Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

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

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act of 2003, legislation to protect gun owners and the public by establishing safety standards for firearms such as those currently in place for other consumer products. Because of a loophole in current law, firearms are virtually the only consumer product not subject to any Federal health and safety standards. Yet firearms are the second leading cause of product-related death in America. In 2000 alone, 28,663 Americans died by gunfire and nearly twice that number were treated in emergency rooms for non-fatal gunshot injuries. Of course, all firearms are lethal. But many guns are much more dangerous than they have to be. First, many firearms are manufactured poorly or with components of inadequate quality. These guns can pose a severe threat to gun owners, as well as members of the public. For example, one firearm manufacturer settled a class action suit for more than $31 million in 1995, and thereafter improved the quality of their guns, after gun owners alleged that their firearms were produced from steel that was too weak, and thus prone to explode. Unfortunately, the lack of safety standards in current law means that many defective firearms remain in circulation, with the government largely unable to do anything about it. We cannot recall such firearms. We cannot require that warning labels be attached to them. We can do very little to protect gun owners and the public from the threat they pose. Beyond the need to better regulate firearms that are manufactured defectively, we also need to do more to ensure that firearms are designed properly, with features that reduce unreasonable risks. Unfortunately, too many firearms lack readily available features that could make them much less likely to be involved in an accident. For example, many guns lack so-called magazine disconnects, which disable a firearm when its magazine is removed. This feature could prevent many accidental deaths caused when a firearm user, seeing that the magazine has been removed, wrongly concludes that a gun is not loaded. Along the same lines, too few firearms include a load indicator, which allows an individual to readily see whether the gun is loaded. Both of these features would address the most common scenario for unintentional shootings, which involves a person who does not realize that there is still a round in a gun's chamber. By regulating the manufacture and design of firearms, we can significantly reduce the number of accidental shootings, and the serious injuries and deaths they cause. However, better safety regulation also holds the promise of reducing the number of deaths from homicides and suicides. In recent years, firearm manufacturers have taken a number of steps to make firearms more likely to be used in crimes, and more deadly if they are. For example, many guns are being produced in a manner that makes them readily concealable, and thus more attractive to criminals. In addition, many manufacturers have increased the number of rounds that a gun can fire without reloading, and have increased the size of their ammunition, making the firearms far more lethal. Given the threat posed by unreasonably dangerous firearms to gun owners and the general public, there is no excuse for exempting firearms from health and safety standards applicable to most other consumer products. In fact, there is evidence that the public would support such regulation. A 1999 National Opinion Research Center survey found that two-thirds of Americans want the Federal Government to regulate the safety design of guns. The Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act would do just that. The bill would give the Department of Justice the authority to: set minimum safety standards for the manufacture, design and distribution of firearms; issue recalls and warnings; collect data on gun-related death and injury; and limit the sale of products when no other remedy is sufficient. It is important to emphasize that the bill would not limit the public's access to guns for hunting and other legitimate sporting purposes. More than 120 national, state and local organizations support this bill, including: the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Bar Association, American Jewish Congress, American Public Health Association, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Consumer Federation of America, the NAACP, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries, and the Violence Policy Center. There simply is no reason to maintain the existing loophole that exempts firearms from basic health and safety protections. This loophole is creating a serious public safety problem, especially for gun owners themselves. In conclusion, I hope my colleagues will consider this: under current law, the safety of toy guns is regulated. The safety of real guns is not. Even if my colleagues in the Senate cannot agree on much else when it comes to guns, surely we should all agree that this makes no sense. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act of 2003, legislation to protect gun owners and the public by establishing safety standards for firearms such as those currently in place for other consumer products. Because of a loophole in current law, firearms are virtually the only consumer product not subject to any Federal health and safety standards. Yet firearms are the second leading cause of product-related death in America. In 2000 alone, 28,663 Americans died by gunfire and nearly twice that number were treated in emergency rooms for non-fatal gunshot injuries. Of course, all firearms are lethal. But many guns are much more dangerous than they have to be. First, many firearms are manufactured poorly or with components of inadequate quality. These guns can pose a severe threat to gun owners, as well as members of the public. For example, one firearm manufacturer settled a class action suit for more than $31 million in 1995, and thereafter improved the quality of their guns, after gun owners alleged that their firearms were produced from steel that was too weak, and thus prone to explode. Unfortunately, the lack of safety standards in current law means that many defective firearms remain in circulation, with the government largely unable to do anything about it. We cannot recall such firearms. We cannot require that warning labels be attached to them. We can do very little to protect gun owners and the public from the threat they pose. Beyond the need to better regulate firearms that are manufactured defectively, we also need to do more to ensure that firearms are designed properly, with features that reduce unreasonable risks. Unfortunately, too many firearms lack readily available features that could make them much less likely to be involved in an accident. For example, many guns lack so-called magazine disconnects, which disable a firearm when its magazine is removed. This feature could prevent many accidental deaths caused when a firearm user, seeing that the magazine has been removed, wrongly concludes that a gun is not loaded. Along the same lines, too few firearms include a load indicator, which allows an individual to readily see whether the gun is loaded. Both of these features would address the most common scenario for unintentional shootings, which involves a person who does not realize that there is still a round in a gun's chamber. By regulating the manufacture and design of firearms, we can significantly reduce the number of accidental shootings, and the serious injuries and deaths they cause. However, better safety regulation also holds the promise of reducing the number of deaths from homicides and suicides. In recent years, firearm manufacturers have taken a number of steps to make firearms more likely to be used in crimes, and more deadly if they are. For example, many guns are being produced in a manner that makes them readily concealable, and thus more attractive to criminals. In addition, many manufacturers have increased the number of rounds that a gun can fire without reloading, and have increased the size of their ammunition, making the firearms far more lethal. Given the threat posed by unreasonably dangerous firearms to gun owners and the general public, there is no excuse for exempting firearms from health and safety standards applicable to most other consumer products. In fact, there is evidence that the public would support such regulation. A 1999 National Opinion Research Center survey found that two-thirds of Americans want the Federal Government to regulate the safety design of guns. The Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act would do just that. The bill would give the Department of Justice the authority to: set minimum safety standards for the manufacture, design and distribution of firearms; issue recalls and warnings; collect data on gun-related death and injury; and limit the sale of products when no other remedy is sufficient. It is important to emphasize that the bill would not limit the public's access to guns for hunting and other legitimate sporting purposes. More than 120 national, state and local organizations support this bill, including: the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Bar Association, American Jewish Congress, American Public Health Association, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Consumer Federation of America, the NAACP, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries, and the Violence Policy Center. There simply is no reason to maintain the existing loophole that exempts firearms from basic health and safety protections. This loophole is creating a serious public safety problem, especially for gun owners themselves. In conclusion, I hope my colleagues will consider this: under current law, the safety of toy guns is regulated. The safety of real guns is not. Even if my colleagues in the Senate cannot agree on much else when it comes to guns, surely we should all agree that this makes no sense. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to also speak today in support of Michael Chertoff, a nominee for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals is one that includes my home State of New Jersey. It is a very distinguished court and handles a diverse range of issues reflecting, frankly, the diversity of the people, the economy, the society of that circuit. It deserves a highly qualified candidate. I believe the White House, in cooperation and dialog with the Senators from those areas that are attendant to the Third Circuit, has been fortunate, in working in that cooperative manner, to have a nominee as superb as Michael Chertoff. He has ably served the citizens of New Jersey in a number of capacities, as my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, mentioned. Indeed, he has served the Nation and the Department of Justice, where he is No. 3 today in the criminal justice system. We will all be privileged to have his sound judgment and legal skills serving in this critical judicial position. Mr. Chertoff has impeccable credentials. That is why we support him. And they are fully disclosed, fully responsive to the kinds of questions one would raise. You have heard he attended Harvard College, then Harvard Law School where he was editor of the Law Review. He then served as a Supreme Court law clerk to Justice Brennan. He has had a remarkable private practice. In private practice and public service he has served, in every case, with excellence. He has developed a reputation of being brilliant. He has an equal reputation for being tough and fair. And he is a world class litigator and has earned the respect of his peers and adversaries in court, regardless of their political background. While I will acknowledge that I might not always agree with Mr. Chertoff on every issue--I may have philosophical differences--I find that no excuse for a loss of support when he is prepared to speak to the issues about how he will deal with the judgments he will make and how he will go about forming those judgments in the context of legal study and the context of constitutional and legal precedent. While there have been even serious concerns that a number of us have expressed regarding the prosecution of the war on terrorism, as at least implemented by the Justice Department--and I share some of those concerns--I do not believe that impacts a judge when they are willing to address how they will deal with constitutional precedent. And Michael Chertoff clearly has done so. I think he is truly a qualified candidate. Once again, I mention he was a U.S. attorney, a tough one. He combated organized crime, public corruption, health care fraud, and bank fraud. Unlike many of his predecessors--and people who now fill the position of U.S. attorney--as a U.S. attorney he continued to try cases himself. He went to court; he took on the highest profile cases himself. He is actually one of those people who did the work to go into the courtroom and carry the case. So I think we have a terrific candidate whom we all can support. I think there is a precedent here to which all of us can look. Frankly, this nomination process worked the way it is supposed to work. There was dialog and consultation with the White House. And when there were differences of view, there was discussion with those who were involved. I compliment the White House for how they have worked with the Senators involved in the process. We have gotten to a positive conclusion because there has been the kind of dialog and mutual seeking of support that we look for. I urge my colleagues to support this nomination. I urge all of us to look for a more cooperative manner in how we approach the selection of judges, particularly in the circuit courts, as we go forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce along with Senators Lautenberg and Akaka the Youth Financial Literacy Act to call attention to an important issue in education: teaching students the basic principles of financial literacy to prepare them to be responsible consumers. This legislation will give young Americans the tools they need to succeed in this ever-changing economy. Today, it is as important for young people to learn about staying out of debt, maintaining good credit and building up their savings as it is for them to learn about geography, science and history. Far too many of our youth enter adulthood lacking basic financial literacy skills, not knowing how to budget their wages or salaries or build personal savings. A recent survey by the non-profit JumpStart Coalition reveals that the only 21 percent of students between the ages of 16 and 22 say they have taken a personal finance course at school. The study also found that when high school seniors were tested on basic financial literacy, they answered a mere 50.2 percent of the questions correctly. That, is simply not acceptable. Providing financial education to our nation's young people must be a priority. Indeed it is time for our schools to make a more concerted effort to prepare our children for success in new ways including their future financial decision-making. I am not alone in advocating the importance of financial literacy. