Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture for their interest in this project and for their outstanding leadership on this essential appropriations bill. tree assistance program

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. I appreciate that recognition. The reality is the chairman and ranking member showed great stewardship and leadership to get this bill in a position where it has broad support in this body. It is going to make a big difference in the financial marketplace for consumers. Both the reauthorization and additional elements embedded in this bill have truly improved our credit system, which is already the finest in the world. I thank the ranking member. I want to make sure the chairman knows that I appreciate the bipartisanship, the cooperation, and comity that has accompanied the framing of this bill. I very much appreciate the inclusion of the disclosure of breached consumer data as part of the bill. There are some elements of this bill that I will highlight that others have given emphasis to. It is particularly important to strengthen the controls on personal, financial, and medical data in this bill; however, nothing is more important, in my view, than someone having the ability of requesting a credit file on themselves from the credit agencies once a year. People ought to be able to understand how they are being viewed in the system, if ever they are going to correct issues. That, to me, is one of the most important controls. Very much to the credit of the ranking member, there is emphasis on promoting financial literacy embedded in this legislation that creates a real foundation for how we can talk to the general public, teach the principles of proper financial management, which is one of the most important elements in individual personal finances. When citizens find they are on the short end of their credit reports and they are in court to solve a bankruptcy, they wish they had learned more in school regarding managing personal finances. The identity theft issue, which is part of why I have offered the breached customer data amendment, is so important. This is an epidemic in our society. The number of breaches, the number of extraordinary cases of individual pain that has come from people breaching our technologically connected world today is overwhelming. The protections we have started to talk about--fraud alerts, limitations on transfer of debt, and this free credit report a year--will go a long way toward trying to shape it up. We could go further in this area, in my own view. As the Senator from New York discussed, this is an important piece of legislation. I wish we had done a little more to control the use of financial information, particularly among affiliates in some of our most complex organizations where there are 1,000 or 1,500 affiliates, some spread out but not as broadly controlled as some Members might think relative to what I know is in the case of the world financial markets. But that said, this is a fine piece of legislation. The manager and ranking member should be congratulated, as should all of the members of the committee, including the Presiding Officer. With that, I will yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE. I understand the amendment will be agreed to by both of the managers but let me first say that this amendment is about disclosure of breached customer data that may exist in our system. Frankly, 85 percent of businesses that have sophisticated computer systems have identified breaches in their system. My amendment asks for the reporting of those breaches to the FTC so we can get a database and understand it.

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I have a couple of general remarks about the overall legislation and I have an amendment at the desk which I call up, No. 2064.

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation currently being considered, ``The National Consumer Credit Reporting System Improvement Act of 2003.'' Before I get into the substance of the legislation, I would like to acknowledge the stewardship and leadership of Banking Committee Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Sarbanes in developing this bipartisan proposal--which passed unanimously out of the Senate Banking Committee. Their efforts, and the work of their respective staff, are to be commended. Through a series of six hearings they took a thoughtful, deliberative approach toward the myriad issues involved in fashioning this legislative proposal. In those hearings we heard from a variety of sources--regulators, industry participants, consumer advocates, and most importantly consumers themselves. Those hearings proved an invaluable tutorial to me and I imagine all the other members of the Banking Committee. More importantly, those efforts, and the comity shown by Senator Shelby, created an environment of bipartisanship in the effort to enhance our national consumer credit reporting system-- which is embodied in the bill now before the full Senate. The Fair Credit Report Act has been central to the provision of credit in America. It has improved access to credit, and enhanced the security and accuracy of consumer financial information used in assessing creditworthiness. The expansion of our credit system, which the FCRA has helped drive, has proved enormously beneficial to our nation and our economy. It provides consumers with the ability to finance purchases of a car, pay a child's college tuition, purchase a new home, open up a new business or pursue some other lifelong dream. Credit is the grease that makes the wheels of the economy turn-- particularly our consumer-oriented economy which accounts for nearly 10 percent of our overall GDP. And the FCRA has provided millions more Americans, many of whom lacked the financial resources to pursue their dreams and those who historically have been shut out, with access to our credit system--particularly minority and low-income households. But we should not lose sight of