Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. If the Senator from North Dakota would clarify another element of how budget practices work. Presumably payroll taxes, which each individual who is working pays into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, are designed so that people invest in receiving guaranteed benefits--in the case of Social Security--relative to what they expect will be there. Is it true, or am I analyzing this properly, that we are now potentially, given the kind of framework of the budget outlay before us today, using payroll taxes that people were expecting to be used to build up the Social Security trust fund and Medicare trust fund, to be made available to cut taxes, maybe even dividend taxes for those who may be doing well already in society? We are using payroll taxes to indirectly fund the tax cuts being proposed or allowed in the budget resolution?

Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. Speaking in the context of what true fiscal responsibility is about, one needs to make sure the fundamental programs that are accepted by the American people, such as Social Security and Medicare benefits, are properly funded. It certainly strikes me that using the very taxes that are supposed to be supportive of those programs to fund tax cuts that are going to create deficits for as far as the eye can see is a very hard swallow when three out of four Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they actually pay in income taxes.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support this amendment because I believe it is so important we understand that fiscal responsibility is really what is at stake. This amendment, more than almost anything that I see, actually addresses the issue of making sure we start to reserve for this great need, Social Security, that the able Senator from North Dakota has pointed out we will have to address in subsequent years. It does it by paying down debt now. It really addresses this issue of not using our payroll taxes to fund tax cuts for those who are already doing well in society. We are making a very large mistake, as the analysis of the ranking member of the Budget Committee showed, with respect to using those resources in a way that is going to leave us with budget deficits over the next 10, 12, 13 years. I think that is hard to understand, particularly in the context of Social Security, which has been such a successful program in America, one that has reduced the poverty rates for seniors from well over 50 percent to down about 10 percent as we go forward. This is one that is very difficult to understand, particularly in the context of trying to allow room for a dividend exclusion tax for which I have difficulty finding support based on the idea that it is going to be stimulus for job growth or, on any objective analytical basis, be promotive of the well-being of our economy. One of the places we just turned--everybody has their favorite economist. We just happen to have 10 Nobel Prize-winning economists who spoke out on the tax cut plan proposed by President Bush, saying: It is not the answer to our problems. Regardless of how one views the specifics of the plan, there is wide agreement on permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of jobs and growth in the near term. I cannot find people who say this proposal is going to do anything to turn around the current state of the economy. And what we are doing is financing it with one of those taxes that is the most heavy burden on those who have the least ability to pay. It strikes me, again--I mentioned three out of four working Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes, than they certainly receive with respect to any kind of dividend taxation. This is a very hard swallow--not particularly for the seniors today; we have the resources to fulfill our promises with respect to guaranteed benefits for seniors today. But if we do not address this problem with regard to Social Security over the long run, future generations are not going to have the same guaranteed benefits that have been promised, as they are being committed to as they pay into the Social Security trust fund today. It is a breach of faith. One of the things we need to do is make sure we address it today. Frankly, the President's tax cut over the period of time that we are looking at the solvency of Social Security, on its lowest, it is about $12 trillion. That is over 57 years. That will help people evaluate the solvency of Social Security. Right now, it will be able to meet the guaranteed benefits out to about 2042, about halfway. Twelve trillion dollars, we are eroding the revenues of the Federal Government. Again, we are eroding it by using payroll taxes to fund tax cuts for the very best off in our society. And the obligation of fixing this Social Security problem is only $3.5 trillion. It sounds like not so much money, but when you compare it to what we are putting into this tax cut that the President is laying on the table and has allowed for in this budget resolution, it is about three times the size. That is what this amendment is about. It is asking us to make those steps where we can begin to extend that solvency and protect Social Security. By the way, we are paying down the debt at the same time. At least we are limiting the growth of the debt relative to where it would be, which has all the other positive ingredients. The Federal Government is not in the capital markets of the country competing with the private sector to take capital that they will be borrowing to pay for these tax cuts and other expenditures we make for the overall levels of government involvement in the economy. It is called crowding out. It has been a problem at other times in our history. We are creating a format where this will absolutely be the case in the future, and that is why this amendment is such an important one to support by protecting Social Security and putting in place a framework for fiscal responsibility for the long term. I support the amendment and hope my colleagues will as well.

Mr. CORZINE. If the Senator from North Dakota would reflect on a question. I think the numbers are we have 37 million seniors 65 and older, and we are on our way to something approaching 75 million in the next 15 years. Do I understand that this amendment you are proposing is designed to make sure we begin to prepare for that inevitability, the charges against Social Security, which reduce the poverty rate of seniors in America from when it was conceived from about 50 percent of all seniors to right at 10 percent? Is that correct?

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I recognize The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in Princeton, NJ, which recently awarded its five billionth grant dollar to improve the health and health care of all Americans. Established in 1972, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is the Nation's largest philanthropy devoted exclusively to health and health care. It concentrates its grantmaking in four goal areas: to assure that all Americans have access to quality health care at reasonable cost; to improve the quality of care and support for people with chronic health conditions; to promote healthy communities and lifestyles; and to reduce the personal, social and economic harm caused by substance abuse. Since its inception, the Foundation has spearheaded a number of important advances in Nation's health. Currently, 97 percent of all emergency management systems, EMS, use 911 as the universal access number for emergencies. This is the result of a program RWJF launched in the early 1970s to start multi-community emergency medical networks in 32 States. Today, Americans benefit from professional, organized, and effective emergency medical care as a result of this program The foundation has also made significant contributions to the nursing and dental professions. It helped to create the fields of nurse practitioners and physician assistants during the early 1970s as part of its effort to increase health care access in the inner cities and rural areas. All dental students are now trained to treat patients with disabilities, such as cerebral palsy or seizure disorders, building on a foundation-funded training program. The project, Health Care for the Homeless, became a model that was cited when the federal government passed the McKinney Act in 1987, providing Federal funds to improve access to health care for homeless people throughout the country. The creation of school based health clinics represents another area where RWJF has had a major impact. The foundation's interest was sparked by reports that American teenagers suffered from deteriorating health. Approximately six million adolescents during the mid-1980s suffered from at least one serious health problem. Five million teenagers did not have health insurance. This was an especially alarming figure considering the increase in drug and alcohol abuse and rise in sexually transmitted diseases among adolescents. During the past 12 years, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has helped to establish more than 1,100 health centers in schools. More recently, the foundation has recognized the need to focus increased attention on promoting healthy communities and lifestyles. For example, the recent grant to push the Foundation over the $5 billion threshold went to the Church Health Center in Memphis, TN, which will use its funds to test a model program designed to help people age 50 and older become more physically active. Physical inactivity is one of the greatest health risks for mid-life and older adults, contributing to illnesses and disabilities such as arthritis, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke. There are obviously a number of other noteworthy examples of efforts the Foundation has undertaken--from pediatrics to care at the end of life--which continue to result in important positive health outcomes for our citizens. It is with great pride that I commend The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for its ongoing commitment to improving health and health care for all Americans. As we in the Congress face the daunting challenge of addressing a number of health care problems in this country, we must continue to draw on the experience and lessons learned from foundations and their grantees, which truly serve as the guideposts for experimentation and innovation.