Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support this amendment that would recognize what I think is a very commonsense principle--that solid waste is not considered a renewable in the way that we are intending with regard to this legislation. It seems to me that when we are putting dioxins, mercury, lead, and arsenic into the air, somehow or another we should not be using that as a basis for alternative energy sources--at least in my commonsense interpretation. We were trying to get solar and wind--things that are clean alternatives--to produce energy as substitutes for fossil fuels and other focuses on production of energy. So it seems to me that we are taking a step backward in dealing with our environment at the same time we are defining biomass or alternative energies as garbage. Certainly, in our State, where air quality issues are an extraordinary concern to the public, we have a number of these incinerators, about which the public has great protest. I believe this amendment is conforming to what the intent, at least, of how I have felt about alternative energy sources, and I wholly support pulling back this incentive and subsidization for garbage as an alternative energy source.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution calling upon the governments of Europe to take all necessary steps to protect the safety and well being of the European Jewish Community and to make an effort to foster cooperation and reconciliation between Jewish and non-Jewish residents. The recent success in the first round of the French Presidential election of Jean-Marie LePen, a candidate who once dismissed the horrific atrocities committed against the Jews and others by the Nazis as ``a detail in history'', stands as the latest and perhaps the most troubling sign of a growing tide of anti-Semitism in France. As the second-highest vote getter in France's multi-candidate presidential election, Le Pen will face Jacques Chirac in the upcoming runoff. The election of LePen has sent shockwaves throughout the Jewish community, which has watched as a nascent but virulent strain of anti-Semitism has gained momentum in France, a county with nearly 600,000 Jews. But, France is not the only country that has experienced a surge in anti-Semitism in the last few months. There has been a horrifying increase in the number of anti-Semitic acts throughout Europe, with major incidents in Belgium, Switzerland, and Germany, as well as France, Synagogues in Brussels and Marseille have been burned. Jews have been physically assaulted in Berlin and in Bondy, an eastern suburb of Paris. Community Centers, school buses, and Jewish sites have been vandalized throughout the region. And the Jewish community has faced a persistent barrage of anti-Semitic propaganda and libel. This is not a trifling matter. In France alone, police estimate that there are 10 to 12 anti-Semitic incidents each day. Germany, which has made historic strides since the Second World War to reduce anti- Semitism, has experienced a troubling surge in hate crimes against the Jewish Community. Anti-Semites in Germany, for example, have spray- painted swastikas on a monument memorializing Jews murdered during the Holocaust, and have attacked Jewish youths returning home from a Passover seder. The unrelenting wave of anti-Semitic activities has terrorized the European Jewish community and dredged up memories of Europe's anti-Semitic past. The international community must not allow this situation to intensify before significant action is taken. It was only a short time ago that the bigotry of a few evil people snowballed into an international phenomenon of tragic proportions. There are disturbing similarities between the recent proliferation of anti-Semitism and the increase in anti-Semitism in interwar Europe. The Holocaust also began with small, seemingly isolated events, but developed into a methodical campaign to exterminate an entire people. It is imperative that something be done immediately to quell the pernicious tide of anti- Semitism throughout the continent. Anti-Semitism is an abomination against civilized society and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. The international community must not stand idly by as this problem worsens. Europe has a fundamental responsibility to encourage toleration and understanding between all of its citizens, Jew and non-Jew alike. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution as an important message to Europe's Jews that we stand with them and to Europe's leaders that more needs to be done to guarantee peaceful coexistence for all of its citizens. I hope it can be adopted without delay.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I rise to speak out on a subject that is both timely and extremely important to the American people. A few hours ago, the House of Representatives, showing an unimaginable indifference to the retirement security of American families, and further undermining the integrity of the Social Security trust fund, made permanent the tax cuts that were enacted last year. The bill they passed really frames a stark choice for the American people: Do we take payroll tax revenues that working people, working Americans, thought were being dedicated to the Social Security trust fund and use them instead to pay for this huge new tax cut, a tax cut that really goes to the wealthiest of Americans or should we be using Social Security revenues, payroll taxes, for their intended use, securing the Social Security trust fund for this and future generations? It is a pretty fundamental choice. It is pretty starkly laid out by the nature of the tax cut that was endorsed by the House Republicans today. It is a choice that will impact all Americans. I believe if Americans were asked, they might come up with a different answer. I think they would choose security, Social Security, not tax breaks that would take the security out of Social Security. I want to give one perspective. The tax cut that was implemented today in the House is about $400 billion more in the next decade, and 60 percent of that upcoming tax cut goes to those with incomes over $500,000. That is hard to believe. Of the additional $400 billion, 60 percent is going to people with incomes over $500,000. I have a hard time understanding why we are taking payroll taxes and the Social Security trust fund to fund that kind of tax cut. The effort to make that tax cut permanent is not only misallocating resources, but in my view it is draining the resources that are badly needed to protect Social Security in the years ahead for those millions of baby boomers who will be retiring in the coming decades. It is really quite substantial. Right now, Social Security has about 46 million folks retired. In another 20 years, that will be 72 million. So it is a big change in the population. That is what the demographic bubble is all about. How are we going to pay for it if we are going to implement tax cuts that are going to take as much as $4 trillion away from the ability of the American public to have revenues to pay for Social Security in the years ahead in the second 10 years? It is hard for me to understand. More importantly, I want to consider two numbers. The 75-year cost of the tax cut is $8.7 trillion. That is a lot of money. It will take awhile to count that far. By contrast, the shortfall in the funding to maintain the currently guaranteed benefits for Social Security beneficiaries, of all generations over the next 75 years, is only $3.7 trillion. So we have more than two times coverage by the tax cut that was implemented. If it were to be followed in the way the House did it, we would be giving up those revenues to cover the needs of Social Security. I do not get it. We have the resources, if we have the will, to make sure that Social Security is there for each and every generation. So that is part of the trouble. Unfortunately, these drains on Social Security revenues that are caused by this tax cut are step 1 in the administration's plan to undermine the security of Social Security. Step 2 is to privatize that program; that is, taking $1 trillion out of the trust fund--it is actually a little more than $1 trillion, but for round numbers, and it is a big number--in the next decade so we can provide funding for these private accounts. That is going to lead to a dramatic cut in benefits which are absolutely necessary. If one has any doubt about it, they just have to look at the report released by the President's Commission on Social Security. They talk about it themselves. That, when it gets translated into individual lives, as we move to the next chart, will reduce benefits for a 30- year-old about 20 percent when they retire in about 2032. For those who are a little younger than that, it will be almost 45 percent by 2075, a cut in Social Security benefits, 20 percent for 30- year-olds, 25 percent for people who are starting in the workplace, and about 45 percent for younger Americans. If one thinks Social Security benefits are lavish, I think we all have another review to go through. That 25- to 45-percent cut, that goes against benefits that average about $10,000 a year for most Social Security beneficiaries. For most seniors, Social Security is their only source of income, about two-thirds of them. I do not know what happens in Florida, but in my State of New Jersey $10,000 is not a princely sum. It is not going to allow our seniors to have a tremendously flush lifestyle. To the President's commission, that $10,000 looks like too much because they are instituting a program that, in fact, will undermine the ability to maintain those guaranteed benefits at that level. I think that is hard to believe as well. That is step 2. They do not want us to have the ability to maintain those guaranteed benefits. What they want to do is have that tax cut that I talked about before. So I have to say that both for myself and for my colleagues, most of us on this side of the aisle, we have a different view about protecting Social Security. We think protecting the security of working American families must be our top priority. We are going to fight long and hard and steady to make sure Social Security is not undermined--not today, as was done through the passage of this tax bill in the House, not tomorrow, or in the years ahead, not ever. Today's choice that was put in front of us is whether Social Security is really about the security of all Americans in their retirement years. I do not think we should be taking the term ``security'' out of Social Security. We ought to stand firm with it. That is what this debate will be about as we go forward day after day. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, today along with Senators Torricelli, Schumer and Clinton, I am introducing legislation to ensure that the families of the victims of the 1993 World Trade Center terrorist bombing receive the same compensation for their devastating losses as those whose loved ones perished in the horrific attacks of September 11. They too deserve aid in rebuilding their lives and it is up to Congress to make certain their needs are met and their losses acknowledged. I am pleased to join my colleague Representative Robert Menendez of New Jersey, who has introduced this legislation in the House of Representatives. On February 26, 1993, a car bomb exploded on the second level of the World Trade Center parking basement. The blast injured over 1,000 people working in the towers and left 6 individuals dead. Among those lost was 57-year-old William Macko of Bayonne, NJ. I recently met with the Macko family to discuss their loss and their struggle for recovery. Though it has been nearly a decade since William's death, it is clear that they are still suffering from the unimaginable pain of his loss. And as though this tragedy is not enough for them to bear, the family was dealt yet another blow when Carol, William's widow, was diagnosed with cancer just nine months after losing her husband. Congress has responded with tremendous generosity to the tragedy of September 11, creating a Victim Compensation Fund to compensate those injured and the families of those deceased for economic and non- economic losses, as well as providing substantial Federal income tax relief. These programs should also be made available to those who lost loved ones in the World Trade Center bombing of 1993. They too should be compensated for the unbearable pain and sorrow they endured at the hands of terrorists. That is why I am introducing the 1993 World Trade Center Victims Compensation Act, which would include those injured or killed in the 1993 bombing in both the Victim Compensation Fund and Victims Tax Relief. When I met with the Macko family, they asked that William's death not be forgotten or dismissed. They asked for Congress to ensure that their suffering and that of the other families who lost loved ones on that cold February day be recognized as well. Their request was clear and simple, and we must not let them down. I urge my colleagues to show their support for these families and cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, today along with Senators Torricelli, Schumer and Clinton, I am introducing legislation to ensure that the families of the victims of the 1993 World Trade Center terrorist bombing receive the same compensation for their devastating losses as those whose loved ones perished in the horrific attacks of September 11. They too deserve aid in rebuilding their lives and it is up to Congress to make certain their needs are met and their losses acknowledged. I am pleased to join my colleague Representative Robert Menendez of New Jersey, who has introduced this legislation in the House of Representatives. On February 26, 1993, a car bomb exploded on the second level of the World Trade Center parking basement. The blast injured over 1,000 people working in the towers and left 6 individuals dead. Among those lost was 57-year-old William Macko of Bayonne, NJ. I recently met with the Macko family to discuss their loss and their struggle for recovery. Though it has been nearly a decade since William's death, it is clear that they are still suffering from the unimaginable pain of his loss. And as though this tragedy is not enough for them to bear, the family was dealt yet another blow when Carol, William's widow, was diagnosed with cancer just nine months after losing her husband. Congress has responded with tremendous generosity to the tragedy of September 11, creating a Victim Compensation Fund to compensate those injured and the families of those deceased for economic and non- economic losses, as well as providing substantial Federal income tax relief. These programs should also be made available to those who lost loved ones in the World Trade Center bombing of 1993. They too should be compensated for the unbearable pain and sorrow they endured at the hands of terrorists. That is why I am introducing the 1993 World Trade Center Victims Compensation Act, which would include those injured or killed in the 1993 bombing in both the Victim Compensation Fund and Victims Tax Relief. When I met with the Macko family, they asked that William's death not be forgotten or dismissed. They asked for Congress to ensure that their suffering and that of the other families who lost loved ones on that cold February day be recognized as well. Their request was clear and simple, and we must not let them down. I urge my colleagues to show their support for these families and cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues Senators Bingaman and Murkowski for their support of and efforts to pass my amendment to improve energy efficiency in public housing, which cleared the Senate Floor earlier today. I would also like to thank my colleagues on the Banking Committee, Chairman Sarbanes and Ranking Member Gramm for their assistance in passing this amendment. My amendment will help reduce our Nation's energy consumption and reduce long-term energy costs in public housing. The amendment accomplishes this by giving the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, and the public housing authorities, PHAs, it oversees the tools they need to increase energy efficiency in public housing developments. HUD and public housing authorities oversee approximately 1.3 million units of residential low-income public housing across the country. The Federal Government spends approximately $1.4 billion each year just to cool, heat, light, and supply water to these units. Utility costs make up anywhere from 25 to 40 percent of a typical housing authority's operating budget. Despite the large amount of Federal dollars spent on energy usage in public housing, there are virtually no resources to help public housing authorities manage their utility expenditures. Furthermore, there are few incentives for them to utilize energy efficient technologies. My amendment addresses these issues, first, by establishing an Office of Energy Management at HUD. This office will coordinate energy management activities throughout the public housing system so that energy management is less fragmented and technical expertise is made available to all public housing authorities. The amendment will also improve financial incentives available to public housing authorities to implement energy saving strategies, such as window replacements, heating system retrofits, and other efficiency and renewable measures. The amendment also encourages public housing authorities to purchase Energy Star appliances and equipment when replacing outdated building systems and equipment. Finally, my amendment requires that all new public housing construction meet current energy codes where cost effective. Most States have not adopted the most recent codes and, in some cases, do not require adherence to any code. Meeting these updated codes will save public housing authorities as much as 15 percent in annual energy costs. The bottom line is that this legislation would expand the resources available to provide low-income housing without increasing Federal spending. HUD has conservatively estimated that improved energy management processes throughout all of its public housing programs could save about $200 million annually. These savings could be used to build more affordable housing and improve the quality of life of public housing residents. Improving energy efficiency in public housing units will also decrease utility costs for low-income residents, who often pay a portion of their utility expenses. At a time of skyrocketing utility costs and decreased public housing funds, my amendment offers commonsense solutions that will reduce public housing's reliance on fossil fuels and free up resources to improve housing for low-income families. Amendments Nos. 3028 And 3070, Withdrawn

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Murkowski amendment, which calls for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. My opposition is based, primarily, on the critical importance of protecting this special part of the world. But my objection is also based on my view that this proposal represents a fundamental endorsement of a skewed and misguided energy policy. ANWR is a unique and pristine area. It is the only unbroken continuum of arctic and subarctic ecosystems on the planet. It is home to a wide variety of plants and animals, including 135 bird species. It is the central area for the huge Porcupine caribou herd. It is home to polar bears, wolves, grizzly bears, muskoxen, and wolverines. And there is no doubt that drilling there would despoil the area. It would risk and potentially harm wildlife. And it would destroy ANWR's unique character as wilderness, regardless of whether that is an applicable legal term or not. So there is a very serious downside to drilling. So what is the upside? Why are we even thinking about despoiling a place that so many Americans want us to protect? What's the risk-reward quotient? We have heard several arguments here on the Senate floor. But they just don't hold up. Notwithstanding claims to the contrary, ANWR oil won't create 735,000 jobs. It won't give an assurance of a reduction in the price of oil, certainly not anytime soon. And it surely won't make us energy independent, lowering our import needs only marginally. The fact is, there is just not all that much oil in ANWR. Based on estimates from the U.S. Geological Survey, it is likely to have little more than 6 months' worth of capacity relative to 1 year of U.S. demand. The oil wouldn't even begin to be available for at least 10 years. And it wouldn't reach peak production for 20 years. According to a recent Department of Energy study, even at its peak, total oil production from ANWR would be 800,000 barrels a day. That is only about 0.7 percent of global production. Who are we kidding here? Is it really worth risking such a treasured space for the prospect of increasing global production by 0.7 percent in 20 years? I, for one, don't