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has said, ``Improving basic financial education at the elementary and secondary school levels is essential to providing a foundation for financial literacy that can help prevent younger people from making poor financial decisions.'' Today, I hope to elevate the discussion of this issue by introducing the Youth Financial Education Act, which would provide $100 million in grants to states to help them develop and implement financial education programs in elementary and secondary schools, including helping to prepare teachers to provide financial education. It would also establish a national clearinghouse for instructional materials and information regarding model financial education programs. I am happy to report that in my state of New Jersey many have already started the ball rolling on financial literacy education. My State allows local schools the option of offering financial education in high school, and the New Jersey Coalition for Financial Education is working with the New Jersey Department of Education to develop and implement core curriculum standards. I believe it is time for our Nation to follow suit and begin to focus on the financial literacy education of all young Americans. We must not sit idly by while so many of our children lack financial literacy. So I ask for my colleagues to join me in support of the Youth Financial Literacy Act, which will ensure that our next generation is prepared to meet the challenges of the new economy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, as always the Senator from North Dakota has made an eloquent presentation, a graphic presentation, an intellectually honest presentation of where we stand with regard to the economic policies before us in the Senate. I appreciate his strong effort in trying to educate our colleagues and the public with a graphic demonstration of many of the weaknesses which I will discuss tonight with regard to the conference report, the so-called tax relief program. Tomorrow, this body will in all probability pass two pieces of legislation which will have tremendous economic impact on the American people and our economy. In my view, they will have a negative economic impact. I do not consider this a jobs and growth package. I believe it is antigrowth, and I will go through some of the reasons that is the case. One thing for sure is, I know when we pass that debt limit tomorrow-- that $984 billion debt limit, just a little smidgen under $1 trillion. It's like pricing something at $99.95, just under $100. It is so we don't have to say it is by $1 trillion we are increasing the debt limit tomorrow. We are increasing, for every single American who is watching this tonight, their debt load $3,500. That is how much we are increasing it as we spend out that debt limit increase over the next year or 15 months. By the way, that is $28 billion of debt we are laying on the people of the State of New Jersey. I think they ought to know that. That is a huge cost and a big implication over time. I don't want to talk about the debt limit tonight because we will have time to go through that tomorrow. It is really indicative of the problem; it is not the problem. The underlying economic policy is what has allowed that to happen. The conference report that will be before us--I hope we get a chance to read it so we don't have $70 billion errors that show up after the fact because of how we have framed it. But I know from the outlines of what we have been able to see this is going to have a dramatic impact on the future of our economy and the quality of life for every American, because in this tax program we are making enormous choices. I think this legislation is going to lead to--well, we already have massive deficits. I am hearing estimates from people in the private sector that we are now well over $400 billion this year--north of 4 percent GDP. That is deepening the debt as we go forward. I think this will weaken the economy in the long term. I will try to say some of the reasons why. I almost certainly know it is going to reduce the quality of life for the people of the United States. Before I talk about the economic implications, I think this needs to be framed in the context of the values we are speaking to while we go through this tax cut legislation. It says a lot about us as Senators, Americans, and about what our priorities are. Here we have a huge set of tax breaks for the privileged few, some would say elite: $93,000 is the estimate for people making over $1 million, with 53 percent of all taxpaying Americans only getting $100 or less. Let's hear that again. Less than 1 percent of taxpayers make over a million dollars, but they get a $93,000 tax break, and 53 percent of the taxpaying Americans get less than $100. What are we trading that off against with our ability to invest back in America? I don't think investing in America is really the issue. The administration is calling for deep cuts in education. We are not fulfilling our mandate on Leave No Child Behind. We gave them the test, but not the money. We are talking about limiting the benefits for our veterans. We are cutting back on the number of people who have access to veterans hospitals and clinics in my home State--a number of veterans who have access to a prescription drug benefit they were promised. We are talking about limiting the dollars we can invest in homeland security. We are now at level orange, and every State and community now has their law enforcement and local folks on overtime, running up huge tabs. In New Jersey, I think the figure is about $1.2 million a week, with the way they calculated it the last time. If it is wrong, it is a lot more. These are incredible burdens we are putting on them. Frankly, I think what really is a mistake is that we are going to lose our ability to protect Social Security and make sure Medicare is there for future generations. We have 37 million Americans now who are over 65 and in another 10, 15 years, we will have about 75 million, give or take. We will not, with tax policies that we have in place today, be able to secure Social Security and Medicare as we know it today. You are going to hear the term ``reform'' all the time. All that is about is not having the capacity to deal with the demands Medicare is going to place on our system of Social Security in the years ahead. Some of us think there is a real attempt to undermine the basic social safety net programs that are very much a part of the values of the American way of life. Maybe the President and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe in this tax cut, or that tax breaks for a very limited number of folks are more important than education. I don't think people feel that way in New Jersey. Maybe they believe it is more important to force cuts in Social Security or guaranteed benefits on Social Security down the road. Maybe we need to privatize it because we don't have the resources. I don't think I am hearing that from constituents in New Jersey, and that is not what I will fight for on the floor as we go ahead. Most of my constituents strongly disagree with those priorities and the values of placing these tax breaks that are heavily loaded and benefiting those who are already doing well in our society versus having the ability to invest back in America the way I think so many believe--at least my constituents. I think it will be a hard sell when they get the fundamental facts out about what this tax cut program is all about. Having said what I had to say about values, the problem with this legislation goes well beyond those issues. The key problem is very simple. I don't think it works. I just think it is flat out not intended to revive our economy. There is no indication it is going to create jobs. Actually, it might well do the opposite because we are undermining the tax base of our State and local governments. They have to raise taxes. We are taking money off the balance sheets of corporations by giving them encouragement to pay dividends. I don't know how companies go out and hire people, invest in plant and equipment, or put projects together on research and development when they don't have cash. I think that is actually what drives and gives incentive to the corporations to operate. So I have a hard time understanding even the theory of this program. I know the administration and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle disagree. I know they have a theory about how these tax breaks work. They seem to really believe that huge windfalls or large tax breaks for a limited number of investors eventually will trickle their way through the system to working Americans. They seem to believe cutting taxes will actually increase flows of revenue to the Federal Government. They have to believe that. I believe they are sincere; they must be. I didn't come to the floor to question anybody's motivations or sincerity. But their arguments don't stand up to serious analysis and scrutiny by anyone who stands back and asks: Does this work? What does history tell us? It contradicts these views; it directly contradicts the basic principles of economics as expressed in the past by some of the administration's own policymakers, which I will cite as we go down the road. We have tried radical supply-side economics before; we tried them back in the 1980s. We certainly got the massive deficits. Then we had the crash of 1987, and we had all kinds of serious dislocations and a sustained period of slow economic growth in the late 1980s and early 1990s. We tried them just 2 years ago when President Bush and Congress pushed through the first tax cut. Where are the results? Tell me what has happened to employment since we passed the first tax cut. I think it is something like we have lost 2 million jobs since then. We have had 2.7 million private sector jobs lost since we have been implementing and debating these kinds of policies. So it didn't work the first time, and we are going to try the second time. We have to also understand our fiscal position does have something to do with what happens in the economy. We have moved, in the 2 years and 4 months since this administration has been in office, from a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion to a deficit projection of $1.8 trillion. It is mind-boggling how big these numbers are, but a $7 trillion swing in the cash position of the Federal Government is a big deal. It is not just a little bit of money. That is not $1. That is $1 trillion, $2 trillion, all the way up to $7 trillion of negative cash swing for the Federal Government in 2 years and 4 months. If you were running a business and you had that kind of cash swing, I guess you would be scrambling to find someone to lend you money. Maybe that is what we are seeing with respect to our dollar today, which has had a 20-percent depreciation. Maybe people are a little less enthusiastic about holding dollar assets outside the United States. As I said, we lost 2.7 million private sector jobs. Two million people today have been unemployed for over 6 months. Frankly, this administration is on track for the worst job creation record in over 50 years, and we are trying to do the same thing over and over. The history is clear, at least to this reader of history. Large tax breaks, privileged few, massive deficits, and massive debt simply do not work. They do not make the pie expand; they make it shrink. They do not lift all boats; they drain the economy and hurt everyone, including, by the way, many of those who get the bulk of the tax breaks. I do not understand why we thought policies were so bad in the 1990s. There was a great expansion of wealth at all levels across the economic spectrum in this country. Probably more millionaires were made in the 1990s than any time in the history of the United States. That is the history that I know, and it should not come as a surprise because economists have been arguing against these kinds of policies for years. Which economists? The Senator from North Dakota talked about the 10 Nobel Prize winners, and there are 450 economists from academic institutions across America, 250 business folks, economists such as Alan Greenspan, major economists on Wall Street--across the economy-- who speak out against these policies. I will add, and this is the hard one, economists from the Bush administration. Let me read from the book authored by President Bush's nominee--I guess he has not yet been confirmed by the Senate, but the nomination has been reported out of the Senate Banking Committee--to be head of the Council of Economic Advisers, Greg Mankiw. He is a great economist from Harvard. He wrote the textbook for Economics 101 that is being used at most colleges across America today. It is called ``The Essentials of Economics.'' I usually bring it with me and read it but I did not do that tonight. In this book, obviously written before joining the Bush administration, Professor Mankiw, in effect, points out the fundamental fallacies of this tax policy, this fiscal policy. I will take, for example, the argument from many administration officials that deficits do not matter. This happens to be on page 401. I do not have the book. I used to cite it regularly. Professor Mankiw says: When the Government reduces national savings by running a budget deficit-- I think that is what we are doing now-- the interest rate rises and investment falls because investment is important for long run economic growth. Government budget deficits reduce the economy's growth rate. That is Professor Mankiw at page 401 of his textbook, ``The Essentials of Economics.'' What about claims that cutting taxes will actually lead to higher levels of revenue? That is the supply-side dynamic scoring. What does Professor Mankiw say about that? This is another quote: Some supplysiders push their arguments to ridiculous extremes claiming, for instance, that tax cuts would generate so much growth that they would be self-financing. The experience of the Reagan years puts this theory to rest. Professor Mankiw is obviously right about the bankruptcy of supply- side economics, at least from my perspective. Fortunately, he is wrong about one thing. The Reagan years did not prove it to somebody or a whole bunch of folks because we are trying it all over again. It is alive and well right here in Washington, DC, and we are not following what I think are the essentials of economics, and we are practicing ideological economics, politics, as opposed to dealing with the real world as I think most folks know it. The truth is deficits do matter. They matter for our economy, just as they matter for ordinary American families, just as they do for our State and local governments, just as they do for everyone who operates in an economic context. According to one analysis, by lowering national savings and increasing long-term interest rates, the incomes of working Americans would be reduced by about 2 percent, or about $1,000 per person. That is the economic analysis that is often an accepted rule of thumb. While the tax breaks would go