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a very important piece of legislation, the Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act of 2003. I introduce this bill today, along with Representative Pete Stark (D-CA), in fond memory of our former colleague and friend, the late Senator Paul Wellstone. Paul was a crusader in many ways and for many causes; however, we will always remember his commitment to ensuring that all Americans have meaningful and equitable access to mental health treatment. It is because of Paul's efforts that so many Americans, including many in the Congress, have rallied around the call for parity in the treatment of mental illness. Many of us are all too familiar with the stigma that still surrounds mental illness and the disparities in accessing treatment that permeate the private health insurance market. What many of us do not realize is that these inequities also exist in the Medicare program. Our Nation's Medicare beneficiaries--our elderly and disabled population--have limited access to mental health services. Medicare restricts the types of mental health services available to beneficiaries and the types of providers who are allowed to offer such care. It also charges higher copayments for mental health services than it does for all other health care. In order to receive mental health care, seniors and the disabled must pay 50 percent of the cost of a visit to their mental health specialist, as opposed to the 20 percent that they pay for other services. Medicare also limits the number of days a beneficiary can receive mental health care in a hospital setting to 190 days over an individual's lifetime. As we talk about modernizing the Medicare program we must address this problem. The need is glaring. Almost 20 percent of Americans over age 65 have a serious mental disorder. They suffer from depression, Alzheimer's disease, dementia, anxiety, late-life schizophrenia and, all too often, substance abuse. These are serious illnesses that must be treated. Unfortunately, they are often unidentified by primary care physicians, or the appropriate services are simply out of reach. Americans age 65 and older have the highest rate of suicide of any other population in the United States. An alarming 70 percent of elderly suicide victims have visited their primary care doctor in the month prior to committing suicide. Medicare is also the primary source of health insurance for millions of non-elderly disabled. More than 20 percent of these individuals suffer from mental illness and/or addiction. This very needy population faces the same discrimination in their mental health coverage. As our population ages, the burden of mental illness on seniors, their families, and the health care system will only continue to increase. Experts estimate that by the year 2030, 15 million people over 65 will have psychiatric disorders, with the number of individuals suffering from Alzheimer's disease doubling. If we do not reform the Medicare program to provide greater access to detection and treatment of mental illness, the cost of not treating these diseases will rapidly escalate. Without the appropriate outpatient mental health services, too many of our seniors are forced into nursing homes and hospitals. If we truly want to modernize Medicare and make it more efficient, we must provide access to these services. Not only will they likely reduce costs in the long-term, but they will also increase Medicare beneficiaries' quality of life. The Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act takes critical steps to address these issues. First, the bill reduces the 50 percent copayment for mental health services to 20 percent. The proposed 20 percent copayment is the same as the copayment for all other outpatient services in Medicare. Second, the bill would provide access to intensive residential services for those who are suffering from severe mental illness. This will give people with Alzheimer's disease and other serious mental illness the opportunity to be cared for in their homes or in community-based settings. Third, the bill expands the number of qualified mental health professionals eligible to provide services through the Medicare program. This includes licensed professional mental health counselors, clinical social workers, and marriage and family therapists. This expansion of qualified providers is critical to ensuring that seniors throughout the nation, particularly those in rural areas, are able to receive the services they need. In closing, I urge all of my colleagues to step forward to support the Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act of 2003. It is time for the Medicare program to stop discriminating against seniors and the disabled who are suffering from mental illness.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this legislation because I believe it is unconstitutional, and because its language is so broad that it effectively would ban standard and safe abortion procedures. I am concerned that, if approved, this bill would not only undermine a woman's right to choose, but it would endanger the lives of thousands of women who no longer would have access to safe abortion procedures when their health or their life is in jeopardy. Before I go further, let me say that I fully understand the very real and legitimate concerns of those who support this legislation. The issue of abortion raises the most profound of moral and ethical dilemmas. These are emotional issues. They raise many hard questions. And the practical reality of abortion, all types of abortion, is hard for all involved. Speaking for myself, I support a woman's right to choose. And I support it strongly. As I see it, a decision about abortion generally should be made by a woman and her doctor, not by politicians. Having said that, I recognize that men and women of good faith can and will reach different conclusions about the difficult ethical questions involved in the debate on this legislation. And, I share concerns raised by many bill proponents about some of the most disturbing examples of procedures conducted post-viability. That's why I intend to support an amendment to restrict such procedures. The legislation I am supporting, however, is much more carefully crafted than the underlying bill, and it complies with the constitution by providing an exception where the health of the woman is at stake. While I understand the genuine concerns of many advocates for this legislation, the language of the bill actually goes well beyond a ban on late-term abortions. In fact, its real effect would be to deny women's access to some of the safest abortion procedures at all stages of pregnancy. Because the legislation omits any mention of fetal viability, it bans abortions throughout all stages of pregnancy. And it bans one of the safest abortion methods--the ``intact D&E''--that is used when a woman's life and health are in danger and for severe fetal anomalies. I hope my colleagues will think long and hard about the implications of the legislation before us. We need to be very careful to avoid returning to a period in which abortion was illegal and the only choice women had was to seek an illegal and unsafe abortion. In those days, thousands of women died each year as a direct result of these legal prohibitions. And it would be tragic if this Congress were to forget the lessons of that history. It also would be unconstitutional. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court held that a woman has the right to choose legal abortion until fetal viability. States have the authority to ban abortion post-viability, so long as exceptions are made to protect a woman's life and health. And, indeed, 41 States have chosen to ban postviability abortions in instances in which a woman's life and health are not at stake. But, under no circumstances do the Congress or the States have the authority to ban medical procedures that are essential to preserving a woman's life or health, nor do they have the authority to completely ban access to abortion previability. This is a constitutionally protected right. Unfortunately, the majority leader has brought to the Senate floor an abortion ban that has been struck down by courts in 21 States, including my State of New Jersey, and the Supreme Court. Based on that precedent, there is little doubt that, if this bill is enacted, it also will be struck down, and therefore it won't reduce the number of abortions at all. It makes you wonder: Why are we even spending our time debating this legislation? If we really are interested in reducing the number of abortions in this country, we should ensure that all women have access to the full array of family planning services, including prescription contraception, emergency contraception, and prenatal care. We also should support an expansion of comprehensive sex education. I fully support the amendment offered by Senator Murray and Reid that would have addressed these issues. Every week, 8,500 children in our country are born to mothers who lacked access to prenatal care. Too many of these children are born with serious health problems because their mothers lacked adequate care during their pregnancies. As a result, 28,000 infants die each year in the United States. That, Mr. President, is the real tragedy. And we ought to act immediately to address this issue by expanding access to prenatal care, as several of my colleagues and I have proposed. What we should not do, however, is pass legislation that we know is unconstitutional, that would ban a common and safe form of abortion at all stages of pregnancy, and that would increase maternal mortality-- all without improving the health of a single child. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record two letters, one from Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, and the other from Mr. Felicia Stewart, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of California. I believe these letters describe better than I the important medical reasons for voting against this bill.