think so. Now, let me address the issue of jobs. Yesterday, drilling proponents claimed that drilling in ANWR could create 735,000 jobs. That's a significant number. But it just doesn't hold up. The estimate comes from a study conducted for the American Petroleum Institute more than 10 years ago. And it's fundamentally flawed. For example, the study assumed that peak ANWR production would be 3.5 percent of world supply. Yet, as I have discussed, the real level, based on government estimates, is less than 1 percent. The study also badly overestimated the world price of oil. It forecasted that the world price of oil would be $46.86 per barrel by 2015, and that price was a driver of the jobs estimate. But when the authors of the study issued a similar forecast recently, they forecast a price of $25.12, a huge difference. Because of these and other mistakes, the study relied on by ANWR proponents simply has no credibility. And nobody should be fooled by it. I would point out, that if we want to create jobs, there are much better ways to do that while promoting energy independence. For example, there is no reason why America can't lead in next-generation energy technologies the way we have in information technology and biotechnology. Renewables and fuel cells will be growth industries, and the United States ought to get out front and then export those technologies to the world. That, to me, sounds like a better job creation strategy then drilling in ANWR. Another argument made by drilling proponents is that drilling in ANWR would reduce the price of world oil. But the oil market is a global market. And it is dominated by players far larger than the United States. We have only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. As I mentioned earlier, ANWR's peak production would amount to less than 1 percent of world production. And it's just not realistic to claim that this will have more than negligible impact on the world oil price. Why? Because it's a huge global market, one that currently has about 7 million barrels a day of excess capacity in the system today. So a modest decrease in supply, such as the recent disruptions in Iraqi and Venezuelan supplies, can be made up by other producers. And this process can just as easily work in reverse. Any increase in world oil supply resulting from bringing ANWR on line could simply be offset by decreases in production elsewhere in the world. Aggregate supply and demand conditions in the global market will set the marginal price, and the prices will be determined by the cumulative decisions of individual producers. The United States simply cannot control the price of oil in the world market, because we don't control the aggregate supply. And drilling in ANWR is not going to change that. That leads me to the next topic I want to address, national security. We're now importing about 57 percent of the oil we consume. According to the Department of Energy, if we don't drill in ANWR, we'll be importing 62 percent of our oil by 2020. If we do drill in ANWR, the Department of Energy estimates that imports would be reduced to 60 percent of U.S. consumption in 2020. That's only a 2-percent decrease in import share resulting from peak ANWR production. How can anyone pretend that this will make a difference in our national security? It just won't. That 2-percent differential, when it finally comes, simply won't matter. As I said earlier, the oil market is a world market. No nation or company has a monopoly on supply. So the relatively small amount, in a global context, that ANWR could produce could easily be offset by decreased production elsewhere. So we are going to be just as vulnerable to price shocks in 2020 if we drill in ANWR as if we don't. Rather than pretending that ANWR is the answer to our energy security needs, we ought to take steps that can have a real impact. And the most effective step we can take is to reduce consumption. Unfortunately, we have already voted down a CAFE increase, and I think that was a big mistake. But if we are serious about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, we simply have to deal with demand. Another thing we should do is diversify our sources of oil. And to a large extent, we have already done that. Only 13 percent of the oil we consume comes from the Middle East. The rest is produced here, and in places like Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and Norway. These particular producers are our closest allies. Are we really supposed to believe that importing oil from these countries is a threat to our national security? Having said that, I recognize that the Middle East does contain the lion's share of the world's oil reserves. And political turmoil there has clear implications for the world oil market, as does instability in Latin America. But getting a relative trickle of oil from Alaska 10-20 years from now won't make the problems in the Middle East magically disappear, or change the supply of oil enough to impact the price of oil. Instead, we need to engage now and work consistently to bring a lasting peace to the region. Until instability is eliminated, our national security will always be at risk from turmoil in the Middle East. That is an issue that is much larger than oil. Finally, I wanted to take a moment to briefly discuss energy policy more broadly. As many have said, we need an energy policy that is balanced. But that balance needs to be weighted toward the future, not the past. That means that our first priority should be to create incentives and standards that encourage the development of next-generation energy technologies. I am talking about technologies like wind, solar, and fuel cells. Second, we should set tougher energy efficiently standards for appliances, buildings, and vehicles so that we can grow our economy while we use less energy. And third, we should increase our domestic supplies of fossil fuels in an environmentally responsible way so we can continue to power our economy as we transition to new technologies and energy sources. In my view, ANWR doesn't fit anywhere in this framework, certainly not as the centerpiece. And it just doesn't make sense as a matter of macroenergy policy. I think the American people believe that we should leave ANWR alone. That is certainly the sentiment in New Jersey. I have received letters from more than 9,000 New Jerseyans urging me to oppose drilling in ANWR, that's more than I received on any other topic in my 16 months as a Senator. The people who wrote to me about ANWR aren't ``radical environmentalists,'' as some drilling proponents have suggested. They're ordinary Americans who believe that ANWR is one of those special places that should be preserved in its natural state. And they are convinced, like I am, that drilling might well cause unacceptable environmental damage. In conclusion, we know that drilling in ANWR will harm the Arctic wilderness. And the economic and national security benefits just aren't there. So I will vote against cloture, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. CORZINE

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

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, let me begin by saying how pleased I am to stand with Senator Feingold, who is a man of conscience, who has spoken out for the need for our Nation to examine the practice and application of the death penalty. His call for a moratorium, as was recently provided in the State of Illinois by their Governor, I think is an act of courage and one that is responsible if we all believe in justice, the rule of law, and fairness, which is defining to America. As I know Senator Feingold outlined, yesterday a commission in the State of Illinois on capital punishment, appointed by Governor George Ryan, released its report on the death penalty. The report raises serious concerns about the fairness of the application of the death penalty and about whether justice is being fairly applied. That commission came back with a number of very important recommendations and movement for reform. In light of that report, I wish to take this opportunity to truly underscore the effort Senator Feingold has made to raise the level of discussion about the state of the death penalty as it is applied nationally. It is critical that we make sure that the system protects innocent victims and provides for the true application of justice as we know it, making sure fairness and the rule of law are practiced. Last week a man named Ray Krone was released from prison. Mr. Krone had been convicted of murder. He had already served 10 years behind bars and had been sentenced to die. But Mr. Krone is, and always had been, an innocent man. New DNA evidence proved that conclusively. He was convicted for a crime he did not commit. Prosecutors now admit it. I think the local county attorney put it: He deserves an apology from us. That is for sure. To put it mildly, that is an understatement. How would any of us feel if we had been charged, tried, and convicted by a jury of our peers for a crime we didn't commit and then, to top it off, sentenced to die? Ray Krone knows what that feels like and, unfortunately, he is not alone. In fact, he was the one-hundredth person, since we reinstated the practice of the death penalty in this Nation, to be released from death row in the United States, with post- trial proof of the individual's innocence. These 100 innocent people have experienced nothing short of living hell. And the outrageous injustice of their convictions and their sentences should be a wake-up call for all of us. I take second place to no one in my determination to fight the scourge of crime. As part of that effort, I believe we need to be very tough on violent criminals, including imposing long sentences and the potential for no opportunity for parole. But while we get tough on crime, we also need to recognize that our criminal justice system makes mistakes--sometimes very serious mistakes. Until recently, it was virtually impossible to know when innocent people were wrongfully convicted. But today, with the advent of DNA technology, it is far less likely to occur if we let the evidence come to light. Why are innocent people convicted and sentenced to death? To a large extent, it is because our criminal justice system has some systemic flaws and, frankly, some biases as well, in how it is applied. Capital defendants are more likely in some parts of our country to be subject to the death penalty than others, and they certainly