primarily to the few of the best-off Americans, most Americans will suffer from this reduction in their income. Most Americans will. Keep in mind, the Federal debt does not come free. It leads to increases in interest payments that must be paid by ordinary American taxpayers. Over 10 years, spending on interest on additional debt, what might be called a debt tax, in my view--and I would like to get that out--of the increase of the deficit that is projected in the years ahead would amount to $2.4 trillion for the tax cut that we are going to probably sign off on tomorrow. That, by the way, is $30,000 in interest burden for a family of four. I don't know, that sort of offsets a lot of this talk about the kind of benefit this is supposedly going to have in the pockets of individuals. Somehow or another, those interest expenses for the Federal Government are going to have to get paid by the taxpayer. Somehow or another they are going to have to show up. For a family of four, that is the interest burden. The impact of higher interest rates is not limited to higher taxes that our taxpayers will have to pay to service the Federal debt. It is also going to impact the debt payments they are going to have to make. It has been estimated that for every 1-percent increase in the deficit as a percentage of GDP, other things being equal, interest rates go up to where they would have been otherwise one-half to 1 percent. We have a weak economy right now, so we have very low interest rates. Maybe they would be lower if we did not have huge deficits, and if we happened to get back into a more rapidly growing economy, then the increase in interest rates will be very rapid and the cost for ordinary families will be very real. For instance, on a $100,000 30-year mortgage, the increase in mortgage payments by that 1-percent increase would be a $860 per year payment. That is out of pocket. That is a tax. Consider what you are going to be paying in additional dollars on car loans, something approaching $100 a year if you had a $10,000 car loan; multiply it out by 30,000, you get $300 or $400 on car loan payments, and then on a $20,000 student loan or maybe it is a $100,000 student loan, and you get another $500. Cumulative, if the economic analysis is right by people who have been doing this over and over, we have families paying something like $2,000 more in higher interest costs than they would pay if we did not have these kinds of deficits. The Bush debt tax would take a real bite out of family budgets. Remember, 53 percent of Americans are going to get $100 or less, and I just went through how somebody could end up paying $2,000 more in interest expense, which I call a debt tax. This bill will not really result in tax cuts for many, if not most, Americans, and it will result in a massive tax burden shift with a handful of elite investors paying far fewer Federal taxes and other taxpayers eventually having to make up the difference somehow or another. Somehow or another it often is at the State and local level. Rising property taxes, sales taxes, State income taxes, and gas taxes all are likely to be going up. I should not say likely; they are going up. New Jersey property taxes at the local level went up 7 percent this year. Across the river in New York City they went up 18 percent. We are putting a burden on State and local governments that is going to more than make up for anybody's average--pick the number. We are going to end up paying more in taxes at the State and local level than anybody could argue someone is making on the kinds of tax breaks we are doing, other than the very top income earners in America. This does not do very much for average Americans, for people who are middle income, working hard, trying to make things happen with a solid budget. This is a massive tax shift from those who are doing well to middle-income folks, lower income folks. Four out of five Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they pay in income taxes. Why we did not think about payroll taxes or wage tax credits is hard for me to understand. That is where the real tax burden is. If we are going to protect Social Security and Medicare as we go forward, I wonder where we are going to get those dollars. Probably right back in the payroll taxes. In my view, this is not a tax cut; it is a tax shift. Frankly, this should not come as a surprise to anyone. One does not need an economics degree to be skeptical about promises based on the premise that we have a free lunch; that if we cut taxes, revenues are going to grow so much that we do not have to worry about our budget deficit. The truth is, we pass these tax breaks out to a very narrow segment of society. Everybody else ends up paying. I suppose there might be an argument for the Bush debt tax if it were being used somehow to create jobs and strengthen the economy, but it will not. According to one respected firm, Economy.com, the White House plan, which is similar to the legislation before us in many ways, causes the loss of 750,000 jobs over the next 10 years. That is on top of the 2.7 we have already lost. In my view, the Republican plan will depress economic growth not only because it will dramatically increase Federal debt but because of its failure to address the worst fiscal crisis facing our States in 50 years. I am glad we put $20 billion into this program. I am glad that in the negotiations we have provided some help. But with the dividend exclusion and the capital gains tied to State income tax rates, in most instances they are going to be losing, if it were pure dividend exclusion, $10 billion. I do not really know how this is going to apply to the States, but it is not going to be a healthy benefit to our State governments. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who do not care. Again, there is this ideological policy as opposed to an economic policy. I will only quote one leading supporter of this proposal who is very strong in supporting most of the things the administration does, and that is Grover Norquist. He has stated, I guess, what we are trying to practice: I hope the State goes bankrupt. Well, some of my colleagues may hope that States go bankrupt. I do not think many of them do. The truth is, when States face problems, it is not just State officials who suffer. It is working families. It is kids on CHIPS, the Children's Health Insurance Program. It is Medicare beneficiaries. It is our hospitals. It is our roads. It is all that holds us together as a society. I go full circle and come back. This is about values as well as about economic numbers: Who gets what and what is going to happen to the economy? I think we are missing it and missing it big time in understanding that for the benefit of a very few, we are actually walking away from helping those in whom I think many of us believe we ought to be investing. I could go on and on about other elements, but I see the ranking member who has fought so hard for reasonable economic policies, Senator Baucus. He has talked about this as a yo-yo or shell game, whatever one wants to call it, with sunsets. We have made sunsets, which should be a beautiful thought in American minds, into something that is almost silly in the context of this particular package. The $350 billion is really $800 billion to $1 trillion. I am sure those who have proposed this think this is a program that is going to stay on the books. If we are going to stay with this program, including even some of the middle- class income tax breaks on marriage penalty, child tax credits and other things, this will amount to $800 billion to $1 trillion. This is bad fiction. This is not even a fair representation of the reality of the cost. So not only is it bad economic policy, I think it also challenges the basic values that we should be representing in the Senate. It is not even truthful. Some could argue that it is Enron-like accounting. I think it is not the right way to deal with the American people to say we have a $350 billion tax cut when we really have a $1 trillion tax cut, at best. It may be a little less, may be a little more, depending on how things work out. This is going to bring on a new age in tax shelters, a new opportunity that people are going to be working on. They are probably working on it right now on Wall Street. The differential between earned income and dividend and capital gains income creates an enormous bonanza of opportunity for the creative mind to translate current earnings, wage earnings, into capital gains. There will be more midnight oil burned in the next 3 months figuring out tax shelter strategies than we have ever been able to imagine. From what I understand--again I have not seen the detail of it--we took out all of the closing of loopholes that were a positive part of the Senate bill. I find some of the values that we are reflecting there an enormously disturbing element from what I understand about this conference report. The saying is, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I think that is what we are doing with this proposal. I do not think it does what it says it is going to do about growing the economy. I do not think it reflects our values. I sure do not think the American people are getting a tax break. What they are getting is a debt tax laid on them that is going to overwhelm any of the benefits. In the long run, we threaten ourselves and our ability to invest in education, invest in Social Security. I do not get it. I think it is a bad thing to do. I hope my colleagues will have a good night's sleep, think a little bit about how some of this works, come back and be honest with the American people, rid ourselves of some of these gimmickries, and get on with an effective fiscal policy and economic policy that really does work for working families. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today we are considering landmark legislation to provide $15 billion to expand prevention, treatment, and care in the developing world to address the AIDS epidemic and other infectious diseases. We know that the heart of the global HIV epidemic is in Africa. We also know that the center of the epidemic in Africa is among women. Biologically, women are four times more vulnerable to HIV infection then men. And tragically, in Africa, and indeed throughout the developing world, it is widely understood that a woman's single greatest risk factor for contracting HIV is being married and monogamous. This astounding and tragic fact bears repeating: The typical woman who gets infected with HIV has only one partner--her husband. Women's vulnerability increases due to their lack of economic and social power in many societies, where they often cannot control sexual encounters or insist on protective measures such as abstinence or mutual monogamy. This trend devastates families and puts children at risk. If we pass legislation today that ignores this stark reality, we will be back here a few years from now, scratching our heads and wondering what we can do to stem the tide of infections. If we want to contain the epidemic, we have to help women. Women need HIV-prevention tools that they can control to safeguard their health and that of their families and communities. One of the most promising prevention tools is microbicides. Once developed, microbicides and vaccines would serve as complimentary prevention technologies, with microbicides giving women the power of prevention. It is important to emphasize that microbicides are being designed first and foremost to protect against infections, not necessarily against pregnancy. This issue has nothing to do with birth control. It has nothing to do with spermicide Nonoxynol-9, which prevents pregnancy, but not disease. Microbocides are about preventing HIV. Scientists are hopeful that they can develop microbicides that would allow women to protect themselves from this and other sexually transmitted diseases--while also enabling them to conceive a child. While the bill we are considering today acknowledges microbicides as a promising prevention tool, it does not go nearly far enough in supporting this area of research and development. I introduced legislation last Congress and again this session to give greater Federal support to microbicides research and development. While microbicides are not a magic bullet, once available, many researchers believe that could prevent millions of infections. And with leading scientists concluding that a vaccine is likely to be more than 10 years away, we need to make a strong commitment to developing complementary prevention tools such as microbicides. Even when we get a vaccine or vaccines to tackler this epidemic, complementary prevention strategies such as microbicides will be needed for decades to come. Let me take a minute to review the state of the science in this field. Scientists are currently testing approximately 65 different microbicide compounds to determine whether they will help to protect against HIV and/or other STDs. Of these, I7 are in clinical trials that will assess their safety for human use, and 4 are being readied for large trials that will assess their effectiveness. If one of these leads proves successful and investment is sufficient, a microbicide could be publicly available in 5 to 7 years. The cost of developing the existing pipeline of microbicide candidate products has been estimated at $775 million over 5 years. Currently, however, U.S. Federal funding for microbicides is only about $75 million annually. Microbicides are a public health good for which the social benefits are high but economic incentives to private investment are low. Despite the potential market size, neither pharmaceutical nor major biotech companies have made large investments in the field because many of the benefits of microbicides are public benefits for which manufacturers will not be directly compensated. Like other public health goods, such as vaccines, public funding must fill the gap left by market failure. The National Institutes of Health, principally through the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIAID, spends the majority of Federal dollars in this area. However, microbicide research at NIH is currently conducted with no single line of administrative accountability or specific funding coordination. What is needed is for the Director of NIAID to establish a branch dedicated explicitly to microbicide research and development, and to provide this new branch with appropriate staff and funding. In addition, other Federal agencies such as CDC and USAID undertake microbicides research and development activities. Because there is no Federal coordination, however, there is a risk of inefficiencies and duplication of effort. Through a variety of committees, Congress has requested that NIH and its Office of AIDS Research provide Congress with a ``Federal coordination plan'' for research and development in this area, but formal submission of this plan has been repeatedly delayed. Will the Senate majority leader join me in urging NIH to consider establishing a branch dedicated explicitly to microbicide research and development, and to provide this new branch with appropriate staff and funding?