the fact there's a great deal more that we can do before we claim that the playing field is truly level. With several of its provisions set to expire at the end of this year, it is imperative that Congress act now to reauthorize the FCRA, lest we risk a severe disruption to our economy that could result from a breakdown in our national credit system. This legislation does that. In fact, it does more than just reauthorize the FCRA--a worthy objective in its own right. It enhances the obligations of those who use and store consumer credit information, it strengthens consumer control over their personal financial and medical information, it strengthens consumer protections against identity theft, and importantly it promotes consumer financial literacy. And this legislation includes important provisions that will strengthen consumer protections against the serious, and growing, threat of identity theft. It's a serious crime and is rapidly becoming an epidemic. In fact, identity theft is the single largest consumer crime in America, as reported by the Federal Trade Commission. People whose identities have been stolen can spend months or years, at considerable cost, cleaning up the mess thieves have made of their good name and credit record. And while doing so, victims lose employment opportunities, can be refused loans, education, or even be arrested for crimes they didn't commit. This bill directs federal banking regulators to develop guidelines and regulations to fight identity theft. It allows consumers who have, or may have, been a victim of identity theft to put banks and others on notice to guard against the continued use of their stolen identity through the use of ``fraud alerts.'' It prohibits debts resulting from identity theft from being sold or transferred for collection, and it enhances criminal penalties for identity theft. It requires financial institutions to disclose when their customer data systems have been compromised. And the bill provides consumers with access to one free credit report per year from the credit reporting bureaus. This access will allow consumers to monitor the accuracy of the information contained in their credit files and ensure that information resulting from identity theft does not end up destroying their financial reputation. These are all important provisions, and they are sorely needed. I also want to speak to an element of this bill that has received little public attention, but will, I believe, be particularly beneficial in the long run--that is the provisions of the bill which promote consumer financial literacy. The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Banking Committee noted the importance of the financial literacy provisions in their opening statements. They, and others, including Senators Stabenow, Akaka and Enzi, deserve recognition for their commitment to improving the financial literacy of Americans young and old. This bill seeks to harmonize the currently fragmented approach the federal government has taken towards promoting financial literacy. It establishes a Financial Literacy and Education Commission to streamline and improve financial literacy and education programs of the Federal Government, including curriculum development, for the benefits of all Americans. And by providing consumers with a free credit report, and access to the information used by creditors to judge their creditworthiness, this bill equips consumers with the tools to competitively shop for sources of financing and will lead consumers to make better informed, more judicious, credit-related decisions. And, I might add, improved financial literacy will also help consumers protect themselves against identity theft. The various elements of this legislative proposal that I've just outlined will prove beneficial to consumers, our credit system and our economy. It's a bipartisan bill that does a lot of very good things, and was put together in a balanced manner. Is it a good piece of legislation? Yes. Is it perfect to me? Certainly not. I personally think more can be done to give consumers greater control over the ways in which financial institutions share their personal information with their affiliates, for marketing, solicitations and other purposes. And I think we will need to revisit FCRA at some point to look at issues related to the increased use of credit scores as a determinant of one's suitability to gain employment, obtain car or medical insurance or rent an apartment. In that regard, I want to thank Chairman Shelby for graciously incorporating into this bill language I offered in committee that calls for a study of the impact credit scores and credit-based insurance score have on the availability and affordability of financial products so that we can explore this issue more broadly as we move forward. But whatever issues I, or other members, may wish to raise with regard to S. 1753, there is no doubt that this legislation makes significant improvements to current accuracy and security standards of our consumer credit reporting system and our efforts to fight identity theft. The standards contained in the legislation will make our credit system more robust and provide access to credit to even more Americans who seek it. In doing so, this legislation will prove beneficial not only to consumers, but also more broadly to our nation's economy. I urge my colleagues to support S. 1753 when it comes up for final passage.