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Round II EZ/EC Flexibility Act of 2003. This important legislation would secure vital funding for Round II Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities to ensure that communities throughout the country will be able to continue the important work of economic revitalization. This legislation promotes the continued economic development throughout the EZ/EC program, particularly to the 15 Round II urban and 5 rural empowerment zones that were designated in 1999. Each of those communities has implemented a host of strategic initiatives aimed at economic growth and job creation in their respective communities. The EZ/EC Act ensures that Round II communities EZs and ECs are provided with funding they were promised upon designation. It also authorizes the use of EZ/EC grants as a match for related Federal programs, providing the EZ/EC program with maximum flexibility to implement initiatives at the local level. The Enterprise Zone/Enterprise Community program was created to provide Federal assistance over ten years in designated urban and rural communities that would fuel economic revitalization and job growth. The program does so primarily by providing Federal grants to communities and tax and regulatory relief to help communities attract and retain businesses. Unfortunately, an inequity now exists between the way Round I and Round II EZs and ECs have been funded. Those communities that won EZ designations in the initial round, in 1994, received full funding from the Congress, which made all grant awards available for use within the first two years of designation. However, EZs and ECs designated in Round II did not receive this same funding authority. Federal benefits promised to the Round IIs included funding grants of $100 million for each urban zone, $40 million for each rural zone and about $3 million for each Enterprise Community over a ten-year period beginning in 1999. In reliance on those ``promised'' funds, Round II zones prepared strategic plans for economic revitalization based on the availability of that funding. However, unlike Round I designees, who received a full funding up front, Round II zones have received a mere fraction of the funding promise. The lack of a certain, predictable funding stream will ultimately undermine the ability of Round II EZs/ECs to effectively implement their economic growth strategies in their designated communities. And that's a shame, because the EZ/EC initiative has produced real results. In fact, I'm proud to say that one of the best Round II EZs is located in Cumberland County, NJ. The Cumberland County Empowerment Zone, a collaborative effort of the communities of Bridgeton, Millville, Vineland and Port Norris, has been a model EZ, and committed all the funds made available to it by HUD. Since the creation of the EZ, Cumberland County has witnessed more than 100 housing units rehabbed, renovated or newly built. A $4 million loan pool has been created to fund community and small business reinvestment. The EZ also has led to the funding for over 60 economic development initiatives, utilizing more than $11 million in funding to leverage $120 million in private, public and tax exempt bond financing. These are real results. In fact, over 1,100 new jobs will be created in the County over the next year and a half alone if the Federal Government were to maintain its commitment to the EZ/EC program. Cumberland County is just one example of how the EZ/EC initiative has brought hope and promise to communities throughout America. We need to do more to support and build on these initiatives. Now is the time for Congress to fulfill the promise made to Round II EZs and ECs. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill that will allow communities throughout the country to continue their work of economic revitalization. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to call attention to a little- known, little-understood, devastating ``orphan'' disease fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva, or FOP--which strikes children between age 2 and 10. Normally, when a young child sprains a wrist or an ankle, or bruises a knee, there's a natural healing process. But children with FOP-- develop catastrophic bone spurs at the site of the injury that continue to grow, encasing major organs and exerting painful, life-threatening pressure. According to Dr. Frederic Kaplan, an orthopedic surgeon at the University of Pennsylvania, the worldwide center for FOP research, the average lifespan for people with this dreadful disease is about 45 years. But most sufferers are wheel-chair bound by age 20, breathing with the greatest difficulty, unable to feed or dress themselves. Here's the sad problem: there are perhaps 300 FOP cases in the world--at least 12 in my state of New Jersey, 16 in New York, and 13 in Pennsylvania. This is the orphan of all orphan diseases. So we need to put a human face on this. For me, that face belongs to 10-year old Whitney Weldon, of Westfield, New Jersey. When first diagnosed two years ago, Whitney did all the things most all children do--run, play ball, skip down the street. Now she cannot lift her arms over her head. But she is able to ride a special bicycle and enjoy the art she loves, and time with her best friend. We want to give her the chance for more time, and to do that we need money for research. Right now Whitney's only treatment consists of painkillers and anti-inflammatory steroids. Nothing stops the bone growth. Dr. Kaplan and his research partner at the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Eileen Shore, have received a little more than $1 million over 4 years from the National Institutes of Health for research into the gene that causes FOP and to determine the pathways by which this abnormal gene causes extra bone production. This funding is a tribute to their progress so far, but there is still such a long way to go. Dr. Kaplan's annual budget is $1 million. About 20 percent of that comes from NIH funding--the other 80 percent comes from families and friends. And I'll tell you something interesting--Dr. Kaplan says that even though FOP affects only one person in 2 million, the answers that can be found in continued research can shed light on osteoporosis and extra-bone formation that occurs after head or spinal cord trauma. So there is the very real potential of beneficial effects for many millions of people. There are some promising avenues. Adult stem cell research and examination of bone marrow from FOP sufferers have yielded possible directions to pursue. Wider stem cell research would be exponentially more helpful. Whitney's parents enable her to live as normal a life as possible for as long as possible. And she shares fun and confidences with Mackenzie Roach, her friend since kindergarten. She also shares one of life's extraordinary connecting bonds with Mackenzie. Stephen Roach, Mackenzie's father, was killed on September 11 when terrorists bombed the World Trade Center. Stephen was very involved in raising funds and awareness for FOP. In his memory, Mackenzie's family has created the Stephen L. Roach Fund for FOP Research, which to date has raised more than $800,000. Last March, President Bush declared 2002-2011 as National Bone and Joint Decade. That is a very hopeful development, and hope goes a long way. When we join that hope with a sustained focus on finding a cure for FOP, we will go even further.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Round II EZ/EC Flexibility Act of 2003. This important legislation would secure vital funding for Round II Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities to ensure that communities throughout the country will be able to continue the important work of economic revitalization. This legislation promotes the continued economic development throughout the EZ/EC program, particularly to the 15 Round II urban and 5 rural empowerment zones that were designated in 1999. Each of those communities has implemented a host of strategic initiatives aimed at economic growth and job creation in their respective communities. The EZ/EC Act ensures that Round II communities EZs and ECs are provided with funding they were promised upon designation. It also authorizes the use of EZ/EC grants as a match for related Federal programs, providing the EZ/EC program with maximum flexibility to implement initiatives at the local level. The Enterprise Zone/Enterprise Community program was created to provide Federal assistance over ten years in designated urban and rural communities that would fuel economic revitalization and job growth. The program does so primarily by providing Federal grants to communities and tax and regulatory relief to help communities attract and retain businesses. Unfortunately, an inequity now exists between the way Round I and Round II EZs and ECs have been funded. Those communities that won EZ designations in the initial round, in 1994, received full funding from the Congress, which made all grant awards available for use within the first two years of designation. However, EZs and ECs designated in Round II did not receive this same funding authority. Federal benefits promised to the Round IIs included funding grants of $100 million for each urban zone, $40 million for each rural zone and about $3 million for each Enterprise Community over a ten-year period beginning in 1999. In reliance on those ``promised'' funds, Round II zones prepared strategic plans for economic revitalization based on the availability of that funding. However, unlike Round I designees, who received a full funding up front, Round II zones have received a mere fraction of the funding promise. The lack of a certain, predictable funding stream will ultimately undermine the ability of Round II EZs/ECs to effectively implement their economic growth strategies in their designated communities. And that's a shame, because the EZ/EC initiative has produced real results. In fact, I'm proud to say that one of the best Round II EZs is located in Cumberland County, NJ. The Cumberland County Empowerment Zone, a collaborative effort of the communities of Bridgeton, Millville, Vineland and Port Norris, has been a model EZ, and committed all the funds made available to it by HUD. Since the creation of the EZ, Cumberland County has witnessed more than 100 housing units rehabbed, renovated or newly built. A $4 million loan pool has been created to fund community and small business reinvestment. The EZ also has led to the funding for over 60 economic development initiatives, utilizing more than $11 million in funding to leverage $120 million in private, public and tax exempt bond financing. These are real results. In fact, over 1,100 new jobs will be created in the County over the next year and a half alone if the Federal Government were to maintain its commitment to the EZ/EC program. Cumberland County is just one example of how the EZ/EC initiative has brought hope and promise to communities throughout America. We need to do more to support and build on these initiatives. Now is the time for Congress to fulfill the promise made to Round II EZs and ECs. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill that will allow communities throughout the country to continue their work of economic revitalization. 