Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee for yielding the time, and I compliment him on his extraordinary leadership in bringing the Senate to this moment. It may well be that this Nation was headed towards an economic downturn before September 11. We may debate that fact, but there is no mistaking that every State in the Nation is now facing a dramatic change in economic circumstances. In October, the unemployment rate rose one-half point, to 5.4 percent of working Americans; 400,000 people lost their jobs, including 8,000 in my State of New Jersey alone. As this has affected our families individually, the economic change has affected our States collectively. Thirty States are now clearly in a position of economic recession. The Senate is faced with two very different philosophies in dealing with this change of economic circumstances. The Senate Finance Committee, under Chairman Baucus leadership, has sought to address both the causes of the downturn and those most dramatically affected by the economic downturn. The bill, as Senator Kennedy has illustrated, provides 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits. It makes many part-time workers eligible. These are the people on the front line of our economic difficulties, and rightfully and exclusively, this bill, among the alternatives before us, provides the most help to families who, through no fault of their own, now find themselves wanting for rent payments, mortgage payments, or tuitions, and only have the bridge of unemployment benefits to get them through the crisis. In New Jersey, this means 50,000 people will be able to continue their unemployment benefits or face the prospect of no help at all; 11,000 part-time workers in New Jersey, the most vulnerable of the vulnerable, will be able to continue their benefits. The bill also addresses the reality that as people lose their jobs, their problems are compounded by the emergency situation of also losing health benefits. The legislation provides a 75-percent subsidy for laid-off workers to purchase COBRA insurance. As families are vulnerable, so are the States. The National Governors' Association projects State revenues to be $30 billion less than previously forecast. As we all know, as the States start to reduce their budgets to deal with the budgetary emergencies, the first to suffer will be education and health care. Twenty-nine States already face $600 million of projected reductions in what they will be able to provide in health care. The Baucus bill provides $5 billion directly to States through an increase in Medicaid matching funds. These provisions are all national in scope. They help every State in the Nation deal with this economic emergency, but, in fact, as acute as the situation is nationally, regionally it is the most severe. While all the Nation is in pain, it is most severe in those areas directly impacted by the terrorist attacks on September 11. It would be no surprise to anyone in the Senate to know the economic downturn is affecting the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut areas most directly. The attacks not only killed thousands of people, but for those left behind, those whom they loved and their neighbors, the economic impact is particularly acute. Prior to September 11, 300,000 people worked in Lower Manhattan in the impact area. Since the attacks, 125,000 people have been displaced; 19,000 have already left the city; 35 million square feet of office space is currently unavailable. Indeed, in Battery Park City, home to thousands of New Yorkers in Lower Manhattan, only 30 percent of the tens of thousands of residents have returned to their homes. The simple truth is, as a matter of employment and residency, Lower Manhattan will never be the same without Federal assistance. This legislation dealing with the economic emergency in the Nation, as it deals with national unemployment, the national health care situation, the national need for stimulus, focuses in particular on the fact there is an acute economic emergency in Manhattan. The legislation that I offered with Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton contains $5 billion in economic assistance to New York. I make no apologies for offering this legislation. Almost unbelievably, I have read in the national media that somehow this constitutes some form of special interest legislation. The terrorists may have attacked buildings that were in New York, but this was an assault on America, on every American, and it tests our concept of national union whether when an individual city, State, or group of people are attacked, whether we respond as a city or State or we respond as a country. I may live in New Jersey, but on September 11 my country was attacked, and we should all respond as Americans. If there is a special interest contained in this legislation to deal with residency and employment, the economic stability and the reconstruction of New York, let us identify that special interest. The interest is, we are all Americans, we are all in this together, and we will respond together. That is the interest being tested. Now, indeed, the pain may be particular to New York, but it is shared with their neighbors whom I represent in the State of New Jersey. Two hundred thousand New Jersey residents are employed in Lower Manhattan, or they were employed, because 40 percent of the people who worked in the World Trade Center lived with their families in New Jersey. Fifteen thousand people lost their place of employment if they did not also lose their lives. Sixty-six thousand people from New Jersey commuted every day to Lower Manhattan on the PATH railroad system, all of which to Lower Manhattan is now in shambles. The $5 billion in tax incentives will apply to the 1.6-square-mile recovery zone around the World Trade Center. That is where people I represent worked every day. They lost their offices. Many lost their companies. Most lost their means of employment with which to feed their families and raise their children. Special interests? Very special. Keeping these people employed, their families alive and prosperous, that is our special interest. This $5 billion in tax incentives includes a $4,800 employee wage tax credit for existing and new hirers to try to keep employment stability in Lower Manhattan so a bad situation does not get worse; second, $10 billion in private activity bonding authority to rebuild the real estate in the impacted zone; third, to encourage businesses to stay and reinvest in Lower Manhattan. The bill will allow the cost of replacement property to be deducted as a loss. There is no better symbol to the world of American resolve, our determination to survive, than to rebuild in this economic zone and to provide stability for employment in the impacted area. That is exactly what we intend to do. Then there is the question of the Nation's infrastructure. We are not responding properly to the recession, this economic emergency, if we provide for unemployment benefits, provide for health insurance, provide for the areas most acutely impacted, if we do not also do something about the national infrastructure. I yield to Senator Baucus.

Mr. TORRICELLI. This is the moment to build this high-speed rail system. It is in this legislation. It is identical to the legislation cosponsored by 56 Senators, including Senator Lott and Senator Daschle. Use this moment to build this system. The legislation also includes $2 billion toward the engineering and construction of a new Trans-Hudson tunnel between New York and New Jersey. This is vital. There has not been a rail tunnel built between New York, connecting it with the rest of the Nation, since 1920. The existing tunnels do not have escape mechanisms. They do not have adequate fire protection. They are old and they are slow. This legislation will immediately begin the engineering and then the funding of a new rail tunnel. So if in any future emergency or terrorist attack we lose the existing tunnels, there will be one safe, modern, fast tunnel to connect New York with the remainder of the Nation and allow in New Jersey an Amtrak for the rest of the country to expand the rail commuter network, which is now at capacity, to get more people out of their automobiles and onto trains, throughout suburban New Jersey, into Manhattan. Nothing would convince employers to remain in Manhattan longer and invest better than the knowledge there will be a rail network to get employees there in the decades ahead. Our constituents are giving us exactly that message. Ridership is up 45 percent from New Jersey to New York City since September 11. Amtrak now runs 21 trains per hour through the existing tunnel capacity. They need to get that rate to 45. This new tunnel can add 20 trains an hour. We can get people out of their cars. We can get them into safe trains. This legislation contains exactly that capacity. This is simply a good economic stimulus package. It is good in what it does to the unemployed. It is good in what it does for vulnerable families. It provides the proper public works to get people employed and keep them employed and make the national investments we need for the coming decades. I am proud of it. It is the right thing. It is good legislation. I thank Senator Baucus. I thank my colleagues for being responsive to New York, New Jersey, and the Connecticut region during this time of crisis. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to do so with pride. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

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