Mr. CORZINE. I thank the distinguished majority leader for his comments and for his support of this important initiative.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. If there is no guarantee that we are going to have acceptance of the colloquy, then I cannot offer my amendment.

Mr. CORZINE. Reserving the right to object, I am in the midst of a negotiation on a colloquy we will put in so we can withdraw an amendment. I want to make sure that has been accepted.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I must say I am very proud to join with Senator Landrieu in sponsoring this substitute amendment for the underlying bill we are debating. She put the passion into what it is that we have tried to accomplish with respect to coming up with a powerful job-creating initiative, a powerful economic growth initiative--one that sticks to the $350 billion budget level that we have agreed to in the Senate. The size is the same. Some of us might argue we should not be doing that at all, based on what we think the economy might need or the nature of it. But if we are going to have a $350 billion tax relief program, stimulus program, let's make it one that people know has efficacy and will work and is not designed to go to the elite few but to all of America's families and businesses, to everybody in America regardless of their economic position. Our proposal is designed to work for the person who makes the very least, and also for those who make whatever they are blessed with to make in our great country. It also deals with an issue that I heard the Senator from Louisiana talk about in what I think were clearly more forceful terms, about dealing with the libraries, prisoners, schools, and everything that our State and local governments are trying to deal with, by putting $50 billion into our State and local governments so they can continue to service the American people the way they are expected to. We have a $100 billion budget deficit cumulative across the States in the upcoming year. That is coming on top of about $80 billion this year. We are raising taxes and cutting services at the local level faster than we are cutting taxes here at the Federal level. That makes no sense. So we have put together a package that works to give tax relief to every single American, working American, and also to help our State and local governments so they are not out there chopping away at children's health insurance programs, educational programs, and all the other issues that are so important and so positively delivered by our State and local governments. If you go back and look at CBO looking at the individual pieces of what we call the ``multiplier effect'' with regard to initiatives, you will find that the package we put together, because of the breadth of participation of the population and because of the benefits that are offered, will contribute more to growth and jobs than anything on the table that has been talked about. This is truly a pro-growth proposal. If we are sincere about putting Americans back to work, about getting growth going in our economy, then we ought to be doing those things that work and where people know they work. Mr. President, $350 billion is a lot of money. We ought to be using it in absolutely the most effective and efficient way. That is what our package is about. I will go through some of the details of it. I think it is essential that we try to use our money and our efforts most effectively. This substitute, which will stimulate jobs and will create growth, will do so without irrevocably undermining the long-term budget and fiscal position of the Federal Government. It will avoid creating a debt burden for our children and their children. By contrast, some of the various proposals that are contemplated here force Americans to pay taxes to pay the interest on the debt: $2.4 trillion, if you add it up with regard to the two tax cuts, the one in 2001 and the one we are talking about which will increase the debt burden for every family in America for a family of four $30,000. That is a debt tax. That is a tax because you are going to be paying the interest on that $30,000. One can say we are cutting taxes on one hand, but if we are creating interest expense for the Federal Government on $2.4 trillion, we are raising taxes, and it is a debt tax. Deficits do matter, particularly in the long term, and the debt tax that is being proposed will burden the financial health of every working American for the long term, every bit as great or greater than those tax cuts that we are talking about that are embedded in these proposals. Even the person nominated to be President Bush's top economist has agreed that deficits matter. At least he did before joining the administration. For example, this is what the nominee for Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, Greg Mankiw, said in his recently published textbook, appropriately named ``The Essentials of Economics.'' I want to read a phrase: The most basic lesson about budget deficits follows directly from their effects on the supply and demand for loanable funds. He says specifically: When the Government reduces the national savings by running up a budget deficit, the interest rate rises and investment falls. That is very clear. It could not be clearer--Economics 101, the most popular textbook in America, the President's Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. When you run up deficits, you reduce the economy's growth rate. The underlying bill, like the House proposals and most egregiously, actually, the $726 billion proposal by the President, grows the deficits, will push up interest rates, will reduce investment in the long run, and, thereby, reduce growth. I thought this was a jobs and growth package. That is the reality. It is tied together with some of the best thoughts in the White House, and it certainly fits what we hear the 10 Nobel Prize winning economists talking about, and other folks, but this is the President's economist. That is why the package Senator Landrieu, Senator Schumer, and I are presenting tonight will provide a real boost to the economy without destroying long-term fiscal discipline. The heart of our amendment, as was described by Senator Landrieu, is the wage tax credit. This is relief that would give each working American a tax cut on their earned wages of up to $765. That is the equivalent of the payroll taxes an individual paid on the first $10,000 of their earnings in 2001. Under our proposal, a married, working couple--we can all add--would receive tax relief up to $1,530 regardless of their income. Regardless of whether you make $20,000, where it is a hard-working blue-collar job, or $50,000 where you are a technician, computer programmer, or $1 million if you work on Wall Street, everybody gets this same $765 and $1,530. We need to remember that four out of five Americans pay more in wage taxes, payroll taxes than they pay in income taxes. That is why this does provide broad-based tax relief to everyone. People across America, regardless of their overall income level, pay payroll taxes, and that is why the benefit is so broadly distributed and allows for real growth in the economy because you put money in the pockets of people who will go out and spend it. I remind my colleagues, this is a 1-year tax cut in which all payments and tax credits would come out of the General Treasury. We made that very clear so we did not get into this hyper conversation about raiding Social Security trust funds or Medicare trust funds. This is a tax cut coming out of the General Treasury, just as any of the other proposals we see. Every working American and business owner would benefit from our proposal. As I said, the $1,530 cut for a couple would help American families make ends meet and generate immediate growth in our economy. For low- and moderate-income families, this payroll relief would pay for 5 weeks' worth of groceries for a family of four, more than 2 months of childcare, 3 \1/2\ months of utility bills, and 7 months of gasoline. By the way, if you were a millionaire, with this money you could buy 50 shares of GE stock or any other $30 stock. You can get involved in the marketplace. The payroll tax relief has been scored among the most stimulative cost-effective tax relief proposals evaluated by the CBO and private economists. It has a high-multiplier effect by anybody who looks at it. If we are serious about getting our economy moving--and I think people are sincere in their belief that we need to put some stimulus in--this is the place where we can get the maximum bang for our buck, the maximum bang for $350 billion. Our proposal is $188 billion of the total $358 billion. In addition to helping working Americans, our wage tax credit would provide business owners, small and large, a tax credit for up to $765 on each of their employees. Our wage credit for business owners would put immediate cash into the hands of employers to spur investment, new jobs, plant, and equipment. They can do what they need to do to boost their business. America's businesses, bottom line, by the way, would grow by the amount in this tax credit. The last time I looked at stocks, growing earnings on America's publicly traded companies gets reflected in stock values. That is what price times earnings means. It really will boost the value of the stocks as much as the kinds of things we are talking about with regard to the dividend. By reducing payroll taxes, which many view as a tax on labor, we would encourage more employers to hire more people and keep those they already have. I point out this is one of the reasons I think the Business Roundtable, which represents 150 of the country's largest corporations with over 10 million employees, along with many other business groups around the country, have endorsed the concept of payroll-based tax relief. It is pretty simple. It is fair. It is an affordable economic stimulus, if we believe $350 billion is affordable. It will put money into the hands of consumers and businesses that will get immediately reinvested in our economy. In the past few years, the concept of payroll tax relief has been supported by people on both sides of the aisle. A year ago, Senator Domenici and I introduced a similar bill, and in December 2001, the distinguished majority leader, Senator Frist, expressed strong support for payroll tax relief. As he put it then: A payroll tax holiday is truly a stimulative, temporary tax cut that would be welcome news for most Americans. . . .As economic growth stagnates and unemployment numbers increase, putting additional money in consumers' pockets will provide a much needed economic boost. Senator Frist was right on the mark then, in my view, about the need, and he is right on the mark with respect to the stimulative impact of payroll tax relief. I hope my colleagues tomorrow will stand behind those words and support this proposal to help reinvigorate the economy. Beyond the centerpiece of the wage tax credit which I talked about, again $188 billion, the Landrieu-Corzine-Schumer amendment includes other provisions which are part of the underlying bill, such as marriage penalty elimination, and acceleration of an expanded child tax credit. We tried to take the best parts, the most powerful pieces of the stimulus, and put them in the proposal. We are looking at high- multiplier, high-return elements with regard to policies that we think will get this economy going. Maybe most importantly, I will not go into this because Senator Landrieu did such a great job of it and we have heard a lot of discussion on it, and I compliment the Finance chairman because he has recognized the need for us to help out our cash-strapped State and local governments in supporting an amendment--I believe it should be more, but reasonable folks can differ about the degree. We need to make sure we put real dollars into our State and local governments. We have talked about it from our point of view, that that should be $52 billion. We have things that take advantage of advanced refunding, of the low financing rates, the lowest in 40 years. We put in here about refinancing debt, just like the American consumer has with their mortgages over the last year, having our State and local governments take advantage of that same thing. We have worked with Medicaid, where there is truly a lot of hurt. We have talked about unfunded mandates with Leave No Child Behind, also the issue of child care assistance. We have $3 billion in this program for those purposes because if people are going to work, they have to be able to take care of their kids. It is a kind of simple concept. Also, general block grants for homeland security, education, and other priorities. Beyond the assistance provided to State and local governments, our amendment provides for a variety of tax cuts for business. We believe in those. We are supportive of those. We include in this an increase in the expense from $25,000 to $100,000 a year for small business. We repeatedly hear that 50 percent of the jobs in America come out of small business, which 99 percent of businesses are. We are trying to recognize that, and we are also trying to help small business with a 50-percent credit for health care premiums. It is one of those things that holds back the economy most forcefully in New Jersey in other communities I work with. Finally, our $350 billion package includes the nearly $13 billion in unemployment benefits that a number of folks have talked about. This is a soggy economy, as Secretary Snow describes it. It is so soggy that we have lost 2.7 million private sector jobs, including over 500,000 in the last 3 months alone. We only have about 75 percent capacity utilization in the country. So there are needs. While some of us might not agree on size, myself included, we might not even agree we need a serious proposal on tax cuts, if we are going to do it, as we have decided to do it, we ought to make it as powerful as we can possibly make it. I think we should be responsible fiscally over a long period of time. I think deficits do matter. But if we are going to have a $350 billion tax cut, we ought to design it in a way that will create jobs and promote growth, without undermining our long- term fiscal health. Our amendment does that, and I am proud of this amendment which I am offering, along with Senators Landrieu and Schumer. I very much appreciate their help and I hope our colleagues will give serious consideration to a proposal that I think has real meaning concerning job creation and economic activity.