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Akaka as a co- sponsor of the College LIFE (Literacy in Finance and Economics) Act. Unfortunately, when it comes to personal finances, most American college students do not have the skills they need to spend and save wisely. Most do not understand the details of managing a checking account, paying their taxes, or even using a credit card sensibly. College students must be given the tools they need to maintain good credit and make informed decisions about investments and savings so that they can ensure themselves a successful future. The importance of financial education cannot be understated, and this bill effectively addresses this critical issue by establishing grants that would allow institutions of higher education to provide their students with personal finance counseling and planning services. The bill also contains provisions that would encourage colleges to develop personal finance courses, giving students greater access to financial education. Finally, the bill would create a three-year pilot program in five institutions of higher education across the Nation to provide annual counseling for financial aid recipients. Financial literacy has been a priority of mine since the start of my tenure in the U.S. Senate. Indeed, I believe that financial literacy should be a lifelong goal. Last Congress, I successfully added a provision to the No Child Left Behind Act to give elementary and secondary schools access to funds that will allow them to include financial education as part of their basic educational curriculum. This Congress, I have introduced the Education for Retirement Security Act of 2003, which would provide grants to non-profit organizations and State and local agencies for programs that would enhance financial and retirement knowledge for America's seniors. The bill also aims to reduce financial abuse and fraud, including telemarketing, mortgage, and pension fraud. Finally, I am the sponsor of a bill that would provide welfare recipients with greater access to financial literacy skills in order to help them achieve self-sufficiency. I know that Senator Akaka has a deep interest in this issue as well, and I am honored to join him in introducing the College LIFE Act, to ensure that college students have access to the financial knowledge that they need to make the right decisions about their futures.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I want to take just a few moments of the Senate's time to discuss a provision included in the manager's amendment that will authorize acquisition of open space in the Highlands Forest that runs through New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and my state of New Jersey. First of all, I express my great appreciation to the managers of this bill, Senators Cochran and Harkin, for agreeing to include this amendment. I also recognize and congratulate Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen for his success in getting an identical version of this bill passed unanimously by the House Resources Committee yesterday. Congressman Frelinghuysen and I have worked together closely on this matter, and I know he has worked hard for many years on behalf of the Highlands and has played a key role in bringing needed conservation funds to the area. The amendment included in the managers' package is a modified version of S. 999, the Highlands Stewardship Act, which I introduced earlier this year with Senators Lautenberg, Schumer, Clinton, Dodd, Lieberman and Specter. The goal of this bipartisan legislation is to preserve one of the last open space treasures in our densely populated region, the Appalachian Highlands Forest. The Highlands region stretches from northwestern Connecticut, across the lower Hudson River valley in New York, through my State of New Jersey and into east-central Pennsylvania. It encompasses more than two million acres of forest, farms, streams, wetlands, lakes and reservoirs. It also includes such historic sites as Morristown National Historic Park, where George Washington had headquarters during the American Revolution, and the United States Military Academy at West Point. The value of the natural, recreational and scenic resources of the Highlands cannot be overstated. In a study of the New York-New Jersey Highlands region alone, the Forest Service found that 170 million gallons are drawn from the Highlands aquifers daily, providing quality drinking water for over 11 million people. 247 threatened or endangered species live in the New Jersey-New York Highlands region, including the timber rattlesnake, wood turtle, red-shouldered hawk, barred owl, and great blue heron. According to the U.S. Forest Service, over 14 million people visit the NY-NJ Highlands for outdoor recreation, more than Yellowstone National Park and our most heavily visited natural treasures. But the values and benefits of the Highlands are not limited to the four states that share them. A 1992 study and recent update by the United States Forest Service describes the Highlands as a region of ``national significance''--one that is within 2 hours of travel for 1 in 9 Americans. Unfortunately, the supply of federal, state, local and private money that has gone to protect the Highlands over the years has not kept pace with development in the area. According to the Forest Service, more than 25,000 acres of forest and farm land in the New York and New Jersey sections of the Highlands have been lost annually to development between 1995 and 2000, and nearly 300,000 acres of land critical to future water supplies remain unprotected. I represent the most densely populated state in the country. The pressures we face from development are intense. In New Jersey, the Highlands region lies in close proximity to New York City and is valued for housing development. New York, Connecticut and Pennsylvania face similar development pressures. We need to do more to protect this national treasure. The amendment that I hope the Senate will approve today is modeled after the successful federal-state partnership used to protect much of Sterling Forest, a crown jewel of the Highlands. The legislation would facilitate similar conservation partnerships to protect critical treasures threatened by sprawl throughout the region. The amendment would enable us to build upon the legacy of Sterling Forest, but it will take a strong commitment and partnership between the Highlands states and the Federal Government to safeguard this region. The amendment calls on the governors of the four states to recommend