would give at least the appearance of some racial prejudice administered there. Capital defendants often have lawyers who do a terrible job. Frankly, there are instances where people have shown up inebriated and unable to carry out their functions in court. Sometimes their failures are simply as a result of carelessness, or lack of preparation, or inexperience, or a failure to find and interview key witnesses, a failure to thoroughly read the case law, and a failure to object to unreliable evidence. They make a variety of mistakes. I don't say this to criticize all defense attorneys. We accept that most of them try to do a good job. But in many cases where people do not have the economic resources to access the kind of talent necessary to defend them, they may be outgunned in a court of law. Even if they worked 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, they may just be overwhelmed by the resources they are fighting against. Ineffective assistance of counsel is just one reason why innocent people find themselves on death row. Sometimes eyewitnesses make honest mistakes. Sometimes witnesses give false testimony to protect their own hide, such as jailhouse informants seeking reduced sentences. Sometimes prosecutors engage in misconduct by withholding evidence that could help the defendant's case and not following the rule of law, which is what we are all expected to do. Any of these factors can lead to a wrongful conviction. And now we have 100 examples of the circumstances that can provide for that reality. A system that wrongly sends 100 people to death row can be called a lot of things, but ``fair'' and ``equitable'' and ``just'' are not among them. In fact, our criminal justice system is badly broken, in my view. Before we send any more innocent people to death row, we need to fix it. That was clearly the conclusion reached by the commission of distinguished experts appointed by Governor Ryan. The Ryan commission was in charge of examining how the death penalty system is working in Illinois. But its conclusions, no doubt, are applicable to the Nation as a whole. The commissioners were unanimous in agreeing that the death penalty had been applied too often and that the system is in need of reform. I think there were 13 overturned death penalty convictions in Illinois out of the total of 25 before the commission went to work. Clearly, there were problems in Illinois and the Governor should be commended for recognizing that and moving forward. Now we need to do that as a nation. That commission called for a broad range of specific changes. These include video taping the questioning of capital suspects in a police facility, barring capital punishment based exclusively on the testimony of single witnesses-- particularly witnesses who are jailhouse convicts--eliminating the death penalty for people who are mentally retarded, and requiring trial judges to agree with the jury about the imposition of a death sentence. I hope all of my colleagues will take a look at the Ryan commission's report and think hard about the need to reform our criminal justice system, to think about the fairness that is fundamental to what America is about. Make no mistake, it is an enormous injustice when the death penalty is imposed based on false information. Innocent people have been sent to death row and there will be more if we don't actually take up this charge of reviewing how we got to this conclusion. We have a moral obligation to do something about this. I have joined with Senator Feingold--and I am proud to do so--in cosponsoring legislation to establish a moratorium on all Federal executions until a commission, much similar to the Ryan commission, can be established to review the death penalty for our Nation and impose meaningful reforms that give the public a greater sense that we have a fair and just system being applied to all Americans. This would not lead to the release of any convicted criminals or threaten public safety in any way. It would simply ensure innocent people are not put to death and that the principles we believe in-- fairness and rule of law--apply. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Again, I express my sincere appreciation for the leadership of Senator Feingold in this critically important matter. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, Monday, a man named Ray Krone was released from prison. Ray Krone had been convicted of murder. He had already served 10 years behind bars. And he had been sentenced to die. But Ray Krone is and always has been an innocent man. New DNA evidence proved that conclusively. He was convicted for a crime he did not commit. And prosecutors now acknowledge that. As the local county attorney put it, ``He deserves an apology from us, that's for sure.'' To put it mildly, that is an understatement. How would any of us feel if we were charged, tried and convicted by a jury of our peers for a crime we did not commit? And then, to top it off, sentenced to die? Ray Krone knows what that feels like. And, unfortunately, he is not alone. In fact, he was the 100th person to be released from death row with proof of his innocence. These 100 innocent people have experienced nothing short of a living hell. And the outrageous injustice of their convictions and their sentences should be a wake up call for all of us. I take second place to nobody in my determination to fight the scourge of crime. As part of that effort, I believe we need to be very tough on violent criminals, including imposing long sentences with little or no opportunity for parole. But while we get tough on crime, we also need to recognize that our criminal justice system makes mistakes. Sometimes very serious mistakes. Until recently, it was virtually impossible to know when innocent people were wrongfully convicted. But with the advent of DNA technology, at least some of these cases finally are coming to light. Why are innocent people convicted and sentenced to death? To a large extent, it is because our criminal justice system has serious systemic flaws. Capital defendants often have lawyers who do a terrible job. Sometimes, their failure is simply a result of carelessness and lack of preparation. They fail to find or interview key witnesses. They fail to thoroughly read the case law. They fail to object to unreliable evidence. They make a variety of mistakes. I don't say this to criticize all defense attorneys. Most try to do a good job. But too many are inexperienced, overworked and underpaid. Even if they worked 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, they're just too overwhelmed to provide effective representation. But ineffective assistance of counsel is just one reason why innocent people find themselves on death row. Sometimes eyewitnesses make honest mistakes. Sometimes, witnesses give false testimony, such as jailhouse informants seeking reduced sentences. Sometimes, prosecutors engage in misconduct by, for example, withholding evidence that could help a defendant's case. Any of these factors can lead to a wrongful conviction. And we now have 100 examples to prove it. A system that sends 100 innocent people to death row can be called a lot of things. But fair, equitable and just are not among them. In fact, our criminal justice system is badly broken. And before we send any more innocent people to death row, we need to fix it. That is why I am joining with Senator Feingold in cosponsoring legislation to establish a moratorium on all Federal executions until a commission can be established to review the death penalty system and propose meaningful reforms. This wouldn't lead to the release of any convicted criminals, or threaten public safety in any way. It would simply help ensure that innocent people are not put to death. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. And I want to express my sincere appreciation to Senator Feingold for his leadership on this critically important matter.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I wish to make a couple of simple points. First, this amendment brings forward fairly simple, straightforward oversight functions that are typical in every financial market in which I have ever participated and in which I spent 30 years of my life working, and that is antifraud, price manipulation and transparency rules that are fundamental to making the depth and breadth of the financial markets work. We have great financial markets in America. This amendment accomplishes bringing that to bear in this energy market. In fact, since this amendment was originally offered, there has been an enormous number of attempts to make sure it does not impact that $75 trillion market about which the Senator from Texas talked. It exempts financial futures, equities, currencies, and debt instruments from any of the legal constraints. I think it has been adjusted to address most of the concerns I certainly have heard from my friends with whom I used to work in the financial sector. It is very clear in small, confined markets where there is not the depth and breadth that price manipulation is a very real possibility. As a matter of fact, it was cited in the 1999 President's Working Group on Financial Instruments, including Alan Greenspan, that at that point energy markets were narrow enough so as to cause problems. We ought to move forward in response to the kinds of problems we have seen at Enron. I hope Members will vote for cloture. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I will split the time with the Senator from Illinois if that is OK with the Senator from California.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the 90th anniversary of the Girl Scouts of the United States of America. Founder Juliette Low envisioned an organization that would encourage girls to serve in their communities and experience the open air. Decades later, girls and young women from communities across our Nation enjoy scouting activities that nurture their mental, physical, and spiritual well- being in an accepting and supportive environment. I commend the efforts of the Girl Scouts and the outstanding volunteers who make this important work a reality. Thousands of girls across the State of New Jersey actively participate in Girl Scouts. I have heard heartening stories of scouts visiting senior residence facilities, food pantries, and soup kitchens. In the wake of September 11, these thoughtful young people contributed in many meaningful ways. These active girls and young women participate in anti-smoking campaigns, sports, lessons in civics and the law, outdoors activities, and much more. These initiatives build self- confidence, and strong leadership and life skills. We cannot underestimate the importance of this positive reinforcement in the lives of girls and young women. Innovative leadership and tremendous outreach efforts in my State continue to promote the Girl Scout initiative For Every Girl, Everywhere. I offer my wholehearted support for this ambitious endeavor. Imagine the possibilities! Thank you, Girl Scouts, for decades of volunteerism in our communities and dedication to young women. As our nation affirms its commitment to service, the Girls Scouts shine so brightly. Congratulations on this very special occasion.