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would reduce the retirement age for members of the National Guard and Reserve from 60 to 55. This change would allow 93,000 reservists currently aged 55 to 59 to retire with full benefits and would restore parity between the retirement systems for Federal civilian employees and reservists. In the interests of fairness, the United States must act quickly to restore parity between the retirement age for civilian Federal employees and their reserve counterparts. When the reserve retirement system was created in 1947, the retirement age for reservists was identical to the age for civilian employees. At age 60, reservists and government employees could hang up their uniforms and retire with full benefits. However, since 1947, the retirement age for civilian retirees has been lowered by 5 years, while the reserve retirement age has not changed. The disparate treatment of Federal employees and reservists would have been serious enough had the nature of the work performed by the reserves not changed substantially over the past five decades. But America has never placed greater demands on its ready reserve than it does now. More than 200,000 reservists are serving their country in the war against terrorism at home, abroad, and in the conflict with Iraq. America's dependence on our ready reserve has never been more obvious, as reservists are now providing security at our Nation's airports and air patrols over our major cities. As Charles Cragin, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, recently noted, ``The nature and purpose of reserve service has changed since the end of the cold war. They are no longer weekend warriors. They represent almost 50 percent of the total force.'' With call-ups that last several months and take reservists far from home, serving the Nation as a reservist has taken on more of the trappings of active duty service than ever before. The recent conflict has only further underscored the demands placed on the National Guard and Reserve. Before the war on terrorism began, reservists were performing about 13 million man-days each year, more than a 10-fold increase over the one million man-days per year the reserves averaged just 10 years ago. These statistics, the latest numbers available, do not even reflect the thousands of reservists who have been deployed since September 11 nor do they take into account the number of reservists who have been deployed in the current military action against Iraq. There is little doubt there will be a dramatic increase in the number of man-days for 2002 and 2003. In my view, with additional responsibility should come additional benefits. The Department of Defense typically has not supported initiatives like this. The Department has expressed concern over the proposal's cost, which is estimated to be approximately $20 billion over 10 years, although CBO figures are not yet available. However, I am concerned that the Department's position may be shortsighted. At a time when there is a patriotic fervor and a renewed enthusiasm for national service, it is easy to forget that not long ago, the U.S. military was struggling to meet its recruitment and retention goals. In the aftermath of September 11, defense-wide recruitment and retention rates have improved. However, there is no guarantee that this trend will continue. Unless the overall package of incentives is enhanced, there is little reason to believe that we will be able to attract and retain highly-trained personnel. Active duty military personnel have often looked to the reserves as a way of continuing to serve their country while being closer to family. With thousands of dollars invested in training active duty officers and enlisted soldiers, the United States benefits tremendously when personnel decide to continue with the reserves. But with reserve deployments increasing in frequency and duration--pulling reservists away from their families and civilian life for longer periods--the benefit of joining the reserves instead of active duty has been severely reduced. The more we depend on the reserves, the greater chance we have of losing highly trained former active duty servicemen and women. The added incentive of full retirement at 55 might provide an important inducement for some of them to stay on despite the surge in deployments. Enacting this legislation will send the clear message that the United States values the increased sacrifice of our reservists during these trying times. The legislation has been endorsed by key members of the Military Coalition, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Air Force Association, the Retired Enlisted Association, the Fleet Reserve Association, the Naval Reserve Association, and the National Guard Association. The bill would restore parity between the reserve retirement system and the civilian retirement system, acknowledge the increased workload of reserve service, and provide essential personnel with an inducement to join and stay in the reserves until retirement. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would reduce the retirement age for members of the National Guard and Reserve from 60 to 55. This change would allow 93,000 reservists currently aged 55 to 59 to retire with full benefits and would restore parity between the retirement systems for Federal civilian employees and reservists. In the interests of fairness, the United States must act quickly to restore parity between the retirement age for civilian Federal employees and their reserve counterparts. When the reserve retirement system was created in 1947, the retirement age for reservists was identical to the age for civilian employees. At age 60, reservists and government employees could hang up their uniforms and retire with full benefits. However, since 1947, the retirement age for civilian retirees has been lowered by 5 years, while the reserve retirement age has not changed. The disparate treatment of Federal employees and reservists would have been serious enough had the nature of the work performed by the reserves not changed substantially over the past five decades. But America has never placed greater demands on its ready reserve than it does now. More than 200,000 reservists are serving their country in the war against terrorism at home, abroad, and in the conflict with Iraq. America's dependence on our ready reserve has never been more obvious, as reservists are now providing security at our Nation's airports and air patrols over our major cities. As Charles Cragin, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, recently noted, ``The nature and purpose of reserve service has changed since the end of the cold war. They are no longer weekend warriors. They represent almost 50 percent of the total force.'' With call-ups that last several months and take reservists far from home, serving the Nation as a reservist has taken on more of the trappings of active duty service than ever before. The recent conflict has only further underscored the demands placed on the National Guard and Reserve. Before the war on terrorism began, reservists were performing about 13 million man-days each year, more than a 10-fold increase over the one million man-days per year the reserves averaged just 10 years ago. These statistics, the latest numbers available, do not even reflect the thousands of reservists who have been deployed since September 11 nor do they take into account the number of reservists who have been deployed in the current military action against Iraq. There is little doubt there will be a dramatic increase in the number of man-days for 2002 and 2003. In my view, with additional responsibility should come additional benefits. The Department of Defense typically has not supported initiatives like this. The Department has expressed concern over the proposal's cost, which is estimated to be approximately $20 billion over 10 years, although CBO figures are not yet available. However, I am concerned that the Department's position may be shortsighted. At a time when there is a patriotic fervor and a renewed enthusiasm for national service, it is easy to forget that not long ago, the U.S. military was struggling to meet its recruitment and retention goals. In the aftermath of September 11, defense-wide recruitment and retention rates have improved. However, there is no guarantee that this trend will continue. Unless the overall package of incentives is enhanced, there is little reason to believe that we will be able to attract and retain highly-trained personnel. Active duty military personnel have often looked to the reserves as a way of continuing to serve their country while being closer to family. With thousands of dollars invested in training active duty officers and enlisted soldiers, the United States benefits tremendously when personnel decide to continue with the reserves. But with reserve deployments increasing in frequency and duration--pulling reservists away from their families and civilian life for longer periods--the benefit of joining the reserves instead of active duty has been severely reduced. The more we depend on the reserves, the greater chance we have of losing highly trained former active duty servicemen and women. The added incentive of full retirement at 55 might provide an important inducement for some of them to stay on despite the surge in deployments. Enacting this legislation will send the clear message that the United States values the increased sacrifice of our reservists during these trying times. The legislation has been endorsed by key members of the Military Coalition, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Air Force Association, the Retired Enlisted Association, the Fleet Reserve Association, the Naval Reserve Association, and the National Guard Association. The bill would restore parity between the reserve retirement system and the civilian retirement system, acknowledge the increased workload of reserve service, and provide essential personnel with an inducement to join and stay in the reserves until retirement. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to change the way the Veterans' Administration defines low-income veterans by taking into account variations in the cost of living in different parts of the country. The Corzine-Clinton legislation would make the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation just that: Equitable. More specifically, this bill would replace the national income threshold for consideration in Priority Group 5--currently $24,000 for all parts of the country--with regional thresholds defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This simple but far- reaching proposal would help low-income veterans across the country afford quality health care and ensure that Veterans Integrated Service Networks or VISNs receive adequate funding to care for their distinct veteran populations. Our Nation's veterans have made great sacrifics in defense of American freedom and values, and we owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude. The United States Congress must ensure that all American veterans--veterans who have sweated in the trenches to defend liberty-- have access to quality health care. In 1997, Congress implemented the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system, or VERA, to distribute medical care funding provided by the VA. The funding formula was established to better take into account the costs associated with various veteran populations. Unfortunately, the VERA formula that was created fails to take into account regional differences in the cost of living, a significant metric in determining veteran healthcare costs. This oversight in the VERA formula dangerously shortchanges veterans living in regions with high costs of living and elevated healthcare expenses. To allocate money to the Veterans Integrated Service Networks, VISNs, VERA divides veterans into eight priority groups. Veterans who have no service-connected disability and whose incomes fall below $24,000 are considered low income and placed in Priority Group 5, while veterans whose incomes exceed this national threshold and qualify for no other special priorities are placed in either Priority Group 7c or Priority Group 8. VERA only reimburses the treating Medical Care facility for the care that they provided to veterans in priority groups 1-5 and does not provide any Federal reimbursement for the care provided to priority group 7 and 8 veterans. Using a national threshold for determining eligibility as a low- income veteran puts veterans living in high cost areas at a decided disadvantage. In New Jersey, HUD's fiscal year 2002 standards for classification as ``low-income'' exceed $24,000 per year in every single county. And some areas exceed the VA baseline by more than 50 percent. Similarly, HUD's ``low-income'' classification for New York City is set at $35,150, and for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, at $40,150. As a result, regions that have a high cost of living, like VISN 3, which encompasses substantial portions of New Jersey and New York, tend to have a reduced population of Priority Group 5 veterans and an inflated population of Priority Group 7c and 8 veterans. The fundamental inequity of the VERA formula is apparent when you consider the VERA allocations do not take into account the number of veterans classified in Priority Groups 7c and 8. Because of the costs associated with these Priority Groups 7c and 8 veterans are not considered as part of the VERA allocation, and because high cost of living areas have large populations of Priority Group 7c and 8 veterans, high cost regions must provide care to thousands of veterans without adequate funding. This additional financial burden on VISNs with large populations of non-reimbursable veterans in Priority Group 7c and 8 has had a tremendous impact on VISN 3. Since FY 1996, VISN 3 has experienced a decline in revenue of 10 percent. As a result of the tremendous shortfall in the VISN 3 budget, the VA cannot move forward with plans to open clinics in various locations, including prospective clinics in Monmouth and Passaic Counties. Consequently, veterans in VISN 3 are forced to wait for unreasonably long periods to receive medical care and travel long distances to existing clinics, and those veterans who are able to access care are being treated in facilities operating under tremendous financial difficulty. Furthermore, miscategorizing which vets quality as Priority Group 5 unjustifiably