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 legislation, the Unemployment Protection for Low-Income Families on TANF Act, or UPLIFT Act, that will protect low-income families who are transitioning from welfare to work from losing their welfare benefits during periods of high unemployment. I want to thank my colleague, Senator Murray, for joining me in cosponsoring this important legislation. Forcing families off welfare during a recession because they cannot find a job lacks commonsense. In fact, during an economic downturn, which we are in right now, low-skilled workers and recently employed workers are more likely to lose their jobs, and unfortunately, only 30 to 40 percent of former welfare recipients who become unemployed qualify for Unemployment Insurance. Furthermore, there are 1.5 million fewer jobs today than there were a year ago, when the economic downturn began, making it increasingly difficult for these individuals to find employment, particularly full-time employment. A single parent receiving welfare assistance while working 30 hours a week who loses her job during a recession should not be penalized. For families like this, welfare is the only unemployment insurance they have. But, under current law, federal welfare time limits and work requirements continue to apply during periods of high-unemployment. The Unemployment Protection for Low-Income Families through TANF Act, or UPLIFT Act, would require states to disregard federal TANF assistance for all recipients when the national unemployment rate reaches or exceeds 6.5 percent or when a state unemployment rises by 1.5 percentage points over a three-month period. Every percentage point increase in unemployment results in a welfare caseload increase of 5 percent. In addition to enacting a strong contingency fund for states experiencing high unemployment and increased caseloads, Congress must act to ensure that welfare recipients are not time-limited off of welfare when the economy is weak and jobs are in short supply. In addition to promoting self- sufficiency, TANF programs should be a safety net for low-income families who are unable to find work or meet their needs. My legislation will help parents who are trying to transition from welfare to work, but are unable to find work during a weak economy, to provide for their families without the fear of losing cash assistance. The TANF program is not only about moving people from welfare to work, it is also about reducing poverty and helping families in need. While welfare reform has succeeded at moving thousands of people into work, its success has come in strong economic times. As people reach their 5-year time limits, we can only hope they will be able to find jobs in what is now a more difficult economy. The reality is that many states are experiencing high unemployment right now, making it extremely difficult for welfare recipients to find good paying full- time jobs. We shouldn't penalize people who are trying to transition from welfare to work just because the economy is bad. We need to continue to help these families build their skills and find employment when times are tough. As Congress acts to reauthorize the TANF program I ask my colleagues to support legislation that will protect families transitioning from welfare to work from losing their benefits during a recession. 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 reintroduce legislation, the Unemployment Protection for Low-Income Families on TANF Act, or UPLIFT Act, that will protect low-income families who are transitioning from welfare to work from losing their welfare benefits during periods of high unemployment. I want to thank my colleague, Senator Murray, for joining me in cosponsoring this important legislation. Forcing families off welfare during a recession because they cannot find a job lacks commonsense. In fact, during an economic downturn, which we are in right now, low-skilled workers and recently employed workers are more likely to lose their jobs, and unfortunately, only 30 to 40 percent of former welfare recipients who become unemployed qualify for Unemployment Insurance. Furthermore, there are 1.5 million fewer jobs today than there were a year ago, when the economic downturn began, making it increasingly difficult for these individuals to find employment, particularly full-time employment. A single parent receiving welfare assistance while working 30 hours a week who loses her job during a recession should not be penalized. For families like this, welfare is the only unemployment insurance they have. But, under current law, federal welfare time limits and work requirements continue to apply during periods of high-unemployment. The Unemployment Protection for Low-Income Families through TANF Act, or UPLIFT Act, would require states to disregard federal TANF assistance for all recipients when the national unemployment rate reaches or exceeds 6.5 percent or when a state unemployment rises by 1.5 percentage points over a three-month period. Every percentage point increase in unemployment results in a welfare caseload increase of 5 percent. In addition to enacting a strong contingency fund for states experiencing high unemployment and increased caseloads, Congress must act to ensure that welfare recipients are not time-limited off of welfare when the economy is weak and jobs are in short supply. In addition to promoting self- sufficiency, TANF programs should be a safety net for low-income families who are unable to find work or meet their needs. My legislation will help parents who are trying to transition from welfare to work, but are unable to find work during a weak economy, to provide for their families without the fear of losing cash assistance. The TANF program is not only about moving people from welfare to work, it is also about reducing poverty and helping families in need. While welfare reform has succeeded at moving thousands of people into work, its success has come in strong economic times. As people reach their 5-year time limits, we can only hope they will be able to find jobs in what is now a more difficult economy. The reality is that many states are experiencing high unemployment right now, making it extremely difficult for welfare recipients to find good paying full- time jobs. We shouldn't penalize people who are trying to transition from welfare to work just because the economy is bad. We need to continue to help these families build their skills and find employment when times are tough. As Congress acts to reauthorize the TANF program I ask my colleagues to support legislation that will protect families transitioning from welfare to work from losing their benefits during a recession. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. With full expectation and understanding of the position, I am disappointed with the objection that has been raised, but I am not surprised. We have a critical need to get focused on our economy in this country. The needs of the American people are not being addressed. It is not because we are having this debate. We could move off this debate and move to the economy today, then come back to it like we did with regard to the omnibus appropriations. The American people should know there are proposals on the table that would stimulate this economy and get it moving, instead of seeing unemployment rates skyrocket, instead of seeing deficits as far as the eye can see being put in place, with no attention being drawn to them, without dealing with the core things that matter in families' lives, in real people's lives. We could do that and still come back to this and have a full constitutional and responsible debate about what is needed to review a candidate and get on with the real needs facing our country. I find it very difficult to understand where we are with regard to a lot of these priorities at this point in time, and I hope we will see the light before we have to go further with more of these serious problems that our American families face with their economic security. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I asked questions earlier about the private sector. I think we have all 50 Governors from across this Nation now in the Nation's Capital. I know many of them come to visit their Senate representatives and their congressional representatives. I wonder if the minority leader has had one single Governor approach him with respect to the Estrada nomination or whether he has had one single or multiple Governors come and talk about the state of their fiscal affairs in their State governments and their unbelievable difficulty in trying to maintain employment and support in Medicaid and all the other issues. I was just wondering if the minority leader has had any discussions with them about Judge Estrada versus the sake of the economy--or homeland security for that matter.

Mr. CORZINE. Will the minority leader yield for a question?

Mr. CORZINE. I truly appreciate the focus on issues that matter directly to the people who live in our States and who live across the country. The Senator spoke about the individual business person who had not sold any farm equipment. We are closing the last two autoplants in New Jersey over the next 2 or 3 years. They have already cut down to one shift. Bell Labs, one of the great research institutions of America, has literally been a part of the reduction of 130,000 jobs at Lucent, a lot of them in New Jersey. A lot of the Bell Labs people are doing basic core research, and the people are very upset. That is what that consumer confidence number is. It is incredible in the history of real measurements of what is going on in the minds of American consumers. By the way, it is going on in business, too. I ask the minority leader whether he saw yesterday's survey from Manpower, Inc. They said only 20 percent of businesses in America think they will add any jobs in the next 6 months, an indication of the kind of depth of concern that actually exists in the business community in conjunction with consumer confidence. I applaud the minority leader for making sure we are being focused to have a debate about something that matters to people's lives, and I hope we can bring forth a real debate about a stimulus program to get our economy going, put people back to work because that is where real concerns seem to be. I presume that is the kind of question the Senator is receiving in South Dakota.

Mr. CORZINE. If the minority leader will yield for one other observation and question, has the Senator noticed the fact that we have lost almost another trillion dollars in market value? And by the way, that translates into 401(k)s and IRAs for individuals. Those are some very serious numbers, actually since this program with regard to dividend disclosure has been announced. There is a credibility gap between the reality of what is being suggested as an economic growth program and what is actually occurring out in the real world. Certainly my constituents and the people I hear from around the country and in the business community are saying much of the same thing. I presume that is what the Senator is hearing as well from the folks in South Dakota.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, will the distinguished minority leader yield for one more question?