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, nearly 2 months have passed since the events of September 11. The tragedy and its ramifications have been part of the life of every American family in the weeks that have followed. Even American schoolchildren can recount not only the images but recite the numbers of the dead, the cost, and the consequences. In my State there are hundreds of people who did not come home on that night. The changes experienced by average Americans cannot obviously be compared with the families themselves--wives and husbands, children, brothers and sisters who are rebuilding shattered lives. They wake up every day reminding themselves of the new reality that will follow them throughout their lives. Recently, Senator Corzine and I met with a number of the widows and widowers. You can only imagine, if this entire Nation has found it difficult to accept the reality of these circumstances, what it is like for a young mother still recoiling from the experience of informing her children, or a father, now left to raise children alone. The pain of September 11 is measured on many scales. It has changed the finances of this Government. It has forever impacted our national sense of safety. But for these few thousand families, it has changed lives in ways we could never hope to understand. There is little in terms of the things that matter that any of us can do to generally offer comfort or consolation. But in the ways that Government can measure compassion, there are things we must try to do. Families that Jon Corzine and I met with indicated to us that when they are not dealing with the pain or the trauma, life has returned to much more mundane things: A woman who even as she buries her husband thinks about next month's mortgage; the young family who even when they are consoling their children are dealing with colleges or grade schools on next year's tuition; the young family who may have just started life together and bought a home or rented an apartment and used all their resources; and now, as a mother thinks about her children's future, she is thinking about the groceries next week. America can afford to debate this issue philosophically and how it may have changed our laws or our lives. That luxury is not available to these young families. It raises in the Senate an important question about how we can respond. Some weeks ago the House of Representatives passed legislation to provide tax relief to families of these victims so that as these young mothers or fathers received their last paychecks or struggled to deal with the financial realities or negotiate perhaps bonuses from employers who are themselves struggling to deal with the impact, they can at least husband these resources without concern that the Federal Government will tax what they have remaining. That legislation has been sent to the Senate Finance Committee. These weeks we have been working to prepare it and have it ready for committee consideration. I want my colleagues to know that enough time has now passed. I am, on this day, introducing this legislation to the Senate. I will offer it as an amendment when the Senate Finance Committee meets tomorrow to consider stimulus and tax legislation as an amendment. I commend Senator Baucus for not only his support but his efforts in drafting this legislation. I also understand Senator Nickles wants to understandably change the legislation to include equitable treatment for the victims of Oklahoma City. The victims' tax legislation will essentially extend the benefits currently offered to military personnel and Government employees who die as a result of combat or terrorism to civilians abroad. The legislation will waive income tax liability for both this year and last year and will refund any income taxes paid in those years to the family. As I am certain my colleagues would agree, these funds are better used by families to rebuild their lives rather than used by the Federal Government at this moment. There is, however, the question of those employees who lost their lives and their families who may have had income so modest, they did not pay Federal income tax. Under my legislation, which improves upon the version of the House of Representatives, the Senate bill I am introducing will refund 2 years' worth of payroll taxes to families of those who lost their lives on September 11. I have also drafted legislation to include significant estate tax relief for families by exempting the first $3 million in assets from both Federal and State estate taxes and $8.5 million from Federal estate tax. These are the funds these families will use for this generation and perhaps succeeding generations to bring order and security to their lives. They should keep this money. It is not for us. If this is the last and only gift a mother or father had to give to their children or husband, or wife to their spouse, that is as it should be. It is not for us. Current law excludes disability benefits from income if a U.S. employee is injured in a terrorist attack outside the United States. This legislation will also expand this to include those injured in a terrorist attack in the United States. Every Member of the Senate should feel proud to be part of this legislation. We have offered assistance to the States of Virginia and New York and New Jersey because of the terrorist attacks. We have offered relief to the airline industry to save them from bankruptcy. There is debate now on what should be done for the insurance industry. These things may all be right and proper. They are not complete. No financial arrangement, no change of the law could possibly be complete unless we address the question of families themselves. Senator Corzine and I made a solemn pledge to these families that we would not rest until this is done. I can assure you that promise will be kept. There is little else this Government can offer these people. This much, Madam President, we can and should do.

Mr. TORRICELLI

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

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, these are, for all Americans, troubling times. While we are defending our Nation at home and abroad, we find ourselves with conflicting emotions. We are by nature a peaceful people but a people of enormous resolve, with a great love of our Nation, our culture, and each other. We respect each other's faiths. We respect the faiths and cultures of those of other nations. This mix of emotions has placed us in an extraordinary position. Two principal issues arise from this dilemma. First, in the midst of a military campaign in Afghanistan, we now find the religious holidays of the Muslim faith upon us, the celebration of Ramadan. It is a central date on the Islamic calendar. The second issue is the extent to which our military operations in Afghanistan involve the inevitability and the tragedy of civilian casualties. I would like to address both of these concerns for a moment. It speaks well of the American people that we would have a concern about engaging in military activities during the religious holidays of some of our own citizens, and more important, those of other nations. In a nation that is overwhelmingly Christian but with large Jewish and Islamic populations, it is a tremendous statement about America that even in the waging of conflict we want to be deferential to the religions of others. Indeed, it speaks well of our President that there is even a consideration of the postponement of military activities in our air campaign in Afghanistan during Ramadan. I strongly urge the President, despite his best instincts, that the bombing campaign should not be postponed--not for a minute, not for a day. What happened on September 11 and the motivation of those who might have orchestrated this campaign from Afghanistan is all the evidence that is required that bin Laden, al-Qaida, even the Taliban are not practicing Islam. The massive loss of life at the Pentagon and the World Trade Center in the name of that faith is not only not in keeping with the teachings of Islam, it is blasphemy. It is blasphemy against the teachings of Mohammad and the Koran. It is an insult to every person of Islamic faith in the world. For the United States to hesitate or suspend our military operations against al-Qaida because of Ramadan is to suggest that these people are actually legitimately practicing their faith or even, in fact, are of the Islamic faith. Their practice of Islam that engages in terrorism, the massive loss of life, the use of assassination and terror against their own people and the United States, their declaration of war against people simply because they hold a different religious faith or live in a different culture, is not the legitimate practice of Islam. It is against everything written in the Koran. Not only should this bombing campaign not be suspended in deference to Ramadan, indeed--it is the policy of our Government that bin Laden and al-Qaida are not practicing the faith at all--suspension would be to give a cloak of legitimacy that indeed they are practicing a religion rather than that they are an aberration. They are a cult, mindlessly pursuing some horrible vision of exercising personal power, the teachings of which are not legitimately accepted by any faith. No, the bombing campaign should not be suspended. Indeed, it must continue to underscore that this is not a war against Islam, and the people we are fighting are not practicing Islam. Second is the issue of civilian casualties. It is a wonderful statement about our people that even in the face of horror and the massive loss of life of Americans, that there is a concern that people in another nation, as we seek justice, might inadvertently and tragically lose their lives as we pursue al-Qaida and bin Laden. It is right we should have this concern, but it cannot deter us. I hope my comments are not misunderstood. I do not want them to seem overly harsh. But there is something missing from this debate, from those abroad, and those within our own Nation who are understandably concerned about this loss of life. There is not a question that there is going to be a loss of civilian life. That happened on September 11. If you want to see civilian casualties, come to New York. We have thousands of bodies still not recovered. Concerning the issue of whether there is going to be an innocent loss of life, that already happened. We want nothing but the best for the people of Afghanistan. But it is impossible to engage in large scale military hostilities, to find thousands of al-Qaida fighters where they are being shielded, without some loss of Afghan life. Every loss of life of an Afghan citizen is regrettable but unavoidable. We can minimize it, but we cannot avoid it. We have responsibilities. Our first responsibility is to bring to justice those who killed our people and attacked our Nation. An equally great responsibility is to ensure that if American soldiers enter Afghanistan to find bin Laden, we minimize the loss of American lives. Anything that is done that avoids the possibility of the loss of an American soldier is our highest priority. If we can do that while minimizing the loss of Afghan citizens, it is the right thing to do. I speak, now, directly and bluntly. The people of every nation bear some responsibility for those who govern