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to introduce today a critical piece of mental health legislation with my colleagues Senators Bingaman and Breaux. This legislation, the Medicaid Intensive Community Mental Health Act, will assist and encourage States to provide comprehensive intensive mental health services through the Medicaid Program. Since deinstitutionalization, too many people with severe mental illnesses have fallen through the cracks of our mental health system in part because too many States and localities have not established intensive community-based programs to assist those with severe mental illness. In 1999, the Supreme Court rules in its Olmstead decision that individuals with disabilities, including mental illness, who are capable of living in a community setting, must be placed in less restrictive settings. Two years after this decision, my State of New Jersey and States nationwide are struggling to improve and expand community-based mental health services in order to ensure that the appropriate services are in place for the mentally ill so that they can lead productive lives outside of the institution. And, let me be clear that this applies to children just as it applies to adults. I know my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, has expressed deep concern about the hundreds of youth with mental illness in his State who are being held at detention centers because there are very limited community-based mental health treatment options. These children do not deserve to be treated as criminals, they need and deserve access to treatment, counseling, and other rehabilitative and supportive services. We need to give States the flexibility and the resources they need to make these options available. Currently, Federal financing for community-based mental health care is so complex and burdensome that States are unable to offer a comprehensive, coordinated set of community-based intensive mental health services with a single point of access. Rather, those in dire need of these services are forced to rely on a patchwork of uncoordinated programs with missing service components. Currently, States must apply for six optional Medicaid waivers in order to provide these services. This legislation would help fill the cracks in our mental health care system by allowing States, through a single policy decision, to finance the entire array of community-based services that individuals with severe mental illness need. The Medicaid Intensive Community Mental Health Act would allow States to choose the ``intensive community mental health treatment'' option under Medicaid, which would allow States to provide services such as psychiatric rehabilitation, crisis residential treatment, medication education and management, integrated treatment services for individuals with co- occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders, and family psycho-education services, among others, in a coordinated manner. In my home State of New Jersey, there are about 3,000 people residing in psychiatric hospitals. About half of these people, or 1,500 people, are eligible to be released, but, due to a lack of intensive community- based treatment, they continue to remain needlessly institutionalized. If passed, this legislation would help States to create an integrated system of intensive community-based mental health care for those with severe mental illness. Not only would this option improve community- based services for the mentally ill, but it would also give states a mechanism to assist people who otherwise require costly hospitalization. Far too often in our Nation, individuals with severe mental illness are either unable to access appropriate mental health care or have repeated but ultimately unsuccessful hospitalizations. And unfortunately, untreated mental illness has led many sufferers to become homeless. It has also led many to commit crimes. Ultimately, this legislation will help States respond to the problems associated with deinstitutionalization, homelessness, and the criminalization of mental illness, and in doing so, it will help people with severe mental illness to live better lives in their communities and with their families. I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Bingaman and Mr. Breaux, for joining me today to introduce this important legislation.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to introduce today a critical piece of mental health legislation with my colleagues Senators Bingaman and Breaux. This legislation, the Medicaid Intensive Community Mental Health Act, will assist and encourage States to provide comprehensive intensive mental health services through the Medicaid Program. Since deinstitutionalization, too many people with severe mental illnesses have fallen through the cracks of our mental health system in part because too many States and localities have not established intensive community-based programs to assist those with severe mental illness. In 1999, the Supreme Court rules in its Olmstead decision that individuals with disabilities, including mental illness, who are capable of living in a community setting, must be placed in less restrictive settings. Two years after this decision, my State of New Jersey and States nationwide are struggling to improve and expand community-based mental health services in order to ensure that the appropriate services are in place for the mentally ill so that they can lead productive lives outside of the institution. And, let me be clear that this applies to children just as it applies to adults. I know my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, has expressed deep concern about the hundreds of youth with mental illness in his State who are being held at detention centers because there are very limited community-based mental health treatment options. These children do not deserve to be treated as criminals, they need and deserve access to treatment, counseling, and other rehabilitative and supportive services. We need to give States the flexibility and the resources they need to make these options available. Currently, Federal financing for community-based mental health care is so complex and burdensome that States are unable to offer a comprehensive, coordinated set of community-based intensive mental health services with a single point of access. Rather, those in dire need of these services are forced to rely on a patchwork of uncoordinated programs with missing service components. Currently, States must apply for six optional Medicaid waivers in order to provide these services. This legislation would help fill the cracks in our mental health care system by allowing States, through a single policy decision, to finance the entire array of community-based services that individuals with severe mental illness need. The Medicaid Intensive Community Mental Health Act would allow States to choose the ``intensive community mental health treatment'' option under Medicaid, which would allow States to provide services such as psychiatric rehabilitation, crisis residential treatment, medication education and management, integrated treatment services for individuals with co- occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders, and family psycho-education services, among others, in a coordinated manner. In my home State of New Jersey, there are about 3,000 people residing in psychiatric hospitals. About half of these people, or 1,500 people, are eligible to be released, but, due to a lack of intensive community- based treatment, they continue to remain needlessly institutionalized. If passed, this legislation would help States to create an integrated system of intensive community-based mental health care for those with severe mental illness. Not only would this option improve community- based services for the mentally ill, but it would also give states a mechanism to assist people who otherwise require costly hospitalization. Far too often in our Nation, individuals with severe mental illness are either unable to access appropriate mental health care or have repeated but ultimately unsuccessful hospitalizations. And unfortunately, untreated mental illness has led many sufferers to become homeless. It has also led many to commit crimes. Ultimately, this legislation will help States respond to the problems associated with deinstitutionalization, homelessness, and the criminalization of mental illness, and in doing so, it will help people with severe mental illness to live better lives in their communities and with their families. I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Bingaman and Mr. Breaux, for joining me today to introduce this important legislation.