reduces access to medical care for thousands of veterans. Under existing rules, veterans placed in Priority and Groups 7c and 8 must provide a copayment to receive medical care at a VA medical facility; Veterans placed in Priority Group 5 receive medical care free of charge. Under the existing framework, low-income vets in high cost areas are often inappropriately placed in Priority Groups 7c and 8, and are forced to provide a copayment. Recent studies by both the RAND Institute and the General Accounting Office identify this flaw in the VERA formula and recommend a geographic means test like the one provided in our legislation to improve the allocation of resources under VERA. Such a test would ensure that the VERA formula allocation better reflects the true costs of VA healthcare in the various VISNs in the United States. Our legislation would make a simple adjustment to the VERA formula to account for variations in the cost of living in different regions. The bill would help veterans in high cost areas afford VA health care and guarantee that VISNs across the country receive adequate compensation for the care they provide. I hope my colleagues will join Senator Clinton and me in supporting this important bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Lautenberg, I am introducing legislation, the Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism, COAST, Anti-Drilling Act, to ban oil and gas drilling off the Mid-Atlantic and Northern Atlantic coast. The people of New Jersey, and other residents of States along the Atlantic Coast, do not want oil or gas rigs anywhere near their treasured beaches and fishing grounds. Such drilling poses serious threats not to our environment, but to our economy, which depends heavily on tourism along our shore. Until the Bush Administration came into office, there was no reason to suspect that drilling was even a remote possibility. Since 1982, a statutory moratorium on leasing activities in most Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, areas has been included annually in Interior Appropriations acts. In addition, President George H.W. Bush declared a leasing moratorium on many OCS areas on June 26, 1990 under section 12 of the OCS Lands Act. On June 12, 1998, President Clinton used the same authority to issue a memorandum to the Secretary of the Interior that extended the moratorium through 2012 and included additional OCS areas. Given the long-standing consensus against drilling in these areas, I was deeply disturbed to discover that on May 31, 2001, the Minerals Management Service released a request for proposals, RFP, to conduct a study of the environmental impacts of drilling in the Mid- and North- Atlantic. The RFP noted that ``there are areas with some reservoir potential, for example off the coast of New Jersey.'' In addition, the RFP explained that the study would be conducted ``in anticipation of managing the exploitation of potential and proven reserves.'' I believe that the RFP was not only inappropriate, but probably illegal, and I was pleased when at my urging, the Administration rescinded. But the Administration is at it again in the energy bill now before the Senate. The bill contains provisions that direct the Department of Interior to inventory all potential oil and natural gas resources in the entire Outer Continental Shelf, including areas off of the New Jersey coast. The bill would allow the use of seismic surveys, dart core sampling, and other exploration technologies, which could negatively impact coastal and marine areas. These provisions run directly counter to language that Congress has included annually in appropriations bills to prevent leasing, pre- leasing, and related activities in most areas of the Outer Continental Shelf, including areas off the New Jersey coast. In my view, it is time for Congress to act to resolve this question once and for all. That is why I am introducing the COAST Anti-Drilling Act. This bill would permanently ban drilling for oil, gas and other minerals in the Mid- and North-Atlantic. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important legislation. Doing so would ensure the people of New Jersey and neighboring States that they need not fear the specter of oil rigs off their beaches. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to an issue of fairness and responsibility in our political life that demands our attention. Let me premise my remarks by saying it is an honor to be a Senator and serve the people of New Jersey. I love my job. I love politics and the debate of ideas it makes possible. But I must say that I am downright disgusted when that debate of ideas degenerates into the politics of personal destruction and moves toward character assassination, especially when it may run afoul of the laws passed by this body, and more especially when the target of a campaign of personal destruction is a good and decent man--Tom Daschle, who has spent his entire adult life in service to our Nation. A little over 1 year ago, the Congress passed--and the President signed--the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Even as the courts ponder a challenge and an appeal to this landmark legislation, there are those involved in the political process that have demonstrated their intent to disregard it no matter what the court decides for the sole purpose of destroying a political opponent. In that regard, there are very disturbing reports in the media this week about an amorphous front group being formed in South Dakota for the purpose, in the words of its organizers, of ending Tom Daschle's public career in 2004. I don't question anyone's right to free speech nor their right to mount a campaign against any candidate for Federal Office, but this effort would apparently violate both Federal tax and election laws. According to press reports, associates of the presumptive Republican nominee for Senate in South Dakota have begun raising special interest money in Washington for an advertising campaign in South Dakota against Senator Daschle, a campaign only marginally distanced from Senator Daschle's potential competitor or the opposing political party. The problem with this effort, leaving aside the elements of personal destruction, is that the organization leading it--the Rushmore Policy Council--is organized as a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) non-profit organization. According to the IRS, 501(c)(4) organizations ``must be operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.'' The IRS also stipulates that, ``the promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.'' One might say a lot of things about Tom Daschle, but his election or defeat is hardly social welfare. It is clear from their own statements that the purpose of the Rushmore Policy Council is to defeat Senator Daschle. In short, this is likely a violation of the letter of the law and clearly a violation of its spirit. The Congress attempted to address these types of advertisements in the campaign finance reform law passed last year. But one of the organizers of the effort against Senator Daschle stated simply that, ``We're going to operate as if it's not'' on the books. In additional to the personal attacks and legal questions are the implications of a smear campaign that constructs front groups to infiltrate a Senator's home State with reckless disregard for the spirit of the campaign finance laws that this body passed just last year with bipartisan support. At the very least, this is a mockery of Congress's efforts to clean up electoral politics. Let me quote from the memo distributed around Washington by the organizers of the Rushmore Council's so-called Daschle Accountability Project: ``We propose to destroy Daschle's credibility'' and ``ultimately end his political career . . .'' Unbelievably, the group funding this covert operation intends to employ South Dakotans who have almost nothing to do with the campaign, but who help to convey the false impression that the campaign is, and I quote, ``putatively based in South Dakota--to avoid the dismissive `outsider' label routinely attached to such efforts in the past.'' In other words, the group exists to put a phony local veneer on the GOP's efforts to ruin its number one target--Tom Daschle. Or as this particular group puts it, ``. . . maybe be rid of [Tom Daschle] once and for all.'' This is the work of the Rushmore Policy Council, an organization so small it has no website or local telephone listing. Its offshoot ``The Daschle Accountability Project'' is a proudly self-described coalition of right wing organizations whose stated purpose, according to its own mission statement, is not to engage in policy debate, but rather to end Daschle's career by running an $800,000 advertising campaign in South Dakota designed to ``destroy Daschle's credibility within his home state through humor''--as if a laugh track makes them any less unseemly. The Rapid City Journal recently cited leaders of campaign finance watchdog groups who have already pointed out that the Rushmore Policy Council is endangering its tax-exempt status by targeting Daschle for defeat in 2004. ``It's not clear to me how they will remain a 501c4--an organization that must operate exclusively for the promotion of social welfare--as they are going to do what is being reported. And, Fred Wertheimer, president of the campaign finance reform group Democracy 21 agrees with this assessment. He tells the Journal ``The group's activities need to be carefully watched in the coming months to see if, in fact, they are breaking tax laws and campaign-finance laws. It is clear they want to defeat Senator Daschle . . . there doesn't seem to be any question they want to use this for this goal and that purpose . . . and that--is not what this group--is supposed to engage in.'' Most disturbingly is that this type of attack is hardly new. About a year and a half ago, the White House asked its political allies to turn up the heat on Senator Daschle. Most of us know the routine--the orchestrated campaign to tar Tom with the label ``obstructionist.'' Even while under his leadership the Senate approved 100 judicial appointments and rejected only two--some obstructionist. Where I come from, 100 is hardly obstructionist. After the White House's directive, the outrageous attacks began. Since then, political opponents have compared Senator Daschle to everyone from Saddam Hussein to the devil himself on talk radio. The problem this ``Burn Down Daschle'' effort faces is two fold: No. 1, lack of credibility; and, No. 2, lack of legal authority. On the former, the Sioux Falls Argus Leader accurately points out that the Daschle Accountability project and its efforts to destroy Daschle's character through an ad campaign with a ridiculing tone embedded in humor have the potential to backfire in a small State where retail politics holds great sway. Senator Daschle, I realize, doesn't need me to defend himself to the people of South Dakota. They are smart enough to see through this despicable outsider campaign. They know he stands with South Dakota and her farmers. They know he stands with South Dakota and its small businesses. They know he stands with South Dakota on health care, education and responsible economic policy. He has given a lifetime of service to his community. I only wish the Daschle-bashers would remember that the President promised to change the tone in Washington. Unfortunately, he has. It has gone from bad to worse. It is worth noting that a number of the people involved in this campaign have their own problems with previous campaigns and finance reform, and by some of the people with whom they have associated. I think this latest effort is no less distasteful. I thank the Chair for taking into consideration what I hope will be an attempt to turn to the real political debate on real issues and leave the character and some of the efforts we have seen to undermine the true nature of how people try to compete in the political arena. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to change the way the Veterans' Administration defines low-income veterans by taking into account variations in the cost of living in different parts of the country. The Corzine-Clinton legislation would make the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation just that: Equitable. More specifically, this bill would replace the national income threshold for consideration in Priority Group 5--currently $24,000 for all parts of the country--with regional thresholds defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This simple but far- reaching proposal would help low-income veterans across the country afford quality health care and ensure that Veterans Integrated Service Networks or VISNs receive adequate funding to care for their distinct veteran populations. Our Nation's veterans have made great sacrifics in defense of American freedom and values, and we owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude. The United States Congress must ensure that all American veterans--veterans who have sweated in the trenches to defend liberty-- have access to quality health care. In 1997, Congress implemented the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system, or VERA, to distribute medical care funding provided by the VA. The funding formula was established to better take into account the costs associated with various veteran populations. Unfortunately, the VERA formula that was created fails to take into account regional differences in the cost of living, a significant metric in determining veteran healthcare costs. This oversight in the VERA formula dangerously shortchanges veterans living in regions with high costs of living and elevated healthcare expenses. To allocate money to the Veterans Integrated Service Networks, VISNs, VERA divides veterans into eight priority groups. Veterans who have no service-connected disability and whose incomes fall below $24,000 are considered low income and placed in Priority Group 5, while veterans whose incomes exceed this national threshold and qualify for no other special priorities are placed in either Priority Group 7c or Priority Group 8. VERA only reimburses the treating Medical Care facility for the care that they provided to veterans in priority groups 1-5 and does not provide any Federal reimbursement for the care provided to priority group 7 and 8 veterans. Using a national threshold for determining eligibility as a low- income veteran puts veterans living in high cost areas at a decided disadvantage. In