Mr. CORZINE. I join with my colleagues on this side of the aisle in complimenting the leader and for rating this issue one job versus 2.5 million jobs. We have a major issue in this country with regard to our economy, and that is at the top of our agenda.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Fitzgerald, Sarbanes, and Akaka to introduce the Education for Retirement Security Act of 2003. This bill will provide access to badly needed financial and retirement education for millions of mid-life and older Americans whose retirement security is at stake. Improving financial literacy has been a top priority for me in Congress. I believe it is a critical and complex task for Americans of all ages, but it is especially crucial for Americans as they approach retirement. In fact, low levels of savings and high levels of personal and real estate debt are serious problems for many households nearing retirement. Although today's older Americans are generally thought to be doing well, nearly one-out-of-five, 18 percent, were living below 125 percent of the poverty line in 1995, which was a year of tremendous economic prosperity in our Nation. And, only 53 percent of working Americans have any form of pension coverage. In addition, financial exploitation is the largest single category of abuse against older individuals, and this population comprises more than one-half of all telemarketing victims in the United States. While education along cannot solve our Nation's retirement woes, financial education is vital to enabling individuals to avoid scams and bad investment, mortgage, and pension decisions, and to ensuring that they have access to the tools they need to make sound financial decisions and prepare appropriately for a secure future. Indeed, the more limited time frame that mid-life and older Americans have in which to assess the realities of their individual circumstances, recover from bad economic choices, and to benefit from more informed financial practices makes this education all the more critical. Financial literacy is also particularly important for older women, who are more likely to live in poverty and be dependent upon Social Security. The Education for Retirement Security act would create a competitive grant program that would provide resources to State and area agencies on aging and nonprofit community based organizations to provide financial education programs to mid-life and older Americans. The goal of these programs is to enhance these individuals' financial and retirement knowledge and reduce their vulnerability to financial abuse and fraud, including telemarketing, mortgage, and pension fraud. My legislation also authorizes the creation of a national technical assistance program that would designate at least one national nonprofit organization that has substantial experience in the field of financial education to provide training and make available instructional materials and information that promotes financial education. Over the next thirty years, the percentage of Americans aged 65 and older is expected to double, from 35 million to nearly 75 million. Ensuring that these individuals are better prepared for retirement and are more informed about the economic decisions they face during retirement will have an important impact on the long term economic and social well-being of our Nation. I hope that as the Senate moves to address pension reform, my colleagues will work to address the issues outlined in this legislation. The recent rash of corporate and accounting scandals and the declining stock market have jeopardized the retirement savings of millions of Americans, making the need for financial literacy even more clear. In closing, I would like to acknowledge the expertise and assistance that AARP, the Older Women's League, OWL, and the Women's Institute for a Secure Economic Retirement, WISER, offered to me in drafting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Fitzgerald, Sarbanes, and Akaka to introduce the Education for Retirement Security Act of 2003. This bill will provide access to badly needed financial and retirement education for millions of mid-life and older Americans whose retirement security is at stake. Improving financial literacy has been a top priority for me in Congress. I believe it is a critical and complex task for Americans of all ages, but it is especially crucial for Americans as they approach retirement. In fact, low levels of savings and high levels of personal and real estate debt are serious problems for many households nearing retirement. Although today's older Americans are generally thought to be doing well, nearly one-out-of-five, 18 percent, were living below 125 percent of the poverty line in 1995, which was a year of tremendous economic prosperity in our Nation. And, only 53 percent of working Americans have any form of pension coverage. In addition, financial exploitation is the largest single category of abuse against older individuals, and this population comprises more than one-half of all telemarketing victims in the United States. While education along cannot solve our Nation's retirement woes, financial education is vital to enabling individuals to avoid scams and bad investment, mortgage, and pension decisions, and to ensuring that they have access to the tools they need to make sound financial decisions and prepare appropriately for a secure future. Indeed, the more limited time frame that mid-life and older Americans have in which to assess the realities of their individual circumstances, recover from bad economic choices, and to benefit from more informed financial practices makes this education all the more critical. Financial literacy is also particularly important for older women, who are more likely to live in poverty and be dependent upon Social Security. The Education for Retirement Security act would create a competitive grant program that would provide resources to State and area agencies on aging and nonprofit community based organizations to provide financial education programs to mid-life and older Americans. The goal of these programs is to enhance these individuals' financial and retirement knowledge and reduce their vulnerability to financial abuse and fraud, including telemarketing, mortgage, and pension fraud. My legislation also authorizes the creation of a national technical assistance program that would designate at least one national nonprofit organization that has substantial experience in the field of financial education to provide training and make available instructional materials and information that promotes financial education. Over the next thirty years, the percentage of Americans aged 65 and older is expected to double, from 35 million to nearly 75 million. Ensuring that these individuals are better prepared for retirement and are more informed about the economic decisions they face during retirement will have an important impact on the long term economic and social well-being of our Nation. I hope that as the Senate moves to address pension reform, my colleagues will work to address the issues outlined in this legislation. The recent rash of corporate and accounting scandals and the declining stock market have jeopardized the retirement savings of millions of Americans, making the need for financial literacy even more clear. In closing, I would like to acknowledge the expertise and assistance that AARP, the Older Women's League, OWL, and the Women's Institute for a Secure Economic Retirement, WISER, offered to me in drafting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to make a statement with respect to something I believe is vital that the American public get focused on. Last Monday President Bush proposed a budget to the American people that, if it were adopted, would basically dramatically change the landscape, reshape the future of our Nation in a lot of different ways. I would like to speak about that in the context of a few ideas today. I hope I can come here every day, as long as is necessary, to make sure we raise up this, I think revolutionary document, radical document, with regard to what the shape of our economy and the shape of our participation of the Federal Government in our life in America is about. Perhaps because of its release so soon after the tragic Columbia shuttle tragedy, the budget has not received the public attention it deserves. Frankly, we had unbelievably revealing testimony by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve yesterday with respect to how that budget fits into the overall concept of fiscal responsibility and fiscal prudence that is so important for Americans to understand. But even with that, even with such dramatic statements coming from the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the budget has not received the public's attention. I think we need to raise up the debate that is embedded in many of the propositions that are made in the President's budget. I do not think this is a run of the mill--these are the revenues, these are the expenses. By the way, we are going to have a $307 billion budget deficit, but that is not so important. This is a radical change from the direction that we in this country have been moving for a very long time. I don't think we are talking about it in those contexts, and I think the American people should understand the huge implications of its many far-reaching proposals. There are so many significant elements in this budget that it is difficult for me to actually even know where to start. The big picture is clear. The Bush budget is fiscally reckless, in my view, and imprudent in the extreme in the macroeconomic context, and would substantially reduce the security of America's working families for decades to come. I will try to go through some of that. But at the biggest level, when President Bush came to office we were projecting budget surpluses of $5.6 trillion over 10 years. We just preceded that with 3 years of budget surpluses. Since then that figure has declined by almost $8 trillion. We had projected $5.64 trillion in surpluses. Now in the same timeframe, until 2011, we are projecting $1 trillion-plus in deficits. Where I come from in the private sector, if you have an $8 trillion negative cashflow, somebody would ask some questions about what is driving it, what is making such an overwhelming difference in the context of our financial posture with respect to fiscal affairs in this country. That is extraordinary. By the way, take that a step further. It was projected at the same time that we were going to pay down, for all practical purposes, the publicly held debt of the U.S. Government. That was in 2001, early 2001--going down to $36 billion. Today, out to 2008, we are expecting a $5 trillion publicly held debt. That is extraordinary. That is an extraordinary amount of debt that will go on, not just to be financed by current generations of Americans. The view that we are not going to transfer to our kids and our grandkids future responsibilities to pay for what we are doing today, as we benefit from those expenditures--we are transferring it on. That is $5 trillion. By the way, it is a heavy burden not only in the debt that the current generation is transferring to future generations, but it is also an extraordinary expense. We are going from a $622 billion cost of our debt under the projections that were established in 2001 to, get this, $2.3 trillion we are going to spend--$2.3 trillion we are going to spend just to finance that debt, that