it. That is obviously true in a democratic society, where governments rule with the consent of the governed. But, indeed, it is true in all societies. I know the Afghan people are powerless. I know the Taliban rules against the wishes of many Afghans. But, nevertheless, as a historic principle, they are accountable for their government. It is a fact that their government has harbored terrorists who have attacked our greatest city, declared war on our Nation, and killed thousands of our citizens. This is not to suggest that I believe that we, by design, would ever take their innocent lives. But it is to put in context the fact that, if inadvertently, against our policies and our desires and our prayers, Afghan lives are lost in the hunt for bin Laden and the search for justice, it may be regrettable, but it is historically and legally and morally defensible. By historic parallels, a third of the German people voted for the Nazi Party. Virtually none of the Japanese people as a matter of right could have been held accountable because they were directly responsible for Tojo's government in Tokyo. But I don't believe it would have been legitimate then any more than it would be legitimate now to have said somehow the people of those countries do not bear responsibility for their government no matter how they came to power. The innocent Afghan people who regrettably now lose their lives, as the people of all nations, bear some responsibility for those who govern them--by the ballot box wherever it is possible, by force of arms where it is necessary, or by whatever means that might be required to free themselves, or to ensure that their governments are either not engaged in actions against other people or harbor those who would harm other people. Responsibility rests on all of us who are citizens of nations. I hope the loss of civilian life is minimal. But our Nation is at war. This is not some gentlemanly understanding between the government of the United States and the Taliban government of Afghanistan. This is not a problem of languages or cultures. This is a fundamental judgment by the government of Afghanistan to harbor a terrorist element that has come to the judgment that they cannot coexist with Western society. Either their government falls or ours falls. There is not something here to be negotiated. It is not some misunderstanding that we reconcile. There is nothing to be discussed. Their government falls or ours does. We are vulnerable to them or they are vulnerable to us. Bin Laden lives or some of our people die. Sometimes, even in a complex world which has seemingly advanced so far, some things are so simple. That is the nature of this conflict. It has been called a war on terrorism. It isn't a war on terrorism. Terrorism is a methodology of warfare. Had they attacked the World Trade Center with fighter planes or used the most modern technology available, we would be grieved nonetheless. They used terrorism. But it isn't their methodology that we are fighting. It is them. This is a small group in a remote place that has come to the extraordinary conclusion that they cannot coexist with Western society. As a matter of our faith, our culture, and the means by which we choose to live our lives, they have come to a judgment that they cannot share this planet with us because of who we are and what we believe. None of us wants any loss of life. There is a wonderful strength of our country. We can fight an enemy and still worry about his wounds. I leave you with a simple reminder as our country debates whether to pursue this war during Ramadan and whether we lose our nerve because of loss of life of Afghan citizens. It has been a long time since this country fought a war seeking an unconditional result. Indeed, it has been more than half a century. War is different. It is different than a misunderstanding. It is different than a military action. It is different than a police action. It is different than the Persian Gulf or Vietnam or even Korea that had limited objectives. This has no limited objective. This is unconditional. Those people will not stand. We don't want to talk to them. We don't want to negotiate with them. We don't want to work out a misunderstanding with them. They will not stand. The judgment about whether to fight during Ramadan and pay them the respect that they are actually of the Islamic faith should be debated in that context because they are not Islamic. They are not exercising their faith. They are blasphemists of their own alleged religion. Civilian casualties need to be debated in this context because, though regrettable, they are inevitable and a part of unconditional war in a threshold that was already crossed, and then finally all of us coming to recognition of what it is we fight--terrorism, bin Laden. We fight against people whose weapons are not the principal concern. Their methodology is not our principal concern. Our concern is the profound judgment that they reached: that our presence and our lives are somehow a central threat. Before the Senate left for this week, I wanted to share these thoughts knowing that we will revisit these issues again and again in what promises to be, unfortunately, a long and difficult engagement in Afghanistan, knowing that among the many strengths of our people, patience is not the greatest of American virtues. But we did not seek this war. We did not want it. We would have done anything to avoid it, but it was not our choice. It was thrust upon us. The decision to take lives was made by others. We only have one thing to do--no decisions, no choices, no judgments--just to win. That takes time. It takes sacrifice. Sacrifices we have made before. Now we will make them again. I hope our country simply can steady its nerves and muster the patience to see this to the end. That will involve a great price, but there is no choice. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Prompt Payment Bill''. This legislation addresses the need for the managed care industry to not only take responsibility for their payments on time, but to face specific penalties if they do not do so. HMOs are one of the few entities that continue to be shielded from lawsuits. It is shocking that under current federal and most state laws, there are no consequences when HMOs fail to pay their bills in a timely manner. HMOs even have the right to drop out of Medicare simply because they are unsatisfied with the rate, let alone the timeliness, of what the government is paying them. It is time that this lack of accountability is addressed and significantly increased. In my State of New Jersey, there is in fact a ``prompt pay'' law that requires HMOs to pay their bills in thirty days from receiving a claim from a beneficiary, hospital or health care provider. However, a 1998 survey of twenty-four New Jersey hospitals found that more than $150 million in HMO payments were held up for sixty days or longer. That same year, sixty percent of New Jersey hospitals lost money, over $172 million in statewide losses. HMOs simply face no consequences from state regulatory agencies and the enforcement mechanisms currently in place are too weak. If we let this continue, we will jeopardize the care that people receive from their health care providers. For these reasons, I am introducing the ``Prompt Payment Bill''. This amendment will move HMOs considerably closer to assuming the financial responsibilities for the health care coverage they are being paid to provide. Specifically, it will call for a ten-percent interest penalty per year on any payment not made within 45 days. If the HMO continues to be delinquent, beneficiaries or health care providers can bring the HMO to court to make them pay their bills. I urge my colleagues to join me in my efforts in making the managed care industry significantly more accountable to their beneficiaries.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Prompt Payment Bill''. This legislation addresses the need for the managed care industry to not only take responsibility for their payments on time, but to face specific penalties if they do not do so. HMOs are one of the few entities that continue to be shielded from lawsuits. It is shocking that under current federal and most state laws, there are no consequences when HMOs fail to pay their bills in a timely manner. HMOs even have the right to drop out of Medicare simply because they are unsatisfied with the rate, let alone the timeliness, of what the government is paying them. It is time that this lack of accountability is addressed and significantly increased. In my State of New Jersey, there is in fact a ``prompt pay'' law that requires HMOs to pay their bills in thirty days from receiving a claim from a beneficiary, hospital or health care provider. However, a 1998 survey of twenty-four New Jersey hospitals found that more than $150 million in HMO payments were held up for sixty days or longer. That same year, sixty percent of New Jersey hospitals lost money, over $172 million in statewide losses. HMOs simply face no consequences from state regulatory agencies and the enforcement mechanisms currently in place are too weak. If we let this continue, we will jeopardize the care that people receive from their health care providers. For these reasons, I am introducing the ``Prompt Payment Bill''. This amendment will move HMOs considerably closer to assuming the financial responsibilities for the health care coverage they are being paid to provide. Specifically, it will call for a ten-percent interest penalty per year on any payment not made within 45 days. If the HMO continues to be delinquent, beneficiaries or health care providers can bring the HMO to court to make them pay their bills. I urge my colleagues to join me in my efforts in making the managed care industry significantly more accountable to their beneficiaries.