New Jersey, HUD's fiscal year 2002 standards for classification as ``low-income'' exceed $24,000 per year in every single county. And some areas exceed the VA baseline by more than 50 percent. Similarly, HUD's ``low-income'' classification for New York City is set at $35,150, and for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, at $40,150. As a result, regions that have a high cost of living, like VISN 3, which encompasses substantial portions of New Jersey and New York, tend to have a reduced population of Priority Group 5 veterans and an inflated population of Priority Group 7c and 8 veterans. The fundamental inequity of the VERA formula is apparent when you consider the VERA allocations do not take into account the number of veterans classified in Priority Groups 7c and 8. Because of the costs associated with these Priority Groups 7c and 8 veterans are not considered as part of the VERA allocation, and because high cost of living areas have large populations of Priority Group 7c and 8 veterans, high cost regions must provide care to thousands of veterans without adequate funding. This additional financial burden on VISNs with large populations of non-reimbursable veterans in Priority Group 7c and 8 has had a tremendous impact on VISN 3. Since FY 1996, VISN 3 has experienced a decline in revenue of 10 percent. As a result of the tremendous shortfall in the VISN 3 budget, the VA cannot move forward with plans to open clinics in various locations, including prospective clinics in Monmouth and Passaic Counties. Consequently, veterans in VISN 3 are forced to wait for unreasonably long periods to receive medical care and travel long distances to existing clinics, and those veterans who are able to access care are being treated in facilities operating under tremendous financial difficulty. Furthermore, miscategorizing which vets quality as Priority Group 5 unjustifiably reduces access to medical care for thousands of veterans. Under existing rules, veterans placed in Priority and Groups 7c and 8 must provide a copayment to receive medical care at a VA medical facility; Veterans placed in Priority Group 5 receive medical care free of charge. Under the existing framework, low-income vets in high cost areas are often inappropriately placed in Priority Groups 7c and 8, and are forced to provide a copayment. Recent studies by both the RAND Institute and the General Accounting Office identify this flaw in the VERA formula and recommend a geographic means test like the one provided in our legislation to improve the allocation of resources under VERA. Such a test would ensure that the VERA formula allocation better reflects the true costs of VA healthcare in the various VISNs in the United States. Our legislation would make a simple adjustment to the VERA formula to account for variations in the cost of living in different regions. The bill would help veterans in high cost areas afford VA health care and guarantee that VISNs across the country receive adequate compensation for the care they provide. I hope my colleagues will join Senator Clinton and me in supporting this important bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Lautenberg, I am introducing legislation, the Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism, COAST, Anti-Drilling Act, to ban oil and gas drilling off the Mid-Atlantic and Northern Atlantic coast. The people of New Jersey, and other residents of States along the Atlantic Coast, do not want oil or gas rigs anywhere near their treasured beaches and fishing grounds. Such drilling poses serious threats not to our environment, but to our economy, which depends heavily on tourism along our shore. Until the Bush Administration came into office, there was no reason to suspect that drilling was even a remote possibility. Since 1982, a statutory moratorium on leasing activities in most Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, areas has been included annually in Interior Appropriations acts. In addition, President George H.W. Bush declared a leasing moratorium on many OCS areas on June 26, 1990 under section 12 of the OCS Lands Act. On June 12, 1998, President Clinton used the same authority to issue a memorandum to the Secretary of the Interior that extended the moratorium through 2012 and included additional OCS areas. Given the long-standing consensus against drilling in these areas, I was deeply disturbed to discover that on May 31, 2001, the Minerals Management Service released a request for proposals, RFP, to conduct a study of the environmental impacts of drilling in the Mid- and North- Atlantic. The RFP noted that ``there are areas with some reservoir potential, for example off the coast of New Jersey.'' In addition, the RFP explained that the study would be conducted ``in anticipation of managing the exploitation of potential and proven reserves.'' I believe that the RFP was not only inappropriate, but probably illegal, and I was pleased when at my urging, the Administration rescinded. But the Administration is at it again in the energy bill now before the Senate. The bill contains provisions that direct the Department of Interior to inventory all potential oil and natural gas resources in the entire Outer Continental Shelf, including areas off of the New Jersey coast. The bill would allow the use of seismic surveys, dart core sampling, and other exploration technologies, which could negatively impact coastal and marine areas. These provisions run directly counter to language that Congress has included annually in appropriations bills to prevent leasing, pre- leasing, and related activities in most areas of the Outer Continental Shelf, including areas off the New Jersey coast. In my view, it is time for Congress to act to resolve this question once and for all. That is why I am introducing the COAST Anti-Drilling Act. This bill would permanently ban drilling for oil, gas and other minerals in the Mid- and North-Atlantic. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important legislation. Doing so would ensure the people of New Jersey and neighboring States that they need not fear the specter of oil rigs off their beaches. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

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

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today along with Senators Lautenberg, Specter, Schumer, Dodd, Clinton and Lieberman, I am introducing the Highlands Stewardship Act. I am proud to be joining Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen and other colleagues from the New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut congressional delegations, who are introducing identical legislation in the House of Representatives. This legislation would help to preserve one of the last open space treasures in this country, the Highlands forest region that stretches from northwestern Connecticut, across the lower Hudson River valley in New York, through my State of New Jersey and into east-central Pennsylvania. This region encompasses more than 2 million acres of forests, farms, streams, wetlands, lakes and reservoirs and historic sites. It includes the Green, Taconic and Notre Dame Mountains. It also includes such historic sites as Morristown National Historic Park and West Point. The value of the ecological, recreational and scenic resources of the Highlands cannot be overstated. One hundred seventy million gallons are drawn from the Highlands aquifers daily, providing quality drinking water for over 11 million people. Two hundred forty seven threatened or endangered species live in the Highlands including the timber rattlesnake, wood turtle, red-shouldered hawk, barred owl, great blue heron and eastern wood rat. There also are many fishing, hiking and boating recreation opportunities in the Highlands that are used by many of the 1 in 12 Americans who live within 2 hours of travel of the Highlands. Unfortunately, much of Highlands is quickly vanishing. According to the most recent study issued by the United States Department of Agriculture, we have lost over 3,000 acres of forest and 1,600 acres of farmland in New York and New Jersey sections of the Highlands annually to development between 1995 and 2000. This legislation would designate a Stewardship Area amongst the four States in order to protect the most important Highlands projects. It would create a source of funding for conservation and preservation projects in the Highlands to preserve and protect the open space that remains. Two million dollars a year for 10 years would be provided for conservation assistance projects in the four Highlands States. This funding could be used for items such as smart growth initiatives and cultural preservation projects. Twenty-five million dollars a year over 10 years also would be provided for open space preservation projects in the four Highlands states. The source of this funding would be the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I am proud to introduce this legislation to ensure that we protect this resource, which is so critical to our quality of life, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today along with Senators Lautenberg, Specter, Schumer, Dodd, Clinton and Lieberman, I am introducing the Highlands Stewardship Act. I am proud to be joining Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen and other colleagues from the New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut congressional delegations, who are introducing identical legislation in the House of Representatives. This legislation would help to preserve one of the last open space treasures in this country, the Highlands forest region that stretches from northwestern Connecticut, across the lower Hudson River valley in New York, through my State of New Jersey and into east-central Pennsylvania. This region encompasses more than 2 million acres of forests, farms, streams, wetlands, lakes and reservoirs and historic sites. It includes the Green, Taconic and Notre Dame Mountains. It also includes such historic sites as Morristown National Historic Park and West Point. The value of the ecological, recreational and scenic resources of the Highlands cannot be overstated. One hundred seventy million gallons are drawn from the Highlands aquifers daily, providing quality drinking water for over 11 million people. Two hundred forty seven threatened or endangered species live in the Highlands including the timber rattlesnake, wood turtle, red-shouldered hawk, barred owl, great blue heron and eastern wood rat. There also are many fishing, hiking and boating recreation opportunities in the Highlands that are used by many of the 1 in 12 Americans who live within 2 hours of travel of the Highlands. Unfortunately, much of Highlands is quickly vanishing. According to the most recent study issued by the United States Department of Agriculture, we have lost over 3,000 acres of forest and 1,600 acres of farmland in New York and New Jersey sections of the Highlands annually to development between 1995 and 2000. This legislation would designate a Stewardship Area amongst the four States in order to protect the most important Highlands projects. It would create a source of funding for conservation and preservation projects in the Highlands to preserve and protect the open space that remains. Two million dollars a year for 10 years would be provided for conservation assistance projects in the four Highlands States. This funding could be used for items such as smart growth initiatives and cultural preservation projects. Twenty-five million dollars a year over 10 years also would be provided for open space preservation projects in the four Highlands states. The source of this funding would be the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I am proud to introduce this legislation to ensure that we protect this resource, which is so critical to our quality of life, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce my legislation, the Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act of 2003, to limit medical resident work hours to 80 hours a week and to provide real protections for patients and resident physicians who are negatively affected by excessive work hours. I feel strongly that as Congress begins to consider proposals to reduce medical malpractice premiums and improve quality of care, we must consider the role that excessive work hours play in exacerbating medical liability problems and reducing quality of care. It is very troubling that hospitals across the Nation are requiring young doctors to work 36 hour shifts and as many as 120 hours a week in order to complete their residency programs. These long hours lead to a deterioration of cognitive function similar to the effects of blood alcohol levels of 0.1 percent. This is a level of cognitive impairment that would make these doctors unsafe to drive--yet these physicians are not only allowed but in fact are required to care for patients and perform procedures on patients under these conditions. The Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act of 2003 will limit medical resident work hours to 80 hours a week. Not 40 hours or 60 hours. 