance first. It is not only a proper thing to help families in their pain, it is itself an economic stabilizer. As people become unemployed, they naturally spend less money. If they have no unemployment insurance, they spend no money and the economic contagion and unemployment spread. We are at that point. This legislation provides 13 additional weeks of unemployment insurance. In the last recession, in 1992, 56 percent of those collecting unemployment insurance benefits had their benefits expired. They were without resources. That extends and deepens a recession. These extra weeks are necessary for the families. They are also necessary for the country. We now know from our research that every $1 invested in unemployment insurance generates $2.15 in gross domestic product. Unemployment insurance in the last recession mitigated 15 percent of the economic decline. It is the right thing to do, it is the fair thing to do for people, and it is good economics. That is the first provision. Second, tax rebates. Putting money directly in the pockets of people who are struggling helps families make ends meet, but it also increases demand. This is the single best way to generate new economic activity. The Democratic proposal before the Senate will provide a second round of tax rebates to those Americans who did not benefit fully from the tax cuts of last summer. There are 130 million taxpayers in America, yet only 82 million received a full rebate last summer, and 34 million Americans got no tax cut at all. This plan provides $300 per individual, $500 per head of household, and $600 per couple for taxpayers. People would receive a rebate. But they are also the people--lower income people--who are more likely to spend the money. I voted for last year's tax cut. But even I will concede, overwhelmingly, the money that went out in rebates did not go into consumer spending. It went to middle-income people. It went to higher income people. This rebate, we know from our research, will go to people who will spend it and spend it immediately, thereby helping their neighbors, helping businesses, helping the country recover. Third, fiscal relief for the States. I know something about this issue because my State of New Jersey now, per capita, as a percentage of State spending, has the largest deficit in the United States. It is fully 12 percent of the State budget. Approximately 30 States in the Union are now in the midst of a recession. In addition to their falling revenues and budget shortfalls, 29 States face a $600 million cut in Federal Medicaid payments this year. It could not come at a worse time. As a result, many States are considering reductions in their Medicaid Programs to deal with the budget shortfalls. This could result in substantial numbers of low- income people losing health insurance. My State of New Jersey has been forced to suspend further enrollments in its expansion of Medicaid to childless adults with incomes below the poverty line because of budget constraints. At the same time, the growing ranks of the unemployed have generated an increased demand for Medicaid coverage. This proposal will help States meet the increase in Medicaid costs by temporarily increasing the Federal Medicaid matching rate. Without it, the health care crisis becomes worse, State budget impacts worsen, they cut vital services, or they raise taxes, or they do both. Either way, a difficult recession becomes deeper and more painful. Fourth and finally, the bill provides a tax depreciation deduction, for a limited time, to encourage businesses to invest in new plants and equipment. It increases the depreciation deduction for the cost of any capital asset purchased before the end of the year. The bonus depreciation of 30 percent of the cost of the asset is in addition to the normal first-year depreciation. I know something about this provision in New Jersey, as well, because while there has been an overall drop in capital spending, most of it has been in new equipment. The largest drop in equipment has been in telecommunications, impacting Verizon, Lucent, AT&T the very pillars of the economy of my State. This is the best way, through this advanced depreciation, to make it affordable for companies to buy the productive, efficient equipment they need to be more competitive. And doing it now assures continued employment and helps to end the recession. This is not only a balanced plan, it is a fair plan. I regret it is so modest in scope. The Nation actually requires more. But our first responsibility is to achieve something, not simply to stake out positions of partisan advantage. This both has merit and should be achievable. I urge my colleagues to adopt it. The American people will work their way out of this recession, but this Congress has an obligation to make it easier, to give them the tools. There is work to be done in this country defending the Nation from enemies from abroad--winning the war, protecting our security here at home--but also there are the age-old problems: Educating children, giving them equal opportunity, modernizing our infrastructure, dealing with a health care crisis that goes generation to generation. In a recession, these things become difficult to impossible. In a growing economy, they can be both likely and achievable. This may not end the recession immediately, but it eases the pain. It shortens the time. It is a good and fair plan. I urge my colleagues to adopt it. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Ms. Randie Blauth and Ms. Adrienne Thomas for their 25 years of service to the Glen Ridge School System. For the past 25 years, these outstanding educators have taught many grade levels and a countless number of students have benefitted from their instruction. As members of the Glen Ridge community, Ms. Blauth and Ms. Thomas have demonstrated an extraordinarily high level of commitment and selflessness to which we should all strive to achieve. However, the impact of their service reaches far beyond the classroom. Both Ms. Blauth and Ms. Thomas have dedicated themselves to creating a supportive and productive environment for the youth of Glen Ridge. They have helped to shape the minds and encourage the spirit of these young individuals during a crucial stage of development in their lives. Ms. Blauth's and Ms. Thomas' accomplishments, throughout their years of service, reflect only a small portion of the many contributions they have made to the people of Glen Ridge. Their efforts have touched the lives of their students as well as those throughout their community. They are an example of the professionalism that we look for in our educators, and the type of citizens that we hope to find in our neighborhoods, which is why their dedication is to be recognized and commended.