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Lieberman, I am submitting a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that Congress should reject the reductions in guaranteed Social Security benefits proposed by the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security. The central purpose of Social Security is to ensure that Americans who work hard and contribute to our Nation can maintain a decent standard of living in their old age. The program provides a critical safety net. Only 11 percent of American seniors live in poverty, but without Social Security that figure would be 50 percent. It is hard to overstate the importance of Social Security in protecting seniors' retirement security. For two-thirds of the elderly, Social Security is their major source of income. For one-third of the elderly, Social Security is virtually their only source of income. Despite its critical importance for seniors, the level of Social Security benefits generally is quite modest. In fiscal year 2001, the average benefit for retired workers was about $10,000 per year. This clearly is insufficient to maintain a decent standard of living in most parts of the country, especially for seniors with relatively high health care costs. Unfortunately, even the modest level of guaranteed benefits under current law is now at risk. Last year, the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security, appointed by President Bush to help promote his goal of partially privatizing Social Security, proposed a set of options for changes in the program that included significant reductions in the level of guaranteed benefits. The Commission's report included a proposal in which guaranteed benefit levels would be reduced by changing the way that benefits are adjusted over time. The details of this change are complicated, but the bottom line is not: compared to current law, the proposal could reduce the benefits provided to workers who retire in the future by about 45 percent. The Commission's report also suggested changes that would reduce benefits for those who retire early, which could force many Americans to delay their retirement. The Commission justified proposed cuts in guaranteed benefits by pointing to long-term projected shortfalls in the Social Security Trust Fund. And it is true that as the baby boomers begin to retire, they will put significant new demands on our budget. However, the Commission's proposals for private accounts actually would make the Trust Fund's financial problems worse. By proposing to divert payroll tax revenues from the Trust Fund into private accounts, the Commission would only accelerate the date by which the Fund would become insolvent. Proponents of privatizing Social Security like to argue that the returns for assets held in private accounts are likely to be high. That may be true for some fortunate seniors, but others will suffer with the inevitable fluctuations in the market. In any case, we need to remember why we have Social Security in the first place, to provide a floor to ensure that seniors can live out their lives in dignity. The real question for the Congress is where to set that floor. And, in my view, $10,000 a year for the average beneficiary is, if anything, too low. It is important to keep Social Security's long-term problems in perspective. According to estimates by the Social Security Administration, the present value of the Trust Fund's unfunded obligations amounts to $3.2 trillion over the next 75 years. By contrast, the 75 year cost of last year's tax cut, if made permanent, has been estimated to be $7.7 trillion. In other words, the long-term cost of the tax cut is more than twice as large as the long-term deficit in Social Security. There is simply no excuse for making dramatic cuts in guaranteed Social Security benefits, as the President's commission has proposed. So, I hope my colleagues will support this resolution and join in rejecting the cuts in guaranteed benefits proposed by President Bush's commission.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, today the Senate approved historic legislation that will change the way we manage our democracy in the new century. The changes called for in the McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan legislation are long overdue and vitally important to restoring the integrity of our electoral process. For the past several years, the amount of unregulated soft money in our campaign system has reached staggering proportions. Soft money has had the insidious effect of holding too many political candidates accountable to large individual donors rather than the people they are elected to represent. In the 1999-2000 campaign season, $495.1 million poured into the coffers of both the Democrats and the Republicans. This was a truly bipartisan problem, and now we have a truly bipartisan solution. Soft money was a scourge on our political process that we are much better off without. Before I go further, let me express my gratitude to two brave Senators: Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and John McCain of Arizona. We all know that it was through their tireless work and their laser-like focus that this piece of legislation has become law. By the time I arrived in the Senate a little over a year ago, the groundwork had already been laid. The traps had already been run. Year after year, the two Senators who lent their names to McCain-Feingold came to the Senate floor to deliver stirring oratory on the importance of this legislation. But no bill was passed. They visited with their colleagues in closed-door meetings. But many Senators remained unconvinced. Now--finally--these two stalwarts can move on to other issues. McCain-Feingold has passed, and for that, they have my deepest gratitude and admiration. As happy as I am about the passage of this legislation, I would be remiss if I did not voice my regret at the failure of the final legislation to include a provision to address the skyrocketing cost of campaign advertisements. In recent years, television networks have reaped tremendous profits by exploiting the importance of broadcast advertising in the final weeks of a modern campaign. The price of airtime has become prohibitive to cash-strapped campaigns. And the simple fact of the matter is that media costs drive campaign costs. Any solution to the campaign finance problem is fundamentally incomplete if it fails to address what drives the demand for campaign money: expensive media. During Senate consideration of McCain-Feingold, I was proud to cosponsor an amendment introduced by the senior senator from New Jersey, Mr. Torricelli. That amendment would have required television networks to offer candidates for federal office commercial time that cannot be preempted at the lowest price offered to any advertiser. It is only appropriate that, in exchange for the lucrative stewardship of the public airwaves, broadcasters provide candidates access to the airwaves at a discounted rate. It is unfortunate that because Shays- Meehan does not include the Torricelli provision, the lowest unit charge amendment will not become law at this time. But, this should not and will not be the last time campaign finance reform is debated on the Senate floor. We have many more important campaign finance issues to explore, from improving the access of candidates to broadcast media to introducing aspects of public financing into the system. I look forward to continuing to work to improve the system. Having said that this legislation is an important step in the right direction. I was proud to support it. And I again congratulate my colleagues, Senators Feingold and McCain, for their outstanding leadership.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I would like to bring to your attention the good and charitable works of the Knights of Columbus St. Jude's Council Number 12092 in Blackwood, NJ. Founded in February of 1882 by Father Michael J. McGivney, the Knights of Columbus, the strong right arm of the Church, has grown to become the largest society of Catholic men in the world. More than 1.6 million men in 12,000 chapters from the United States, Canada, Mexico, the Philippines, Cuba, Panama, the Dominican Republic, Guam, Spain, and the Virgin Islands belong to this lay organization in the Catholic Church. Knights of Columbus are Catholic men committed to patriotism, charity, and unity. And St. Jude's Council Number 12092 in Blackwood, NJ is no exception to this rule. Following the devastating events of September 11, St. Jude's Council immediately mobilized their members to assist the victims families. Whether it was holding a blood drive or a fund-raising concert, St. Jude's Council was there offering a helping hand to the many family members who lost loved ones. To affirm that our Nation stands united, the Knights distributed 1,000 posters of the American flag to the citizens of Blackwood to display in a show of support for our Nation and our servicemen and women. The St. Jude's Council has also hung ten large American flags throughout the town, a moving tribute for all who drive through the town to see. At another community event planned to honor the victims of the World Trade Center, Karl Wirtz, a member of St. Jude's Council, lovingly created a replica of the New York City Firefighters raising the American flag at Ground Zero. But these acts of kindness and solidarity are nothing new to St. Jude's Council, as volunteer service and charitable contributions are the hallmarks of the Knights of Columbus. It was on these bedrock principles that the Order was founded over a century ago and St. Jude's Council remains true to these principles today. Always active in their community, the Knights have held a fund-raiser for a seriously ill boy, offer a CPR course for local citizens, and assist the police department in getting out an anti drug/alcohol message through the DARE Program. The Knights also provide religious education and activities for the young people in the community. What is all the more remarkable is that in these hectic times, all of these charitable acts have been performed in addition to the responsibilities of family and career. It is my pleasure to commend the Knights of Columbus St. Jude's Chapter for all of the good deeds they have done and continue to do for the State of New Jersey. Congratulations to St. Jude's Council Number 12092 may you continue to be, In Service to One. In Service to All.