80 hours a week. It is hard to argue that this standard is excessively strict. In fact, it is unconscionable that we now have resident physicians, or any physicians for that matter, caring for very sick patients 120 hours a week and 36 hours straight with fewer than 10 hours between shifts. This is an outrageous violation of a patient's right to quality care. In addition to limiting work hours to 80 hours a week, my bill limits the length of any one shift to 24 consecutive hours, while allowing for up to three hours of patient transition time, and limits the length of an emergency room shift to 12 hours. The bill also ensures that residents have at least one out of seven days off and ``on-call'' shifts no more often that every third night. Since I first introduced the Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act in the 107th Congress, the medical community and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, ACGME, specifically have taken critical steps to address the problem of excessive work hours. The ACGME's recommendations to reduce resident work hours are commendable. If appropriately enforced, these new work hour guidelines will go a long way toward reducing the number of hours that residents must work, thereby improving the health of our Nation's medical residents and ensuring the safety of the patients. Despite the medical community's best intentions to reduce work hours, however, I am very concerned that the ACGME's policy lacks the enforcement mechanisms that are essential to ensure compliance with the new work hour rules. Too many hospitals failed to comply with previous work hour requirements mandated by the ACGME because there was insufficient oversight and enforcement. While the new policy establishes more stringent work hours reductions, it fails to create effective enforcement and oversight tools. These rules are meaningless without enforcement. That is why Federal legislation is necessary. The Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act of 2003 not only recognizes the problem of excessive work hours, but also creates strong enforcement mechanisms. The bill also provides funding support to teaching hospitals to implement new work hour standards. Without enforcement and financial support efforts to reduce work hours are not likely to be successful. Finally, my legislation provides meaningful enforcement mechanisms that will protect the identity of resident physicians who file complaints about work hour violations. The ACGME's guidelines do not contain any whistleblower protections for residents that seek to report program violations. Without this important protection, residents will be reluctant to report these violations, which in turn will weaken enforcement. My legislation also makes compliance with these work hour requirements a condition of Medicare participation. Each year, Congress provides $8 billion to teaching hospitals to train new physicians. While Congress must continue to vigorously support adequate funding so that teaching hospitals are able to carry out this important public service, these hospitals must also make a commitment to ensuring safe working conditions for these physicians and providing the highest quality of care to the patients they treat. In closing I would like to read a quote from an Orthopedic Surgery Resident from Northern California, which I think illustrates why we need this legislation. I quote, ``I was operating post-call after being up for over 36 hours and was holding retractors. I literally fell asleep standing up and nearly face-planted into the wound. My upper arm hit the side of the gurney, and I caught myself before I fell to the floor. I nearly put my face in the open wound, which would have contaminated the entire field and could have resulted in an infection for the patient.'' This is a very serious problem that must be addressed before medical errors like this occur. I hope every member of the Senate will consider this legislation and the potential it has to reduce medical errors, improve patient care, and create a safer working environment for the backbone of our Nation's health system. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce my legislation, the Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act of 2003, to limit medical resident work hours to 80 hours a week and to provide real protections for patients and resident physicians who are negatively affected by excessive work hours. I feel strongly that as Congress begins to consider proposals to reduce medical malpractice premiums and improve quality of care, we must consider the role that excessive work hours play in exacerbating medical liability problems and reducing quality of care. It is very troubling that hospitals across the Nation are requiring young doctors to work 36 hour shifts and as many as 120 hours a week in order to complete their residency programs. These long hours lead to a deterioration of cognitive function similar to the effects of blood alcohol levels of 0.1 percent. This is a level of cognitive impairment that would make these doctors unsafe to drive--yet these physicians are not only allowed but in fact are required to care for patients and perform procedures on patients under these conditions. The Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act of 2003 will limit medical resident work hours to 80 hours a week. Not 40 hours or 60 hours. 80 hours a week. It is hard to argue that this standard is excessively strict. In fact, it is unconscionable that we now have resident physicians, or any physicians for that matter, caring for very sick patients 120 hours a week and 36 hours straight with fewer than 10 hours between shifts. This is an outrageous violation of a patient's right to quality care. In addition to limiting work hours to 80 hours a week, my bill limits the length of any one shift to 24 consecutive hours, while allowing for up to three hours of patient transition time, and limits the length of an emergency room shift to 12 hours. The bill also ensures that residents have at least one out of seven days off and ``on-call'' shifts no more often that every third night. Since I first introduced the Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act in the 107th Congress, the medical community and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, ACGME, specifically have taken critical steps to address the problem of excessive work hours. The ACGME's recommendations to reduce resident work hours are commendable. If appropriately enforced, these new work hour guidelines will go a long way toward reducing the number of hours that residents must work, thereby improving the health of our Nation's medical residents and ensuring the safety of the patients. Despite the medical community's best intentions to reduce work hours, however, I am very concerned that the ACGME's policy lacks the enforcement mechanisms that are essential to ensure compliance with the new work hour rules. Too many hospitals failed to comply with previous work hour requirements mandated by the ACGME because there was insufficient oversight and enforcement. While the new policy establishes more stringent work hours reductions, it fails to create effective enforcement and oversight tools. These rules are meaningless without enforcement. That is why Federal legislation is necessary. The Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act of 2003 not only recognizes the problem of excessive work hours, but also creates strong enforcement mechanisms. The bill also provides funding support to teaching hospitals to implement new work hour standards. Without enforcement and financial support efforts to reduce work hours are not likely to be successful. Finally, my legislation provides meaningful enforcement mechanisms that will protect the identity of resident physicians who file complaints about work hour violations. The ACGME's guidelines do not contain any whistleblower protections for residents that seek to report program violations. Without this important protection, residents will be reluctant to report these violations, which in turn will weaken enforcement. My legislation also makes compliance with these work hour requirements a condition of Medicare participation. Each year, Congress provides $8 billion to teaching hospitals to train new physicians. While Congress must continue to vigorously support adequate funding so that teaching hospitals are able to carry out this important public service, these hospitals must also make a commitment to ensuring safe working conditions for these physicians and providing the highest quality of care to the patients they treat. In closing I would like to read a quote from an Orthopedic Surgery Resident from Northern California, which I think illustrates why we need this legislation. I quote, ``I was operating post-call after being up for over 36 hours and was holding retractors. I literally fell asleep standing up and nearly face-planted into the wound. My upper arm hit the side of the gurney, and I caught myself before I fell to the floor. I nearly put my face in the open wound, which would have contaminated the entire field and could have resulted in an infection for the patient.'' This is a very serious problem that must be addressed before medical errors like this occur. I hope every member of the Senate will consider this legislation and the potential it has to reduce medical errors, improve patient care, and create a safer working environment for the backbone of our Nation's health system. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to submit, along with Senators Dodd, Durbin, Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry and Murray, a resolution supporting national Child Care Worthy Wage Day. It is my hope that it will bring attention to early childhood education and the importance of attracting and retaining qualified childcare workers. Every day, approximately 13 million children are cared for outside the home so that their parents can work. This figure includes 6 million of our Nation's infants and toddlers. Children begin to learn at birth, and the quality of care they receive will affect them for the rest of their lives. Early childcare affects language development, math skills, social behavior, and general readiness for school. Experienced childcare workers can identify children who have development or emotional problems and provide the care they need to take on life's challenges. Through the creative use of play, structured activities and individual attention, childcare workers help young children learn about the world around them and how to interact with others. They also teach the skills children will need to be ready to read and to learn when they go to school. Unfortunately, despite the importance of their work, the committed individuals who nurture and teach our Nation's young children are undervalued. The average salary of a childcare worker is about $15,000 annually. In 1998, the middle 50 percent of childcare workers and pre- school teachers earned between $5.82 and $8.13 an hour, according to the Department of Labor. The lowest 10 percent of childcare workers were paid an hourly rate of $5.49 or less. Only one third of our Nation's childcare workers have health insurance and even fewer have pension plans. This grossly inadequate level of wages and benefits for childcare staff has led to difficulties in attracting and retaining high quality caretakers and educators. As a result, the turnover rate for childcare providers is 30 percent a year. This high turnover rate interrupts consistent and stable relationships that children need to have with their caregivers. If we want our children cared for by qualified providers with higher degrees and more training, we will have to make sure they are adequately compensated. Otherwise, we will continue to lose early childhood educators with BA degrees to kindergarten and first grade, losing some of our best teachers of young children from the early years of learning. In order to bring attention to childcare workers, I am sponsoring a resolution that would designate May 1 as National Child Care Worthy Wage Day. On May 1 each year, childcare providers and other early childhood professionals nationwide conduct public awareness and education efforts highlighting the importance of good early childhood education. I encourage my colleagues to join me in recognizing the importance of the work and professionalism that childcare workers provide and the need to increase their compensation accordingly. The Nation's childcare workforce, the families who depend on them, and the children they care for, deserve our support.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator Landrieu in introducing the Wage Tax Cut Act, legislation that would provide an immediate boost to America's economy by providing wage tax relief to all working Americans and to businesses. In short, this proposal would give all working Americans a wage tax break of up to $765, equivalent to the payroll taxes they have paid on the first $10,000 of their earnings in the year 2001. Working couples would receive tax relief of up to $1,530. This is a 1-year proposal in which all payments and tax credits would come out of the General Treasury. The Social Security and Medicare trust funds would not be affected in any way. Every working American and business-owner would benefit from our proposal. This $765 tax cut would help American families make ends meet and stimulate the economy. It would pay for 5 week's worth of groceries for a family of four; more than 2 months of child care; 3\1/2\ months of utility bills; and 7 months of gasoline. The act would provide business-owners--small and large--a tax credit for up to $765 on the wages of each of their employees. The tax credit for businessowners would put more money in the hands of employers to spur investment in new people, plant, and equipment. By reducing payroll taxes, which amount to a tax on labor, we would encourage more employers to hire new personnel, and to keep those they now have. That is why the Business Roundtable, which represents 150 of the country's largest corporations with over 10 million employees, has endorsed the concept of payroll-based tax relief that we are proposing today. This is a simple, fair, and affordable economic stimulus plan that will get money in the hands of consumers and businesses that will be immediately reinvested in our economy. Unlike the President's proposed tax plan, the Wage Tax Cut Act would provide immediate help to the economy, without being fiscally irresponsible. At $180 billion, its cost is only about 15 percent of the $1.3 trillion in tax cuts included in the conference report on the budget resolution. At this important time in our Nation's history, when thousands of young men and women are bravely serving their country, we need to ensure that the America to which they return is vibrant and strong. This proposal would help create the jobs they need, and the prosperity they deserve. In December 2001, when Senator Bill Frist supported--in fact his own Web site articulated--the stimulative impact that payroll tax relief could have. It quoted the senator as saying: A payroll tax holiday is truly a stimulative, temporary tax cut that would be welcome news for most Americans, especially during the holiday season. As economic growth stagnates and unemployment numbers increase, putting additional money in consumers' pockets will provide a much needed economic boost. Senator Frist continued: The key is for Congress to respond and pass a stimulus bill now, and I believe that this proposal could provide us with a bipartisan solution. Senator Frist was right on the mark about the need, and stimulative impact, of payroll tax relief then. It is my hope that Majority Leader Frist, and the rest of my colleagues, today will stand behind those words and support this proposal to help reinvigorate out economy.