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today I rise in strong support of the Carnahan amendment to provide much needed assistance to airline industry employees. Almost a month later, we are still sorting through the aftermath of September 11th. Thousands of people from New York and New Jersey were among those lost or injured on that terrible day. And now thousands more across the country are beginning to feel the economic impact of the tragedy. A few weeks ago, this Congress did the right thing when we passed legislation to help the airline industry. As a result of the attacks, the airlines lost billions of dollars in the days that planes were grounded. And so many people have decided not to fly, the airlines have cut the number of flights by 20 percent since September 11th. In my State, that has meant 300 fewer daily flights out of Newark International Airport. This Nation's economy depends on healthy airlines to keep people and goods moving, and Congress was right to help. And now this Congress must continue to do right by passing this amendment to help the people who work for the airlines and related industries who have lost their jobs and health insurance as a result of this slowdown. So far, more than 140,000 airline industry workers across the nation have lost their jobs and their healthcare. Virtually all of the airlines have laid off workers: American Airlines--20,000 people; United Airlines--20,000 people; Delta Airlines--13,000 people; US Airways--11,000 people; Continental Airlines--11,000 people; Northwest Airlines--10,000 people; America West--2,000 people; Midway--1,700 people; and American Trans Air--1,500 people. Airlines are a crucial employer in my state, more than 19,000 people in New Jersey are employed by the major airlines. Continental Airlines has one of its hubs at Newark International Airport. But just a few weeks ago, 2,000 of those Continental workers at Newark were laid off. And it is not just airline workers who are feeling the cuts. The people who provide the meal services and run the airport concessions have also suffered thousands of lay-offs. We cannot continue to delay. We must pass this amendment to help these workers who have bills to pay and children to care for but who don't know where they will be getting their next paycheck. This amendment provides critical assistance in three ways. Income support: Under current law, laid-off workers are eligible for 26 weeks of State unemployment insurance. Under this amendment, they would be eligible for an additional 20 weeks of federal benefits. Training: No one knows when these airline jobs will come back or in what other industries these laid-off workers will find work. Under this amendment, individuals who did not return to the airline industry would be eligible for retraining benefits; those who find alternative jobs within the airline industry would be eligible for upgrade training. Health Care: For up to a year, the Federal Government would fully reimburse eligible individuals for their COBRA premiums. Individuals who do not qualify for COBRA and are otherwise uninsured would be eligible for Medicaid, with the Federal Government covering 100 percent of the premiums. We have waited long enough. It is time to make good on our obligation to provide for the airline industry workers who have lost their jobs and health care. I urge passage of the Carnahan amendment.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I am sensitive to the desire of Members of the Senate to avoid extraneous issues in this debate. The need for airline security is self-evident. The failure of confidence in our Nation's airlines is having a devastating economic impact on the country and its economy. I am certain Members of the Senate will understand that to those I represent, indeed to millions of other Americans around the country, railroad or bus or other modes of transportation safety are not only not extraneous, they are central. Three hundred thousand residents of New York and New Jersey cross the Hudson and East Rivers every day to their homes and places of business. Indeed, a significant multiple of the number of people who fly on airplanes every day is on these commuter trains. I cannot suggest to them that somehow their lives or their fortunes are less important than those who are on airplanes. It appears to me the debate in the Senate to concentrate exclusively on airplane safety is based on the assumption that terrorists will accommodate us by choosing the same means, employing the same strategy to strike our country that they used previously. Why is it that I doubt they will be so accommodating? There is nothing about an airplane that somehow makes it more vulnerable than a bus or a train or, for that matter, a powerplant or a reservoir. But as this legislation is focused on transportation and the assurance of safety and security, it must, therefore, by necessity, include other modes of transportation, particularly when those other modes are utilized by millions and millions of Americans and where the exposure to potential danger is so enormous. I will use for illustration simply those that are utilized by my own State of New Jersey because I know them so well. I suspect the arguments I will share with the Senate could be made by the Senators from California or Massachusetts or Illinois or Florida, Missouri, or a host of other States that have large metropolitan areas. In Penn Station in New York, through which hundreds, thousands of New Jersey residents travel every week, there are six tunnels that began construction in 1911. The four tunnels under the East River and those under the Hudson are 2\1/2\ miles long. As I suggested, they accommodate 300,000 people. In August the State of New York, by a strange coincidence, issued a public report which concluded the tunnels are ``woefully inadequate to deal with a major fire, accident, terrorist attack or other emergency situation.'' The report went on to explain that the tunnels lack escape routes for the up to 2,000 people who can ride on a single commuter or Amtrak train. They are without anything but the most basic of ventilation and do not even have standing water pipes which today would be required in even the most modest of such facilities under current construction rules. The chart on my left illustrates for a major tunnel that can accommodate up to 2 trains and can have 2,000 people on every train, the kind of ventilation that is used is small, singular fans. If there were for some reason a fire on this train because of a terrorist act, it would not begin to be adequate to help the escaping passengers. The second chart illustrates something even more troublesome: For the 2\1/2\-mile tunnel under the Hudson River, accommodating tens of thousands of commuters every day, a single spiral staircase through which 2,000 people would have to climb 90 feet while firefighters were using it as the only entrance to get to a burning train. It would not happen. Indeed, they would be lost. The greatest illustration of this is that the published plans of the fire department call for using a locomotive to tow the burning train out of the tunnels with passengers on board. It is assumed they could not exit. I use New York and New Jersey as the illustration. Were I to speak about train access from southern New Jersey to Philadelphia, I could make the same arguments. There would be the same vulnerability; only the numbers would be lower. Indeed, I could also make the same arguments about the Baltimore tunnels, built in 1877, tunnels for which 150-mile-per-hour trains must now slow to 30 miles per hour to traverse. I could be talking about Washington, DC, itself, where the tunnels along Union Station by the Supreme Court annex, carrying 50 to 60 trains a day, were constructed with the safety designs of 1907. In response to these concerns and those of Chicago and San Francisco and St. Louis and a host of other cities, Amtrak has proposed a multibillion-dollar security and safety plan. First, $471 million for additional police, bomb-sniffing canine units, and bomb detection systems for luggage. It is essential to get to even the minimum standards we are now using for the airlines. Second, $1 billion for the structural and safety improvements that I just outlined in tunnels across the Nation. Third, $1 billion in capacity enhancements to rail, bridges, and switching stations, which are necessary to support the massive increase in ridership that rails are now receiving across the country. The daily Acela Express in the Northeast alone has had an increase in ridership of 40 percent to 50 percent per day. It cannot be accommodated as people move from airlines that are not operating at full capacity, to trains that are now operating beyond capacity. For example, Amtrak has had to add 608 seats on 18 Metroliners and Acela trains just to accommodate this demand between Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington alone. Madam President, like my colleagues, I understand our obligation to the Nation's airlines. They are the backbone of our economy. We owe it to the American people to put an armed Federal marshal on every airplane that flies in this country. We dare do no less. I believe the necessity of federalizing the check-in and inspection system is now manifest. It is also clear to me that in every aspect of air transportation, the need for security needs to be enormously enhanced. But it would not be responsible--indeed, I could not in good faith represent my constituents in New Jersey--to not simultaneously demand that all other modes of transportation receive equal protection. To protect our aircraft and leave vulnerable targets on other major transportation that carry not as many people but more people, not with the same degree of vulnerability but potentially greater vulnerability, would not be right. It would not be defendable, and I could not explain it to the people of New Jersey, who have already lost 2,000 or 3,000 people from the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. We refuse to lose yet another citizen, and I refuse to have another citizen of New Jersey live in vulnerability such as those who lost their lives on September 11. I want my colleagues to know--and indeed I put them on notice--that we will insist that this Senate deal with the broader issue of transportation security in this country. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for 10 minutes.