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I bring to your attention the lovely waterfront community of Absecon, which is celebrating its centennial year on March 24, 2002. Absecon, originally Absecum, comes from the Algonquin Indian word Absegami, meaning ``Across Little Water.'' Located in Atlantic County, Absecon was incorporated as a city on March 24, 1902. It is governed by an elected body consisting of a mayor and council members. The community, which lies adjacent to Atlantic City, encompasses 6 square miles and is predominantly residential, with a population of approximately 7,700 residents. Finding the area lush with pines, cedars, and bayberry bushes, early English settlers in Absecon earned their living clamming and oystering. Soon wharves lined the creek, and boats large and small were built along the banks of this bustling seaport. In 1795, Thomas Budd purchased 10,000 acres of land in what later became Atlantic County. He paid 4 cents an acre for the land on which Atlantic City now stands. It was called Further Island, further from Absecon, and later called Absecon Beach and finally became Atlantic City. The land was originally purchased for control of the waterways and not for farming. In 1819, Dr. Jonathan Pitney, saddlebags brimming with medical supplies, a blanket, and clothing, rode into Absecon on horseback to set up his medical practice. Only 21 years old, Dr. Pitney came to Absecon after completing 2 years as an assistant in a hospital on Staten Island, following his graduation from a New York medical school. Few in the village could have known that this young doctor would one day become famous and be forever known as the ``Father of Atlantic City.'' For by 1834, the village known as Absecum in Galloway Township still only consisted of a tavern, store, and 8 to 10 dwellings. When not visiting patients, Dr. Pitney could always be found strolling the shoreline taking in the sea air. It did not take long for Dr. Pitney to realize the benefits of the sea air and to determine that this area was magical and had the ideal climate for a health resort. Convincing the municipal authorities that a railroad to the beach would be beneficial, he was to be responsible for the construction of the railroad east across New Jersey through the salt marshes to Absecon Island, now Atlantic City. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Pitney again became a leading force in the Village, petitioning Congress to construct a lighthouse at the north end of Absecon Island. Years later the Absecon Lighthouse was constructed putting an end once and for all to the countless scores of shipwrecks along the shoals and beaches near ``Graveyard Inlet.'' By 1899, Absecon's population was only 530 people but, in March of 1902 the legislature of the State of New Jersey approved an act to incorporate Absecon City in the County of Atlantic, as a city. From these humble beginnings, Absecon has grown to become a charming city by the water, housing a Central Business District and Light Industrial areas. I invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mayor Peter C. Elco and the citizens of Absecon on their centennial. May they have another 100 years of prosperity and community.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, it is with great pride that I bring to your attention a lovely hamlet in Essex County, NJ, Essex Fells, which is celebrating its centennial year on March 31, 2002. Incorporated as a borough on March 31, 1902, it is governed by an elected body consisting of a mayor and six council members. Essex Fells is the smallest community in Essex County, covering an area of a little more than 1.3 square miles. However, within the small confines of this bucolic community, Essex Fells maintains many areas for the enjoyment of its residents. The Glen is a green open space that contains native trees, shrubs, vines, and flowers. The Trotter Tract is an 83-acre area that is home to many species of flora and fauna and beautiful nature trails. Each autumn, the brook that runs through Essex Fells is dammed to crate a skating pond. Grover Cleveland Park, a county park of approximately 42 acres of lush manicured lawns and large trees, borders Essex Fells and Caldwell, NJ. Rich in history, the township was established in 1699 by Robert Treat and Jasper Crane and settled by people migrating from Connecticut. A land blessed with rolling farmland and wooded retreats, the acreage was originally named Newark after their home in England--Newark on Trent. Shortly after that, the settlers petitioned the crown for the title to their new homeland. It was granted and in 1701 the settlers purchased an additional 13,500 acres from the Native Americans for $325,000. Realizing the value of this land, the Crown attempted to rescind the settlers' title and the colonists subsequently revolted earning the area the nickname, ``the cockpit of the American Revolution.'' In the late 1800s, Anthony J. Drexel, of the Philadelphia banking family, who had successfully developed other residential communities acquired the estate of General William Gould to form a planned residential community. Named for Drexel's son-in-law--John R. Fell and the county, Essex--Essex Fells developed as many turn of the century communities did, as a direct result of the growth of the railroad system. All the same, much care was given to maintain the tranquility and serenity of the original community. One hundred years later, Essex Fells is still an ideal ``small town community.'' The neighborhoods remain tree-lined and neighbors know each other. Most recently, citizens of Essex Fells were called into service following the horrific attacks on the World Trade Center. Fire Chief Rupert Hauser and the Essex Fells Volunteer Fire Department immediately deployed to New York to cover station houses for New York firefighters while they worked at Ground Zero on the search and rescue efforts. I invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mayor Edward Abbott and the citizens of Essex Fells on their centennial. May they have another hundred years of prosperity and community.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, on the 6-month anniversary of a terrible tragedy, I wish to honor a man whose unfaltering courage and generous spirit showed the world the best of humanity, Colonel Cyril Richard Rescorla. On September 11, our Nation was attacked in ways none of us ever thought possible. Many Americans have been affected profoundly by these events, and I grieve with all of those who have lost loved ones. At the same time, I have been heartened to see, in the midst of such destruction and despair, a nation united. On that fateful day, Colonel Rescorla led thousands to safety before his own death in the south tower of the World Trade Center. But valiant service to his country was nothing new to Rick, as he was known to his family and friends. A decorated veteran, he served in Vietnam as a platoon leader in the 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry, inspiring awe in fellow soldiers and earning the reputation of a ``battlefield legend.'' As a testament to his bravery, Rick's image is forever immortalized on the cover of We Were Soldiers Once . . . And Young, the book by Lieutenant General Harold G. Moore and Joseph L. Galloway that has been made into the recently released movie ``We Were Soldiers.'' Unwavering in even the most horrific situations, Rick gave his men courage in battle, and provided comfort and safety to his civilian colleagues in both attacks on the World Trade Center. As Vice President for corporate security at Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., Rick devised the evacuation plans for the World Trade Center and, in the 1993 bombing, ensured that everyone had evacuated before he would leave the building. A testament to his selfless generosity, Rick's colleagues are sure he would have been the last person out of the building on September 11 if the situation had been different. Rick's altruism extended into every corner of his life. As husband, father, son, friend, and teacher, Rick faced even chronic illness with humility and valor. His life serves as a model of heroism. May his honored memory be a constant reminder of America's great courage and resolve.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. I rise today to pay tribute to Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America, on the occasion of their 90th anniversary. Founded in 1912 by Henrietta Szold and a small study circle of American women, Hadassah was committed to bringing modern health care to the Holy Land. It has since grown to become the largest Jewish and largest women's membership organization in the nation. In 1913, this fledgling organization sent two public health nurses to Jerusalem to set up a maternity clinic and treatment center for women and children. A short 27 years later, Hadassah established the Hadassah Hospital on Mt. Scopus. Since that auspicious milestone, Hadassah has become a leading force in providing for Israel's medical needs, opening various clinics across the country and a new center of medical excellence, the world-renowned Ein Karem Hospital. I had the chance to personally visit the Hadassah facilities when I was in Israel last August, and to see first hand the care and compassion that are provided on a daily basis to anyone in need regardless of race, color, creed, or national origin. Hadassah hospitals, in addition to serving as a model of peaceful coexistence in the Middle East, provide state-of-the-art health services ranging from emergency attention to long-term care to more than 600,000 patients a year. As its first national domestic effort, Hadassah women sold $200 million in World War II bonds--a remarkable accomplishment by any standard. After Pearl Harbor, Hadassah mobilized its members to aid the war effort by beginning a blood bank and donating supplies. Their work continues in the United States through voter registration drives, grassroots advocacy on United States-Israel relations, volunteering in domestic violence shelters, and numerous other humanitarian efforts. Another key component of Hadassah's mission is education. Through the College of Technology, the Career Counseling Institute, and Youth Villages, and in the United States through Young Judaca and the Hadassah Leadership Academy, they accomplish their goal to provide the people of Israel with quality educational programs and learning opportunities. Ninety years later, the Hadassah Foundation remains true to its original mission and is dedicated to--improving the status, health and well being of women and girls; bringing their contributions, issues and needs from the margins to the center of Jewish concern; and encouraging and facilitating active participation in decisionmaking and in leadership in all spheres of life. Their strength comes from action. And their actions bring to their sisters, to their homeland, and to our Nation the precious gifts of health, education, and the power of hope. As Hadassah looks toward the next century, they see continued pioneering, continued progress, and continued innovation in health care in Israel, while continuing to share their knowledge and experience for the benefit of mankind. For the services they have provided to Israel and across the globe, and for their dedication to the well-being of their community, I offer my sincere congratulations to Hadassah for 90 years of providing the adage that together we can make a difference and together we can change people's lives. Shalom!