change in that $8 trillion that comes across. That is what it is going to cost us over 10 years to finance the bad fiscal policies we are taking on. I don't know about most Americans, but I think they can figure out that we have lots of important things in this country that we could spend $2.3 trillion on, relative to this $622 billion, that we would have been able to spend if those changes had not occurred such as Leave No Child Behind, such as making sure our health care systems are properly funded, or that the Social Security trust fund is in place so Social Security can be in place. And maybe most importantly, we could protect Americans with something other than duct tape. We could actually put real protections in our ports, on our highways. We could make sure that the security surrounding our chemical plants across this country was in place. There are lots of things that this country could do if we had that $2.3 trillion that we are going to now give out in interest expense, many of those dollars going offshore, not even to Americans. I think it is absolutely irresponsible that we are putting ourselves in a position that we are going to run the kinds of deficits we are talking about. In fact, I think that was the overwhelming weight of the conversation we had with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board yesterday. If we do not get our fiscal house in order, we are going to put ourselves into a position where the United States is going to have not just small deficits and not just $2.3 trillion worth of interest expense, but we are going to see that explode in the years well beyond the next decade because that is when the baby boomers retire. We will go from 40 million retired Americans to 75 million retired Americans on Medicare and Social Security and that will put unbelievable pressures on what we have as a nation in our fiscal responsibility. So I find this a hard budget, at a macro level, for us to take on. I hope the American people can understand that we are burdening our children and our grandchildren as we go forward; that we really are putting at risk Medicare and Social Security as we understand it today as we go forward. Frankly, I think without a full discussion and without creating a full understanding in the minds of the American people, we are not doing our jobs. I think it is almost a question of ethics, about what our responsibility is to raise up this discussion so those choices are understood by the American people and not buried in some document of hundreds and hundreds of pages of numbers that really do not translate into the practical impact that the individuals need. I go back to it again. It is basic economics. We have had an $8 trillion swing in the cashflow of this government. There is no one I know who would think that is a positive way for us to approach the financial management of this country. To carry on with slightly more detail, as economists would say, this budget calls for a dramatic reduction in national savings. When you are borrowing all this money, that money isn't going into the private sector. It isn't going into areas of productivity and growth in this country. That is what we saw happen in the 1990s. We saw 22.5 million new jobs created, and we saw productivity rise from very low levels to the kind of high levels that are driving the successes of the economy in the late 1990s and continue to be the only really positive element we see in the economy today. When you have that capital going off to the Federal Government, it means less capital to be available to invest in plant and equipment and less capital to implant new technologies and new inventions, and to do research and medical advances. The end result almost inevitably will be lower economic growth in the future, if you carry those kinds of debt burdens into the future. That is not a conclusion based on partisanship or ideology. It is economics 101. Less savings means less investment which means lower growth. It is just that those are the truisms defined by the basic laws of economics. Less savings means less investment which means lower growth. By the way, when you are borrowing money at the $8 trillion level at the Federal Government, you are having less savings. That is just by definition. I guess that is why the 10 Nobel economists yesterday put out the statement they thought we were on the wrong track with regard to our fiscal policy; that we were putting ourselves into a grave position with regard to our longrun fiscal structure. It is absolutely essential, in my view, that we stand back and get hold of the budget mess I think we are putting in place, if we go forward. Unfortunately, many administration officials have lately been denying the laws of economics, as far as I can tell, dismissing the importance of fiscal discipline. As OMB Director Mitch Daniels put it, while we have returned to an era of deficits, ``We ought not hyperventilate about this issue.'' I guess we are just taking off the board all that discussion about balanced budget amendments, the No. 1 issue, and the Contract With America, all that discussion we had through the 1990s, all that discussion that the private sector has tried to impart to the public sector; that there really is competition for funds out in the marketplace; that deficits really do drive up long-term interest rates which, by the way, Chairman Greenspan once again reiterated very clearly and unequivocally yesterday; and that we hear consistent conversation about deficits do not matter to the investment function of the economy. It is hard to believe we are so blind to the fundamentals of economics. Supply and demand do matter. When there is demand for the credit in the marketplace for the Federal Government, it does impact on the private sector and the savings function. Comments like these--the one about hyperventilating about deficits-- make it seem like we are living in a strange twilight zone, in my view. As I said, we just came through a heavy period of discussion-- actually before I got into political life--about amending the United States Constitution to establish a rigid Balanced Budget Act. I do not know where that discussion went. I guess we had a change of heart and a change of mind at some particular point. But it really is hard for me to understand. I almost find it humorous, although I don't, really. We hear comments with regard to my Democratic colleagues that we are concerned about rising deficits. One of the leaders in the House dismissed the importance of fiscal discipline, arguing that ``The Soviet Union had a balanced budget.'' I am not exactly how sure that fits into the overall structure of our debate. But I think it demonstrates we are making so light of this $8 trillion--I repeat, $8 trillion--negative cashflow swing this government is now burdening our people with. It is serious. I come from a part of the world where you can tolerate some negative income for a short period of team, but, after a while, you go bankrupt. It undermines the reality of your financial success. It will for our Government. It may not go bankrupt, but we will be living with higher interest rates than we need be, and we will be losing the ability to see our private sector invest appropriately and basic saving functions as defined by economics. Think about it. Perhaps the most powerful Member of the other body, in effect, was comparing fiscal discipline to a failed regime on how operations work. I am really troubled about how light we are making this issue of our fiscal responsibility. Why are the administration and its supporters abandoning fiscal discipline? Quite simply because their overriding priority is to provide huge new tax breaks to those who are doing the best, I guess. There is no other basis of understanding. It looks to me like political policy as opposed to economic policy. Let us look at these tax breaks. As many of my Democratic colleagues have pointed out, they would provide relatively few benefits to working Americans. But, more importantly, they would do virtually nothing to create jobs or stimulate our economy. In fact, the Bush plan could well cost jobs, and I believe very clearly it is bordering on antigrowth. That is true for at least four reasons I would like to expand on. First, very simple, very little impact of that initiative the President has laid out--less than 5 percent of the growth package-- would kick in right away in 2003, and very little of it in 2004. Most of its impact would be delayed into the future, undermining the long- term structure of our fiscal health, but doing little for the current package. By the way, those 10 Nobel economists yesterday also talked about temporary, short-term stimulus was needed to create demand in our economy--create demand now so we can pump-prime the economy and help get it going. And then we will see the growth of revenues be the basis of how we reestablish the cashflow to the Federal Government. By the way, we don't need to have all of these long-term cash cuts unless you are going to do it in a tax reform package. And, by the way, I totally agree with Chairman Greenspan. Double taxation on dividends is a bad idea. It ought to be done from a comprehensive, revenue- neutral position of tax reform. No one would argue there is very little in tax difference. But it ought to be done with a comprehensive set of tax reforms. The American people understand that. They understand companies are paying only about one half of what they report on their income statements to the public when they try to sell their stock as taxable income. They are doing all kinds of things--some legitimate, some not so legitimate--to try to shelter income. We need to have a reform package that actually works--to raise revenues but also to make sure we don't have inhibition on American business in formation of capital such as taxes on dividends. But it ought to be on a comprehensive, revenue-neutral basis. I think most people, when they are honest and step back, will see the logic of that. Certainly the American people do. Second, the President's tax proposals provide, as I said, most of the benefit for those at the very highest incomes. These are the people least likely to spend a tax break. I think a better approach, as I have advocated with Senator Landrieu--and as Senator McCain talked about a ``payroll tax holiday''--would target tax relief to middle-class working Americans who need help. By the way, I happen to think this ``payroll tax holiday'' and what Senator Landrieu and I talked about is really fundamental to how we can stimulate the economy today. Three out of four Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. It is also the people who are stretched the hardest in trying to keep their budget together at home. By the way, individuals have to balance their budgets. So it is not exactly like they can walk away from running their debts up. We can do that in the Federal Government, but you cannot do that at the individual level. Otherwise, your creditors will come and see you and say it is time for you to sell your house. Third, the Bush plan to exempt most dividend income from taxation would have the effect of taking cash off the balance sheets of American corporations. That would mean less money to invest in plants and equipment and less money to hire new workers and retain old ones. In other words, it will depress the economy further as opposed to stimulating it. If you want to deal with double taxation on dividends, you do it at the corporate level. It