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, when this Chamber was new and Members of the Senate were gathering in their first years, they were confronted with the reality of a civil war which had consumed over 860,000 lives and the rebuilding of our Republic. Even with those daunting tasks, there was a recognition that somehow the institutions of our Government had failed to deal with the crisis, to avert the struggle. Even in that atmosphere, those who preceded us created a board of inquiry as to the reasons of the war and how it was executed and what might lie ahead for the country. That civil war debate created a foundation which through two centuries has created a consistent pattern for this Congress. In times of national trouble or trauma, part of dealing with the realities of our problems and preparing for the future required a dispassionate analysis of the problem. While survivors were still being taken out of the North Atlantic from the sinking of the Titanic, a board of inquiry met to determine the failures of maritime safety. Three weeks after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, a board of inquiry began to examine why our Nation was not prepared and how the institutions of our country had failed to respond to the looming threat and the reality of the attack. In the ensuing years, we returned again and again to this trusted form of analysis that allowed our people to trust a result and the Congress to prepare to avoid the same circumstances in the future: a commission that was formed after the assassination of President Kennedy and the board that convened after the Challenger accident. In each of these instances, I have no doubt a Senator rose and said it is difficult to deal with examining the reasons for the war of 1861 because our time is consumed with the reality of the situation. How can one deal with the reality of the situation if we do not know the reasons for the problem? How can we simply give more resources to the same institutions, more power to those institutions if we doubted they had the ability or used those powers or resources properly in the first instance? Indeed, one can only imagine when President Roosevelt required a board of inquiry on preparedness and the response to Pearl Harbor how admirals and generals, scrambling to defend the Nation and execute the war, must have felt about diverting resources to deal with the inquiry. It was recognized by those who sat in these chairs before us, as we should recognize now, that the credibility of the institutions involved, the confidence in their leadership, a dispassionate, removed analysis of their powers is a foundation before implementing a new policy to avert the same problems. A number of my colleagues are joining with me in the coming days in introducing legislation to create a board of inquiry regarding the terrorist attacks of September 11. It is my intention to offer it as an amendment to legislation that is currently working its way through the Senate dealing with this tragedy. As the Senate properly responds to the administration's request for more power in Federal institutions, the people need to know how those institutions use the power they possess and to restore confidence in those institutions as they execute these powers. The Senate properly allocates billions of dollars more for national security and law enforcement and the protection of our people. People of our country justifiably will want to know, as antiterrorist activities in the last 5 years increased by 300 percent, why that money was not sufficient or why it failed to protect our country. It speaks well of this Congress that we are willing to do so much to protect our country, to avert a future terrorist attack, but I have 3,000 families in New Jersey who have a husband or a mother or a wife or a child who will never come home. Of the 6,500 potentially dead victims of the New York attack alone, and the hundreds of families in Virginia, the families of New Jersey are going to want to know not simply what are we doing in the future, but what happened in the past. How did an intelligence community that is larger financially than the military establishments of our largest rivals fail to uncover the intentions of these terrorists? How did all of our technology prove unable to intercept their communications? How, with all of the interceptions that have taken place, were we unable to analyze the information and predict the attack? How, indeed, in law enforcement, given the presence of these same terrorist organizations in previous attacks from the same locations on the same target, were we unable to infiltrate these organizations? It may well be that there is a good explanation for each of these failures. Indeed, it may prove that everything that was humanly possible was done to the fullest extent conceivable. It may be there are institutional failures and conflicts, so that all the money conceivable will not prevent a future attack if powers are not properly distributed or the proper people do not have authority or there are breakdowns in command or communication. I cannot predict any of these answers, but what is important is neither can anyone else in this Congress or the administration because without some analysis, as we have done throughout our country's history, we will never know. Indeed, if we fail to have a board of inquiry in the midst of this crisis about these circumstances, I believe history will instruct us it will be the first time in the history of the Republic that the Government did not hold itself accountable and subject to analysis when our American people have faced a crisis of this magnitude. The people deserve an answer. The Government should hold itself accountable, and only a board of inquiry, independent of the Congress and the Executive, has the credibility to do it. Dealing with the issue of accountability for the past, I want to, for a moment, deal with prevention in the future. This Senate is rightfully responding to the problem of the hijackings by comprehensive legislation dealing with airline security. It is only right and proper we should do so. Our Nation is dependent on the airlines. The economic contagion from this tragedy has affected every State in our Union. Cynics will decry that we are simply closing the barn door, but indeed there is no choice but to do so lest terrorists travel through that barn door again. What is significant is it is not adequate to respond to these terrorist attacks, enhancing the security of our people, by responding in one dimension. It is unlikely these terrorists or others who would conspire with them, or act in concert with their actions, will respond again in the same manner by the same mode as the last terrorist attacks. If indeed the bin Laden organization is responsible, the history of their actions suggests each time they strike they strike in a different mode, in a different method, sometimes in a different place. Obviously, I support this airline security legislation but it is not enough. From our reservoirs to our powerplants to other modes of transportation, we need to secure the Nation. It needs to be more comprehensive.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Many of my colleagues have joined me in insisting the Airline Security Act also include rail security. We do so for the following reason: In my State alone, nearly a quarter of a million people ride railroads every day, many of them through old tunnels. The tunnels under the Hudson River were built between 1911 and 1920. As this photograph illustrates, they are largely without ventilation. This is a single fan to exhaust smoke from a fire in a two and a half mile tunnel. Every Amtrak Metroliner, if fully loaded, under the Hudson River or the Baltimore tunnels, or even the approaches to Washington, DC, carries 2,000 passengers, more than three times the number of people on a 747. The tunnels do not have ventilation and they do not have escapes. As this second photograph illustrates, under the East River of New York and under the Hudson River, a single spiral staircase serves to exit 500 to 2,000 passengers. The same spiral staircase would be used for firefighters getting to the train. It is obviously not adequate. Last August, before these attacks occurred, the New York State Commission said it was a disaster waiting to happen. Those are not the only problems. We need police officers on Amtrak trains. We need to screen luggage. We need to ensure that switching mechanisms are safeguarded and secure. This Congress will do a good deed for the American people if indeed we secure our airlines, but it is unlikely we would be so fortunate that terrorists will choose this same method and mode for the next attack. Securing Amtrak and commuter trains is essential. The legislation we will offer, $3.2 billion, will secure the tunnels, hire police officers, assure screening, and bring our train transportation network to the same new high standards as our aircraft. It is essential. It is timely, and I hope my colleagues around the country understand those of us in the Northeast and the great metropolitan areas of Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, and Boston cannot yield on this point, not with hundreds of thousands of commuters having their lives depending upon it every day. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I thank my colleague and friend from Florida. Indeed, it was a pleasure to hear his remarks. In my service in the Congress through these years, I have rarely-- indeed, I have never--witnessed the solidarity of the membership, the focus of purpose that has been evident since the tragedy of September 11. Partisan differences, differences of region and philosophy have been impossible to discern in the debates on the Senate floor. Tomorrow the Senate resumes debate on legislation to deal with airline and airport security. There may be a slight fissure in this wall of solidarity. I rise to address it this evening. It is not necessarily a difference of party affiliation or of philosophy, but it does have some regional implications where people of goodwill can differ because of different experiences. It needs to be put in perspective, but it is still important. This body is right, indeed; the Senate has no choice but to deal with the issue of airport security. Our national economy has taken a terrible toll in the loss of employment and income. Lives have been lost. Families have been broken. Confidence in the freedom to travel in America has been shaken--all because of the acts of terrorists who hijacked planes and killed our citizens. To the cynic, our legislation represents closing the barn door. The cynics may be right. But that does not mean the Senate has a choice. Whether it is providing armed marshals on aircraft or federalizing the check-in system, changing cockpit doors, it may be too late for thousands, but it is still not too late for our country. It is a responsibility we owe to the American people. It must be done, and it must be done quickly. We can lament that we did not forecast the problem, but we are