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my distinguished colleagues, Senators McCain and Hollings, to improve pipeline safety. This amendment would add to this legislation the text of S. 235, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001, which previously was approved by the Senate. As Congress debates the direction of our Nation's energy policy, we need to consider the safety of the infrastructure that transmits much of that energy. S. 235 is important legislation that would help to secure the safety and integrity of our Nation's 2.2 million mile-long hazardous liquid and natural gas pipeline system. And I want to thank Senators McCain, Hollings, and Murray for the hard work that culminated in this bill. When S. 235 was considered on the Senate floor early last year, Senator Torricelli and I offered four amendments that we felt addressed important issues related to pipeline safety. We agreed with the sponsors of the bill that the most important of these amendments, related to the integrity of pipelines and their frequency of inspection, should be added to the bill. The bill then passed the Senate unanimously, 98-0. Unfortunately that bill remains stuck in the House, which so far has refused to act on the legislation. The issue of pipeline integrity remains an important issue that must be addressed. I have a special interest in this matter because my own State of New Jersey was the site of a major pipeline explosion. On March 24, 1994, a natural gas pipeline exploded in Edison, NJ, at 12 midnight. Families living in the nearby Durham Woods apartment complex awoke to a deafening roar. They ran out of their homes to see a wall of flame hundreds of feet in the air. These flames were so high that they were seen in both New York City and Pennsylvania. Miraculously, only one person died that night. However scores of people suffered injuries due either to burns or smoke inhalation. Many more lost their homes and all their possessions. And the explosion itself left a crater that was 60-feet deep. This explosion was caused by a natural gas pipeline that was buried in the earth. There were no reports of digging in the area, nor were there reports of any other disturbances that could have set off this explosion. It was simply the corrosion that occurred in the pipeline as a result of natural conditions that allowed natural gas to leak, the gas to then ignite and an explosion to happen. As harrowing as this tragedy was--it was not the only one. There have been natural gas pipeline explosions in other States, including New Mexico, which have been severe enough to cause loss of life. In New Mexico, 12 members of a family were incinerated when the natural gas pipeline they were camped next to exploded in August of 2000. From 1986 to 2000, there have been 366 fatalities due to pipeline accidents around our Nation. Three hundred and forty of these were due to natural gas pipeline accidents. This concerns me because there is currently no requirement for the regular inspection of natural gas pipelines in this country. The Office of Pipeline Safety already requires hazardous liquid pipelines to be inspected on a regular basis. But it has not yet promulgated a rule regarding natural gas pipelines. And we have waited long enough. That is why I sponsored language requiring a 5-year inspection period for all pipelines, liquid and natural gas. It was this language which was added to the version of S. 235 that is included in this amendment. And it is this language, along with the rest of S. 235, that I hope we will include in the energy bill to move this matter forward and help ensure that this legislation gets to the President's desk and becomes law.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Chair. I, too, rise to strongly support the amendment the Senator from California is offering to roll back this Enron exemption in the derivatives market. Being an old bond trader who operated in the derivatives markets for many years, the idea that we do not need basic registration of dealers, we do not need capital adequacy or capital rules, that there is no price transparency, whether in over-the-counter markets or on electronic exchanges, or there are not audit trails that are fundamental to any kind of regulation of financial transactions anywhere in the world, seems strange to me and offers an opportunity for those who want to take advantage of the lack of transparency and create patterns of manipulation to easily operate in these markets. It seems very strange that we pick a very narrow slice, the energy markets, to have such a gaping lack of transparency. I have heard people say there is no creativity in markets, that they will not develop, there will not be the liquidity in overseeings. That is just flatout not the fact. If you look at the derivatives markets in financial securities, or financial instruments, you will see some of the deepest, broadest, most liquid markets in the world. As a matter of fact, confidence comes when the participants who enter into markets will know where prices are taking place, the price discovery mechanism is quite obvious, where there are audit trails, so that if there are differences of views about whether transactions were actually executed, you can go back and find out where those prices actually took place. And you know your counterparts have enough capital to be able to stand behind the transactions. And then you have some simple qualifications to be a participant in those markets. I think all these are simple, straightforward fundamentals in finance 101 for anyone who deals with financial transactions, whether it is derivative transactions that relate to hog bellies, Treasury bills, or stocks, and no different for energy in my mind, and I find it incredibly lacking in consistency with our oversight regime which has produced maybe the broadest, deepest markets we have anywhere in the world, in the history of the world, frankly, and I see no reason why we should not have that applying to energy markets just as we do any other market. On that basis, I strongly support the amendment. I think Senator Feinstein is definitely on the right trail to produce markets that will provide consumer protection, protection against price manipulation, and a greater quality of activity in the underlying energy markets. I think they will be broader and deeper because of it. So I am proud to stand in support of the amendment of the Senator from California.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for the opportunity to speak. Madam President, I, too, add my voice to the many others who have come to praise the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Edward Kennedy. Though the Presiding Officer and I have only been in the Senate for a very short while, in my life outside of the Senate, I have admired Senator Kennedy for many years for all of the work and leadership he has brought to the issues that make America great. In my opinion, he is one of the greatest national leaders not only of this time but of all time. It is an extraordinary honor for me to serve with him in this body. Senator Kennedy is a man of principle who stands up for ordinary Americans and for the values in which I think all of us believe. Time after time, on issue after issue, he has worked to expand access to the American promise, the American dream, that drives so many of us in our pursuits in our lives for ourselves and our families and our communities, for all of those we care about, regardless of where one begins in life. He has fought to ensure that each and every American has access to high-quality education, access to quality health care. He has done as much to help children as anyone could ever dream about. He has worked for the people in the workplace who do not have representatives with the ability to work the Halls of Congress. He has worked to help make sure every American has dignity and a minimum wage that is a living wage. He is a great voice on the issues that make a difference in people's lives--hard-working Americans. But Senator Kennedy is much more than a champion. He does a lot more than give speeches and issue press releases and help ``rookies'' become Senators. He does something I think America admires most, and that is to get things done. It is one thing to have great ideas, but it is another to deliver on them. I do not think there is anyone I have seen, in the short tenure I have had here, who is a stronger, more provocative, and certain legislator than Ted Kennedy. He understands how the Senate works. I have been trying to pick his brain to understand that as my life unfolds here. He knows how to work across the party lines and with Presidents and many folks with whom he may agree or disagree. But he knows how to win on the issues he is trying to fight for; that is, to help the people of our Nation. So in every sense he is a terrific leader because he has his values and his commitment to the people. He is a man of compassion, and he is great to those of us who are new in this body. I thank you for your generosity and for your great leadership. I look forward to serving with you for a very long time--maybe not 40 years, but we will work as long and as hard as we can. I congratulate you on your 70th birthday. I wish you and your family the very best. God bless you.