might not be as politically attractive, but it would certainly be more rational that you would treat dividends as the equivalent of interest, and it would allow for the basic judgment of corporations as to whether they wanted to invest, pay dividends, hire new workers, or do whatever the economic, advantageous element of managing their business is about. But if you take the cash off the balance sheet, and pay it out in dividends, because you have an incentive to do that, you end up with far less of an incentive to grow the economy. And, in fact, you may very well get an incentive to stifle growth in the economy. I think it is very dangerous. Finally, whatever stimulative impact--and very few people think it is significant at all--the budget would have in the short-term, it is likely to be offset by those higher long-term rates, as projected future deficits shoot through the roof. I know the administration likes to claim there is no connection between deficits and interest rates, as I suggested, but the economic evidence is overwhelming that expectations of future deficits--that is, more Government competition for a limited pool of capital--almost inevitably leads to higher interest rates. It was actually refreshing yesterday at the Senate Banking Committee to hear someone--who I do not necessarily always see eye to eye with, with respect to economic policy--make a clear and unequivocal statement that deficits do matter with respect to interest rates and the performance of the economy, and particularly with respect to the performance of the investment activities of this Nation. This is, again, simple supply and demand. If you have $8 trillion worth of deficits that you would not have had otherwise--or $5 trillion--it is going to compete with the private sector for capital. That, ultimately, is going to have something to do with the shape of our economy in the future, and it is absolutely the most important element of the savings function in the country. So the administration's tax breaks, in my view, for all of those reasons, are antigrowth as much as they are anything else. Again, I reemphasize that I think it is a political proposal, not an economic one. They have the effect of starving the Government of resources needed to protect the security of working families, while we are basically rewarding those who I think are doing reasonably well. The last I checked, in the 1990s, people did pretty well economically. There were more millionaires made in the 1990s, while we were creating 22.5 million jobs than I think we are doing so far in the new century. I wonder why it is that we think we need to have all these structural changes when, in fact, if we just get some demand going, taking up some of that overhang of excess production we have in our country, that we could get going. There are, though, some issues in this budget that go beyond these macroeconomic issues. And they are really important. I do not want to make light of them in and of themselves. I think budget deficits and whether you have a stimulus program or growth program are all fair questions, but are we going to continue as a nation to participate in helping protect the security of working families, protect the security of Americans everywhere? I think what is really radical about this budget is that it is beginning the process to undermine whether we are really going to provide that kind of support. Because we have to make choices, we are going to have to make choices whether we are going to run those deficits, driven in at least a significant part by the kinds of tax cuts we have, or whether we are going to retain some of those resources to be able to invest in the security of working families. I will take a few examples from the President's budget. First, the budget fails to provide funds that are badly needed to protect our Nation against the threat of terrorism. This is maybe the most important domestic issue. While there is some funding for some homeland security programs, we have really turned our back on a lot of the critical priorities, such as port security and border patrols. I heard today that actually we will have fewer people at border crossings, based on this budget, than we had prior to 9/11. I just visited the New York/New Jersey Port a weekend ago. The fact is, we are inspecting less than 2 percent--less than 2 percent--and that has not changed. We have been using that same number in debates on the floor of the Senate. It was not changed in our port at all. The resources are not being made available to check containers, and we are doing nothing to improve the safety and security of the American people--certainly the people in New Jersey and New York--with regard to our ports. We are doing nothing with regard to improving the security surrounding our chemical production facilities in this country. And all this just keeps going on and on, without putting our money where our mouth is with regard to homeland security. We talk about it as our top priority, and we do not put the resources with it. Time and time again, we have asked to try to increase the budget appropriations in this area and have not been able to do it. I think maybe it is the most important domestic issue. It is certainly on the minds of the people of New Jersey, and I suspect it is for most Americans. Second, the budget reneges on the President's promise to provide a meaningful prescription drug benefit for our seniors. Instead, the administration, in effect, forces millions of seniors to drop their own doctor and move to a private sector approach in order to secure a prescription drug. It moves away from fee-for-service plans. This amounts to a backdoor attempt, in my view, to privatize Medicare. We have not seen all the details, so it is a little hard to be as specific as I would like to be, but I have to tell you, if it is anything similar to the headlines we have heard in the State of the Union speech, there are a lot of us who are going to fight this tooth and nail. This is not the promise we have given to the individuals who have been paying payroll taxes for years and years with the expectation there will be a serious Medicare benefit at the end of the day. As you know, if anybody does any analysis, not only are the payroll taxes that go to Social Security being used to finance tax cuts for those who are already doing well, we are now using payroll taxes for Medicare to also do that. And we have gone through all those numbers. It is very hard to understand how we are putting this together. Many of my constituents say: What is going on with those payroll taxes that we are paying every day? We go to work with the expectation that we are going to get Medicare benefits and Social Security benefits at the end of the day when we retire. It is really wrong, and I hope, as we discuss this budget, that becomes clear and more clear to the American public. Third, the budget process proposes to gut health care coverage for the most disadvantaged Americans. Under the administration's plan, Governors, in effect, would be--I was going to say bribed--encouraged to leave the current Medicaid system and move to an alternative that probably would end up with poor and disabled Americans losing coverage. I tell you, I know in New Jersey that we have to cut the number of people who are accessing this, particularly kids in the Children's Health Insurance Program, because we do not have the resources to be able to deal with bringing them into these programs which have long been something that has provided broader health care. There is big, bipartisan support for a concept around here called Start Healthy, Stay Healthy, which is to bring prenatal care to a lot of our less economically enabled citizens. And it is through the Medicaid system and State programs. We are having to cut all of those kinds of programs because the resources are not available. I have to ask--anyone has to ask--is that what the administration means by ``compassionate conservatism''? I could go on and on with the misplaced priorities, from my point of view, of the administration's budget: Its underfunding or complete elimination of so many education programs, including afterschool care; its cuts in environmental protection--the riders included in the omnibus bill that is coming over which doesn't have to do with the 2004 budget, is a mind-boggling way to legislate environmental laws--its abandonment of a program to put police officers on the streets, the COPS program--there are law enforcement officials who are enraged about their ability to continue to protect the public; again, it sort of relates to homeland security--its cuts for children's health insurance; its abolition of the HOPE VI homeownership initiative, which is one of the great programmatic efforts to try to get people to buy into their communities, to be a part of the community, a whole host of other housing programs. I could go on, and I probably will as the days go on, because these issues need to be identified in the mind of the American public. This is a budget that is changing the shape of what the role of the Federal Government is. Maybe that is what people want. Maybe they don't want afterschool programs for kids. Maybe they don't want the COPS programs. Maybe they don't want Leave No Child Behind underfunded. Maybe they do want it underfunded. Maybe they want no increase in affordable housing. Maybe they don't want them, but we ought to tell them what they are getting as opposed to piling it up into a whole host of numbers and covering it up with other things that don't make it clear why we are doing what we are doing. I also want to talk about the administration's proposal to fundamentally change the tax treatment of investment income, another area where--a little bit of my background--it strikes me as really debilitating to the longrun fiscal posture of this country. I know proposals to allow sheltering of investment income sound attractive to many. I used to promote a few of them myself. I think we all agree about the value of expanding opportunities for all Americans to save, to better prepare for retirement. But when you look at the administration's proposal, it has little to do with promoting retirement security for working families. In fact, there are a whole series of these. For most Americans, these proposals are much more likely to undermine retirement security, and they will apply to a very narrow segment of American retirees or future retirees. Most Americans are not using all the tax-supported programs we have today. They are only using about 25 percent of them, if memory serves. And these programs will drain resources critical to the Federal budget to protect Social Security and Medicare in the future--again, as we go from 40 million retired seniors to 75 million. They represent a dramatic shift in the tax burden, a redistribution of wealth, to speak bluntly, to the benefit of those who have substantial investment income and to the detriment of people who depend on wages and support themselves and, by the way, pay payroll taxes. Once again, those people who are paying payroll taxes are funding tax breaks in the income tax system--really hard to understand. These new tax proposals are not merely radical in their redistribution of the tax burden, they are fiscally irresponsible and reckless in the context of our overall budget situation. There are a few elements of this program that need the light of day. They need the focus of the American people, whether it is homeland security, taking care of our kids' educational system, our health care, but probably most important, the longrun ability to fulfill the promise of Social Security and Medicare. That is what this debate is about. Are we really going to have the resources to do the kinds of things the American people have been promised? It is not enough to say: We don't want to do this. We have promised the American people they will at the end of the day have their Social Security benefits, guaranteed benefits. We need to make sure we have the fiscal structure that is in place that allows that to happen. This budget will not allow for that to take place. It needs lots of debate from the American people, lots of debate by the Senate, and a lot of debate in general until we get to a conclusion that is a long way from where we are starting. There is too much at risk here, too many jobs in the first instance, too much in the longrun investment in our economy, to grow our productivity, too much investment to protect the American people with regard to homeland security and the war on terrorism, too much risk with regard to health care and disparities, the ability to provide a meaningful prescription drug benefit to seniors, too much at risk with regard to Social Security. I hope we can truly flush out what the choices are being made through the context of this budget. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. It will be one of many times I would like to come to the Chamber to make sure the American people understand we have a radical reshaping of America's priorities through this budget. Frankly, it is a political statement, not an economic program. Nothing less than the future of our country is at stake. We need a real and serious debate about it. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to advocate a position on the meaning of the Second Amendment that is inconsistent with existing Supreme Court precedent, as expressed in the Supreme Court case of United States v. Miller. This legislation responds to the Bush Administration's filing of two unprecedented briefs to the United States Supreme Court, which argued that the Second Amendment establishes an individual right to possess firearms. In taking this position, the Justice Department directly contradicted the well-established precedents of the Supreme Court, as expressed in the seminal case of United States v. Miller. In that 1939 case, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment did not establish a private right of individuals to possess firearms, but rather was intended to ensure the effectiveness of groups of citizen-soldiers known at the time as the Militia. The Court in United States v. Miller explained the historical background to the Second Amendment and issued its ruling clearly and unambiguously. That ruling has never been reversed, and the Court has followed it in every subsequent related case. Similarly, the precedent in United States v. Miller has been followed by every Justice Department over the past several decades, including the Justice Departments of Presidents Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush. The meaning of the Second Amendment should not be a partisan issue. In fact, it should not be a political issue. It is a legal and constitutional issue. And the law on this question has been clearly established by the highest court in the land in case after case for a period of many decades. Unfortunately, instead of following the law, as Attorney General promised to do during his confirmation hearing, the Bush Administration and the Justice Department have used their authority to file briefs as a means of pursuing a partisan political agenda that flies in the face of established Supreme Court precedents. This is wrong. And, in my view, it is a misuse of taxpayer dollars. Congress should not have to pass a law to ensure that the Executive Branch follows the Constitution, as clearly interpreted by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, in light of the Bush's Administration's latest actions, Congress must step in. After all, Congress's ultimate power is the power of the purse. And we have a responsibility to use that power, when necessary, to ensure that the Executive Branch complies with constitutional law. This responsibility flows from Congress's obligation to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. It also flows from our obligation to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not misused. The American people should not be forced to pay taxes to support an unreasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment that is not only inconsistent with constitutional law, but that threatens to undermine legislation needed to reduce gun violence and to save lives. In 1998, more than 30,000 Americans died from firearm-related deaths. That is almost as many as the number of Americans who died in the entire Korean War. In my view, there is much that Congress needs to do to reduce these deaths, including enacting reasonable gun safety legislation. Yet if the Bush Administration prevails in its effort to radically revise the Second Amendment, such laws could well be undermined. The end result would be more death and more families losing loved ones to the scourge of gun violence. I have asked the Congressional Research Service whether there are any constitutional precedents that would bar the Congress from adopting this legislation, and the answer was ``no.'' I also would note that there is precedent for Congress prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars to advocate positions with which Congress disagrees. For example, Congress for many years prohibited the Justice Department from using appropriated money to overturn certain rules under our antitrust laws. This responded to the filing of a brief in the Supreme Court by the Justice Department urging a revision of its precedents on resale price maintenance, and the legislation effectively blocked the Department from filing similar briefs. In conclusion, we should not allow taxpayer dollars to be used to misrepresent the meaning of the Second Amendment on behalf of a partisan, political agenda. We should defend the Constitution against such ideological attacks. We should protect taxpayers from being forced to subsidize ideological gambits. And we should ensure that the Constitution is not misused to undermine gun safety legislation that could save the lives of many innocent Americans. I hope my colleagues will support the bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record, along with some related materials about this matter.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to advocate a position on the meaning of the Second Amendment that is inconsistent with existing Supreme Court precedent, as expressed in the Supreme Court case of United States v. Miller. This legislation responds to the Bush Administration's filing of two unprecedented briefs to the United States Supreme Court, which argued that the Second Amendment establishes an individual right to possess firearms. In taking this position, the Justice Department directly contradicted the well-established precedents of the Supreme Court, as expressed in the seminal case of United States v. Miller. In that 1939 case, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment did not establish a private right of individuals to possess firearms, but rather was intended to ensure the effectiveness of groups of citizen-soldiers known at the time as the Militia. The Court in United States v. Miller explained the historical background to the Second Amendment and issued its ruling clearly and unambiguously. That ruling has never been reversed, and the Court has followed it in every subsequent related case. Similarly, the precedent in United States v. Miller has been followed by every Justice Department over the past several decades, including the Justice Departments of Presidents Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush. The meaning of the Second Amendment should not be a partisan issue. In fact, it should not be a political issue. It is a legal and constitutional issue. And the law on this question has been clearly established by the highest court in the land in case after case for a period of many decades. Unfortunately, instead of following the law, as Attorney General promised to do during his confirmation hearing, the Bush Administration and the Justice Department have used their authority to file briefs as a means of pursuing a partisan political agenda that flies in the face of established Supreme Court precedents. This is wrong. And, in my view, it is a misuse of taxpayer dollars. Congress should not have to pass a law to ensure that the Executive Branch follows the Constitution, as clearly interpreted by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, in light of the Bush's Administration's latest actions, Congress must step in. After all, Congress's ultimate power is the power of the purse. And we have a responsibility to use that power, when necessary, to ensure that the Executive Branch complies with constitutional law. This responsibility flows from Congress's obligation to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. It also flows from our obligation to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not misused. The American people should not be forced to pay taxes to support an unreasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment that is not only inconsistent with constitutional law, but that threatens to undermine legislation needed to reduce gun violence and to save lives. In 1998, more than 30,000 Americans died from firearm-related deaths. That is almost as many as the number of Americans who died in the entire Korean War. In my view, there is much that Congress needs to do to reduce these deaths, including enacting reasonable gun safety legislation. Yet if the Bush Administration prevails in its effort to radically revise the Second Amendment, such laws could well be undermined. The end result would be more death and more families losing loved ones to the scourge of gun violence. I have asked the Congressional Research Service whether there are any constitutional precedents that would bar the Congress from adopting this legislation, and the answer was ``no.'' I also would note that there is precedent for Congress prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars to advocate positions with which Congress disagrees. For example, Congress for many years prohibited the Justice Department from using appropriated money to overturn certain rules under our antitrust laws. This responded to the filing of a brief in the Supreme Court by the Justice Department urging a revision of its precedents on resale price maintenance, and the legislation effectively blocked the Department from filing similar briefs. In conclusion, we should not allow taxpayer dollars to be used to misrepresent the meaning of the Second Amendment on behalf of a partisan, political agenda. We should defend the Constitution against such ideological attacks. We should protect taxpayers from being forced to subsidize ideological gambits. And we should ensure that the Constitution is not misused to undermine gun safety legislation that could save the lives of many innocent Americans. I hope my colleagues will support the bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record, along with some related materials about this matter.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. About 30 minutes.