left with the reality of dealing with it. This, however, invites the question of whether the obligation of the Senate is simply to deal with the problem that is now before us, a problem made clear by the terrorists themselves in the means by which they hijacked these planes, their mode of operation, or whether our responsibility is to anticipate. On September 11, it was the hijacking of aircraft. There was no reason to believe that would be the mode of operation in a future attack. In some areas of the country, transportation is simply defined. It is either aircraft or it is driving automobiles. In our great metropolitan areas, it is far more complex. More people use trains every day, I suspect, in New York and Boston and Philadelphia and Chicago, perhaps in St. Louis or Miami or Los Angeles, perhaps in these places, but I can assure you certainly in the State of New Jersey more people ride on commuter rail, on Amtrak, than ride on every airliner combined. It is another spot of vulnerability. So are our reservoirs, our powerplants. All these are places of vulnerability that must be addressed. If the Senate tomorrow is to address safety in transportation, that debate cannot be complete if we secure aircraft without dealing with railroads because they are equally vulnerable. Indeed, every Metroliner that leaves New York for Boston or Washington potentially can hold up to 2,000 people. Every train represents three 747s with average loads. Under any time in a tunnel along the Northeast corridor where two trains pass, 3,000 or 4,000 people can be vulnerable at an instant. Indeed, long before this tragedy occurred, the Senate was put on notice by Amtrak that its tunnels were aging and had safety difficulties. Indeed, the six tunnels leading to Penn Station in New York under the Hudson River were built between 1911 and 1920. The Senate has been told they do not have ventilation. They do not have standing firehoses, and they do not have escape routes. The Senate would like to deal with transportation safety by securing airplanes. If only life were so easy. It is more complex because transportation in our country is more complex. Imagine the scenes of people attempting to escape the World Trade Center. You can get a concept of what it would be like for people trying to get from under the Baltimore tunnels or the Hudson River tunnels, if there were a fire or other emergency. Five hundred or 1,000 people under Penn Station alone would have to climb up nine stories of spiral staircases, which is also the only route for firefighters to gain access. It is not just the New York tunnels. The tunnels in Baltimore were built in 1877. The engineering was done by the Army Corps of Engineers during the Civil War. They still operate. High-speed railroads purchased by this Senate at the cost of billions of dollars, which operate at 150 miles per hour, slow to 30 miles per hour in these tunnels to navigate their Civil War engineering. One hundred sixty trains carrying thousands and thousands of passengers go through each of these tunnels every day in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, and, indeed, Washington, DC, itself. The tunnels to Union Station in Washington that travel alongside the Supreme Court annex building were built in 1907 and service up to 60 trains every single day and have the same difficulties. This is not a new problem. It has been coming for years. It is a problem in efficiency. It is an economic problem. But what looms most large today is it is an enormous safety problem. All of us must do everything possible to secure air safety, but if this Senate acts upon air safety without dealing with these Amtrak and commuter trains, we have not fully met our responsibility. Closing the barn door is not good enough when we can see open doors all around us that are other invitations for attack. Amtrak has proposed a $3.2 billion program to enhance safety: One, a $471 million security plan to assure that there are police in proximity to trains, bomb-sniffing dogs, and bomb detection equipment for luggage--uncompromisable, logical, and essential--two, a command center and new communications equipment to ensure that the police are in contact with all trains, all police units at all times, including a hazmat detection and response system and fencing to assure that access to stations and trains can be controlled; third, $1 billion in safety and structural improvements for tunnels in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, and Washington, as I have outlined, for fire and escape, and a billion dollars in capacity enhancement for rail, bridges, and switching stations along the Northeast corridor to deal with what has been a 40- to 50-percent increase in ridership since the September 11 attacks. This is necessitated by the need to have 608 additional seats from 18 Metroliners and Acela trains to deal with this demand, and to assure that the Nation has at least a duplicity of service for our major northeastern metropolitan regions, so if air travel is interrupted again, or lost, there is some means of commerce, travel, and communication. But indeed, while it is much of the Northeast, it is not entirely the Northeast. Amtrak trains, in a national emergency, could be the only communication with the South, great Western cities, and, most obviously, in the Midwest. This is a danger that confronts all Americans. But, frankly, if it only concerns a single city in a single State in a great Union, when our citizens are in danger and the Nation has been attacked, and a program of security and safety is required, we should deal with those safety requirements that affect all States, as with our airliners. But even the least among us should be part of that program--to assure that their unique transportation needs are safe and secure. This debate will be held tomorrow. I know some people would like to avoid it entirely. It is unpleasant to have any differences. We all want to agree on everything. In this instance, it may not be necessary. But some of us have raised this issue of expanded rail capacity and rail safety not for months but for years. Forgive me, but across my State there are 3,000 families who have lost a son, or a daughter, or a mother, or a father--not to injury but to death. This is not a theoretical problem. Terrorism has struck my State, as it struck Washington and New York--only it may have consumed even more of our lives. While it is every American's loss, you can understand we feel it most acutely. For me, responding to the attack will never be enough. Our responsibility is to forecast the next problem and assure that it never happens. We are grateful for resources for the victims, but our duty is to assure that there are no more victims. That is what Amtrak and rail safety is all about. This debate will be had tomorrow. It is one we dare not lose. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, sometimes seemingly small issues take on a great significance in large debates. I raised the prospect of objecting to going to conference on this bill because of an issue that both in my State and potentially in my country looms very large. A week ago, I raised with the committee my concerns that because of a merger by General Dynamics and another corporation, the United States of America is being left with one producer of smokeless gunpowder. One. One plant, one company, one location. It is a highly volatile matter. Aside from the questions of what this does to the competitiveness for cost for the Pentagon, the waste it may produce, there is the danger of loss of production. I remind my colleagues this is what fuels the TOW missile, hundreds of which are probably now making their way to the Middle East for antitank operations; our strategic forces with the Trident, the Hellfire missile that is used from aircraft and helicopters, one manufacturer. It is my understanding the Pentagon is now considering acquiescing to an action by the Federal Trade Commission because of concerns about what this will do to government costs, monopoly status, safety and quality for what is a matter of great significance to our Armed Forces. It was my hope and intention to include an amendment in the legislation that would have put the Senate on record that indeed the Federal Trade Commission should investigate and, if appropriate, take the proper action. In my judgment, the right action is for the Pentagon to indeed ensure there are two suppliers and to divide the contract as we do with so many other items that are important for national security. Because of the cloture vote, I could not include this amendment in the legislation, but it is my understanding the Secretary of Defense has now decided on the merits, on his own volition, to accede to the Federal Trade Commission. I inquire of the chairman of the committee his understanding of this action and whatever actions he might be taking in coming days in regard to this concern.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Levin, for his consideration and his support. I believe the Secretary of Defense will make a proper communication to the Federal Trade Commission. If for any reason he does not, I am very grateful the chairman of the committee will express his own views at the appropriate time. Obviously, if this is not successful in conference with this matter, we will return on the appropriations bill. What matters most is not simply the Greentree Chemicals and these few hundred people in Parlin, NJ, and those who work in Delaware. They matter to me and they matter to me enormously. More significantly, at a time when we have seen the vulnerability of our country and at a time of national emergency, the Nation, for principal defense items, cannot either on this specific item or speaking more broadly in national defense generally ever limit itself to single suppliers or create choke points in supplying our Armed Forces. Today I am rising on behalf of a small company in New Jersey, but tomorrow it could be somebody in any city in any State in America. The principle still stands. We live in an age of terrorism, and even if we did not, we live in a time where simple industrial accidents cannot impair the ability of our country to supply ourselves or our Armed Forces. I thank the Secretary of Defense for the action he has promised with the Federal Trade Commission, and I am particularly grateful to the Senator from Michigan for his own statement of support. I withdraw my objection.

Mr. TORRICELLI

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

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I want to engage my colleagues and the American people in a discussion of the events of September 11, 2001. All of us recognize that much of our lives have been touched and some things have been changed forever. If it is axiomatic to say that about our country and the communities I represent and where I live in northern New Jersey, it may be as true as anywhere in the Nation. There is not a small town or a city in northern New Jersey that has not been touched or changed. At the time the final body has been found and the search has concluded, 2,000 to 3,000 people in New Jersey may have lost their lives. It is estimated there are 1,500 orphans in my State. It struck everywhere. In Middletown, NJ, 36 people have been lost. It is estimated it could go as high as 70. In Basking Ridge, where Jon Corzine and I visited a few days ago, 14 people were lost, two more than in all of World War II. In a single elementary school in Ridgewood, NJ, 6 children lost their fathers. The loss of lives in Korea or Vietnam or World War II took years to accumulate. In my State of New Jersey, lives were lost in minutes. We say the Nation will never be the same. We say that life has changed. Those are words. We do not know what they mean. All we can attest is that it is large, it is dramatic, and things will be different. Now we fill in the blanks. How will it be different and why? The pain is so great and the loss is so enormous that our instinct is to strike immediately, overwhelmingly with the power in our possession, and, indeed, we will strike, but it must be thoughtful and it must be careful because it must be successful. Our instinct is, because we understand there is no liberty without security, that we must immediately enhance law enforcement with money, with people, and with new powers. Indeed, many of these new powers are justified and must be required. Everything from increasing electronic surveillance to expanding wiretap authority to giving the CIA greater access to grand jury materials is being proposed. Some of it is long overdue, and already I think the Congress can justify acting. There is no reason to have a 5-year statute of limitations on terrorist activities. The Nation has no statute of limitations for treason or for murder. Terrorism is every much as insidious and the statute of limitations should be lifted. The Government clearly needs to have greater powers for dealing with money laundering. We recognize this from our fight against the narcotics trade, and it is true with terrorism. The laws are antiquated and must be changed. The electronics telecommunications revolution has probably necessitated change in electronic monitoring as well. These things we can justify, but it is here where I urge caution because we are in pain, because we are vulnerable, and because we recognize that our security is in such danger there is a rush to judgment on issues of civil liberties. It is here where I draw the line. Everything can be discussed, and the Congress should be willing to listen to many, but it is the responsibility of this Congress, under the architecture designed by the Founding Fathers, and primarily the duty of this Senate where passions cool, better judgment reigns, civil liberties which are compromised. A Constitution which is changed to deal with the necessities of an emergency is not so easily restored when the peace is guaranteed and a victory won. If this Congress surrenders civil liberties and rearranges constitutional rights to deal with these terrorists, then their greatest victory will not have been won in New York but in Washington. Any administration can defeat terrorism by surrendering civil liberties and changing the Constitution. Our goal is to defeat terrorism, remain who we are, and retain the best about ourselves while defeating terrorism. It is more difficult, but it is what history requires us to do. The history of our Nation is replete with contrary examples, and we need to learn by them. They are instructive. For even the greats of American political life have given in to the temptation of our worst instincts to defeat our worst enemies and lose the best about ourselves. Indeed, the very architect of our independence, John Adams, under the threat of British and French subversion, supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, compromising the very freedom of expression he had helped to bring to the American people only a decade before. He lived with the blemish of those acts on his public life until the day he died. Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, the savior of our Union suspended the Constitution, its right of habeas corpus, imprisoning political opponents to save the Union. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who had the honor of saving the Nation not once but through the Great Depression and the Second World War, imprisoned Japanese Americans and some German and Italian Americans in a hasty effort at national security which has lived as a national shame. If these great men, pillars of our democracy, compromised better judgment in time of national crisis, it should temper our instincts. Their actions should speak volumes about the need for caution at a time of national challenge. There is another side. There are better instincts among us. The American people are speaking of them all across the Nation. They recognize the need to balance security and civil liberties, to change that which is required to assure victory, but recognizing that victory is measured not only by security but also by our liberties. Across the Nation, the American people have provided us many measures of their strength as they exercise those liberties, engaging in open debate about how the Nation responds, giving unprecedented levels of donations--$200 million to the Red Cross alone. They reached out across races and religions to express concern about each other and for the safety of Arab Americans and Muslim Americans. They are reminders of how much the Nation has grown from previous successes. I rise in recognition of these national strengths and these concerns and commend in particular Senator Leahy who has extended, on behalf of the Senate, our desire to work with the administration to enhance the powers of law enforcement and to provide the necessary resources. But I think he speaks for many Members of the Senate--he certainly speaks for me--when he also asks that we act deliberately and prudently. I ask we expand that debate because history will require, and I believe the American people will demand, that we not merely review what new powers must be given to law enforcement and the intelligence community, we must not simply debate what new resources financially are required, but there is some need for some accounting of those previous powers and resources. At a time when we are still seeking survivors and counting the dead, no one wants to cast blame. I do not rise to cast blame, but I do ask for accountability. I may represent 3,000 families who lost fathers and mothers and sisters and brothers and children. They demand military protection by bringing our forces abroad. They ask that we strengthen law enforcement at home. But somebody is going to have to visit these cities and small towns and answer to these families, where are the resources we gave in the past? What of the enormous intelligence and security and law enforcement apparatus we have built through these decades? What happened? This is not to assess blame. It is so we can only learn how to correct these errors and improve these systems if we understand the failures. It is reported in the media that the United States, in what would otherwise be a classified figure, may spend $30 billion per year on intelligence services, including the CIA and the NSA. The Washington Post reports the FBI counterterrorism spending grew to $423 million this year, a figure which in the last 8 years has grown by 300 percent. It is not enough to ask for more. It is necessary to assess what went wrong. Did leadership fail? Were the plans inadequate? Did we have the wrong people, or were they on the wrong mission? Earlier this week, the Washington Post reported that over the past 2 years the Central Intelligence Agency had provided to the FBI the names of 100 suspected associates of Osama bin Laden who were either in or on their way to the United States. Yet the Washington Post concludes that the FBI ``was ill equipped and unprepared'' to deal with this information. Some of the allegations reported in the media are stunning and deeply troubling, not simply about what happened but revealing about our inability to deal with the current crisis. Previous terrorist investigations, it is alleged, produced boxes of evidentiary material written in Arabic that remained unanalyzed for lack of translators. During the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial, agents discovered that photos and drawings outlining the plot had been in their possession for 3 years, but they had not been analyzed. Since 1996, the FBI had evidence that international terrorists were learning to fly passenger jets at U.S. flight schools, but that does not seem to have obviously raised sufficient concern, and there was no apparent action. In August, the FBI received notice from French intelligence that one man who had paid cash to use flight simulators in Minnesota was a ``radical Islamic extremist'' with ties to Afghani terrorist training camps. Regrettably, this intelligence information was apparently not seen in the greater context of an actual threat that has now been realized. On August 23 of this year, a few weeks before the World Trade Center was attacked, the CIA alerted the FBI that two suspected terrorist associates of Bin Laden were in the United States. The INS confirmed their presence in the United States, and the FBI launched a search. It was obviously unsuccessful. It is hard to know where to begin. Life goes on, but not so quickly. Who here will come to New Jersey with me and visit these thousands of families who pay their taxes and ask little of their country, maybe nothing of their Government, other than to keep them secure, protect their liberties, and let them live their lives? Somebody failed the American people. I know my constituents will ask me, as their representative in the Senate, to authorize foreign military adventures to find those responsible, and I have done that, and the President has my support. They will not want this pain to be shared with other Americans, so they will ask my support financially and by changing Federal statutes to ensure this never happens again, and that will have my support. Some of these children, some of the widows or widowers, are going to ask: Senator, how did this happen? All of this money and all of these resources. Why was somebody not watching to defend my family, my country, my child? We can postpone that accountability, but it has to happen. These terrorist cells that consumed these lives and shooked our Nation to the core and now send us into foreign battle were not organized last month. This attack was not planned on the morning of September 11, 2001. Many of those arrested or detained for this terrorist attack were from the same area and may have had the same relationships to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York. What level of surprise could this represent? There needs to be an explanation. On behalf of the people of my State, if I need to return to this Chamber every day of every week of every month, this Senate is going to vote for some board of inquiry. I joined my colleagues after the Challenger accident, recognizing that that loss of life, the failure of technology and leadership, indicated something was wrong in NASA. The board of inquiry reformed NASA and the technology and gave it new leadership, and it served the Nation well. After Pearl Harbor, we recognized something was wrong militarily. We had a board of inquiry. We found those responsible, we held them accountable, and we instituted the changes. Indeed, that formula has served this Nation for years in numerous crises. Now I call for it again. First, review the circumstances surrounding this tragedy, the people responsible, the resources that were available, where there was a failure of action, and make recommendations and assign responsibility. Second, develop recommendations for changes of law or resources or personnel so it does not happen again. I cannot imagine we will do less. I call upon us to do more. I will not be satisfied with new assignments of powers or appropriating more money. I want to know what went wrong, and why, and who. Just as we have moved forward, we need to give one glance back over our shoulder and give these families some answers. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for morning business and that I be recognized.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, to introduce the Children's Lead Screening Accountability for Early-Intervention Act of 2001 and the Early Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act of 2001. Lead poisoning is one of the dangerous environmental health hazards for young children. It is estimated that 890,000 children nationally suffer from elevated blood lead levels. Lead poisoning causes damage to the brain and nervous system, loss in IQ, impaired physical development and behavioral problems. High levels of exposure to lead can result in comas, convulsions and death. Poor and minority children are most at- risk of lead poisoning because of inadequate diets and exposure to environmental hazards such as old housing. In an effort to alleviate this problem, in 1992, Congress instructed the Health Care Financing Administration to require States to lead screen Medicaid children under the age of two. The screening would have enabled the highest-risk children to be tested and treated before lead poisoning impaired their development. Despite the Federal law, however, a study from the General Accounting Office indicates that currently two-thirds of all Medicaid children remain unscreened and that only half the States have screening policies consistent with the law. In New Jersey, only 30% of children covered by Medicaid are tested. The Children's Lead Screening Accountability for Early-Intervention Act or Children's Lead SAFE Act will create a lead screening safety net that will, though the Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance, SCHIP, programs, ensure that children enrolled in these programs receive blood lead screenings and appropriate follow-up care. Specifically, this legislation will require state Medicaid contracts to explicitly require health management organizations to comply with federal rules related to lead screening and treatment. The bill will expand Medicaid coverage to include lead treatment services and environmental investigations to determine the source of the poisoning. The Early Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act of 2001 requires the Head Start, Early Head Start and Women, Infants and Children, WIC, programs to determine if enrolled children under age three have received a blood lead screening test appropriate for their age and risk factors. This legislation also requires that these programs provide and track referrals for any child who has not been screened for lead poisoning. Importantly, this legislation authorizes WIC, Head Start and Early Head Start programs to seek reimbursement through Medicaid or the SCHIP program for eligible children who have received a lead screening test. The health and safety of our children would be greatly enhanced with the passage of these important measures. Childhood lead poisoning is easily preventable and I hope my colleagues will join us in support of this legislation. At this time, I ask that the text of the Children's Lead Screening Accountability for Early-Intervention Act of 2001 be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, to introduce the Children's Lead Screening Accountability for Early-Intervention Act of 2001 and the Early Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act of 2001. Lead poisoning is one of the dangerous environmental health hazards for young children. It is estimated that 890,000 children nationally suffer from elevated blood lead levels. Lead poisoning causes damage to the brain and nervous system, loss in IQ, impaired physical development and behavioral problems. High levels of exposure to lead can result in comas, convulsions and death. Poor and minority children are most at- risk of lead poisoning because of inadequate diets and exposure to environmental hazards such as old housing. In an effort to alleviate this problem, in 1992, Congress instructed the Health Care Financing Administration to require States to lead screen Medicaid children under the age of two. The screening would have enabled the highest-risk children to be tested and treated before lead poisoning impaired their development. Despite the Federal law, however, a study from the General Accounting Office indicates that currently two-thirds of all Medicaid children remain unscreened and that only half the States have screening policies consistent with the law. In New Jersey, only 30% of children covered by Medicaid are tested. The Children's Lead Screening Accountability for Early-Intervention Act or Children's Lead SAFE Act will create a lead screening safety net that will, though the Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance, SCHIP, programs, ensure that children enrolled in these programs receive blood lead screenings and appropriate follow-up care. Specifically, this legislation will require state Medicaid contracts to explicitly require health management organizations to comply with federal rules related to lead screening and treatment. The bill will expand Medicaid coverage to include lead treatment services and environmental investigations to determine the source of the poisoning. The Early Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act of 2001 requires the Head Start, Early Head Start and Women, Infants and Children, WIC, programs to determine if enrolled children under age three have received a blood lead screening test appropriate for their age and risk factors. This legislation also requires that these programs provide and track referrals for any child who has not been screened for lead poisoning. Importantly, this legislation authorizes WIC, Head Start and Early Head Start programs to seek reimbursement through Medicaid or the SCHIP program for eligible children who have received a lead screening test. The health and safety of our children would be greatly enhanced with the passage of these important measures. Childhood lead poisoning is easily preventable and I hope my colleagues will join us in support of this legislation. At this time, I ask that the text of the Children's Lead Screening Accountability for Early-Intervention Act of 2001 be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr President, I bring to the attention of the Senate the accomplishments of one of my constituents who recently suffered a most tragic and untimely death. John O. Quinn, born on October 27, 1968 and originally from New Jersey, was senselessly murdered on August 25, 2001 while living in Puerto Cortes, Honduras. John had moved to Honduras in November of 1999 to help the residents of Puerto Cortes, Honduras recover from the devastation that Hurricane Mitch wreaked on the country. Up to the time of his death he was still living in the country and providing humanitarian and development aid to the people of Honduras. Now an act of violence has cut short this promising young life. While we hope his killers will quickly be brought to justice, I want today to pay tribute to what John did in the brief years of his life. John O. Quinn was a truly special person. He possessed a quality that very few people exhibit. He took joy in helping others. His unselfishness and passion for helping the less fortunate will always be remembered and will never be forgotten by those to whom he so generously dedicated his time. John was committed to helping people all over the world. His desire to help impoverished people took him to Honduras, Guatemala, Mozambique and Ecuador. In all of these countries he vigorously sought out people who were in desperate need of the development and humanitarian aid that he enthusiastically provided. John was the cofounder and executive director of the organization Action for Community Transformation, ACT. He founded ACT in January 2000 as an international development organization dedicated to empowering people in need to find their own sustainable solutions to problems of poor health, lack of education and poverty. Action for Community Transformation provides assistance in four major areas of development: healthcare; youth development; education and vocational training; and income generation. As executive director of ACT, John's work was guided by the belief that respect for people comes first, urgent situations call for rapid responses, and greater participation leads to greater commitment. This last principle is the very definition of John's lifework. When John participated in development and aid projects, he did so with all his heart. He committed himself to helping others. The focus of his life was the people and communities that he felt it was his responsibility to serve. The help that John provided to victims of Hurricane Mitch in Puerto Cortes, Honduras illustrates John's dedication to and enthusiasm for helping people who desperately needed help. While working in Puerto Cortes, Honduras, John developed a micro lending program which allowed 45 families who lost everything during Hurricane Mitch to start micro enterprises. He was also responsible for the design and installation of a potable water system in Puerto Cortes, Honduras. He helped build a school and kindergarten that is attended by ninety-one students and he contributed to the construction of a medical clinic and over eighty houses for locals whose homes were destroyed by Hurricane Mitch. Characteristically, when John had time off from his activities associated with ACT, he spent it instructing the residents of the area in the English language. He was always looking for new people that he could help. Felicita Carcamo, a teacher in Puerto Cortes, Honduras enthusiastically praised John in the local newspaper. She said that Quinn loved the poor and was dedicated to the people of the area. A man who will be remembered in such a fashion must have been a truly wonderful person. John was this kind of a person. John's desire to help the poor and less fortunate began well before he came to the aid of the victims of Hurricane Mitch in Honduras and Guatemala. After graduating from the University of Vermont in 1991 he immediately joined the Peace Corps. As a member of the Peace Corps, John was stationed in Macas, Ecuador for three years. While there he worked to develop community health programs; community development programs; and livestock and agroforestry programs. In a procession honoring John's life, residents of Puerto Cortes, Honduras carried signs that read ``John Quinn, the community cries now that you have left us, and you will always live with us'' and ``for your dedication to others, God has thanked you.'' In memory of his death, John's family has established the John Quinn Memorial Scholarship Fund that goes towards paying for the education of children living in Honduras. The help that John provided to the people of Honduras, Guatemala, Mozambique and Ecuador and his desire to help those who could not help themselves, must never be forgotten. Even though his life has been tragically cut short, he accomplished much in his lifetime and touched many lives. His family can be justly proud of John, even as they mourn his loss.