conservation projects within certain threatened areas identified by the Forest Service. It also would authorize $100 million over the next 10 years for easements or acquisition of land within those areas. As in the preservation of Sterling Forest, the money would come from the Federal side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I would note that the land and water conservation fund generally is not used for open space acquisitions in my state and the other Highlands states. That is because the fund only can support acquisitions to expand existing Federal parks, forests and recreation areas. While this works well for states with a significant amount of federal parks and forests, it does not help states like New Jersey with comparatively less Federal land. This amendment would help to make sure that New Jersey and the other Highlands states get their fair share of open space funding. The only land to be acquired would be land owned by people who want to sell. This amendment would not force anyone to sell, nor interfere with any other property right. Nor would the amendment interfere with any local zoning ordinance or local government land use plan. Nor would it create any new federal ownership or management responsibilities. Title to the land or easement purchased would belong to the state where it is located. Finally, the amendment is designed to conserve land that has been identified as having a high conservation value by the Forest Service and which is not currently protected from development under any existing law. This is land that serves as the habitat for animals, or provides a source for water supplies, or that is simply unusual in its natural beauty. In conclusion, the Highlands are a national treasure, and it is critical that they be preserved. I again thank the managers for their cooperation, and their support of this legislation.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Akaka as a co- sponsor of the College LIFE (Literacy in Finance and Economics) Act. Unfortunately, when it comes to personal finances, most American college students do not have the skills they need to spend and save wisely. Most do not understand the details of managing a checking account, paying their taxes, or even using a credit card sensibly. College students must be given the tools they need to maintain good credit and make informed decisions about investments and savings so that they can ensure themselves a successful future. The importance of financial education cannot be understated, and this bill effectively addresses this critical issue by establishing grants that would allow institutions of higher education to provide their students with personal finance counseling and planning services. The bill also contains provisions that would encourage colleges to develop personal finance courses, giving students greater access to financial education. Finally, the bill would create a three-year pilot program in five institutions of higher education across the Nation to provide annual counseling for financial aid recipients. Financial literacy has been a priority of mine since the start of my tenure in the U.S. Senate. Indeed, I believe that financial literacy should be a lifelong goal. Last Congress, I successfully added a provision to the No Child Left Behind Act to give elementary and secondary schools access to funds that will allow them to include financial education as part of their basic educational curriculum. This Congress, I have introduced the Education for Retirement Security Act of 2003, which would provide grants to non-profit organizations and State and local agencies for programs that would enhance financial and retirement knowledge for America's seniors. The bill also aims to reduce financial abuse and fraud, including telemarketing, mortgage, and pension fraud. Finally, I am the sponsor of a bill that would provide welfare recipients with greater access to financial literacy skills in order to help them achieve self-sufficiency. I know that Senator Akaka has a deep interest in this issue as well, and I am honored to join him in introducing the College LIFE Act, to ensure that college students have access to the financial knowledge that they need to make the right decisions about their futures.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I wish to commend the work of Steve Picco, who is retiring after 8 years as a board member of the Northeast-Midwest Institute. A two-term chairman of the Institute's Board of Directors, Steve served with leadership, vision, and wit. Steve has had a distinguished career in New Jersey, with more than 20 years of experience as a regulator and practitioner in the areas of environmental and energy law. He served as Assistant Commissioner in both the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and New Jersey Department of Energy and as a member of the New Jersey Economic Development Authority and the Delaware River Basin Commission. He currently is a partner with Reed Smith Shaw and McClay in Princeton. The Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalitions and Institute strive to promote the region's economic vitality while preserving its environmental quality. A goal served by our States working together to influence legislative policy important to the region. Steve Picco deserves much praise for his efforts on behalf of the State of New Jersey and for ensuring that the Institute's work is relevant to the key policy issues affecting Northeastern and Midwestern States.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, exactly 1 year ago tomorrow, October 25, our Nation lost Senator Paul Wellstone, a truly great American and a hero to many. I remember that tragic day as if it were yesterday. The initial shock and pain of losing Paul has been transformed into a profound sadness akin to losing a parent--a brother. You never forget what they meant to your life. A year ago and to this day, millions of Americans still grieve and share this deep sense of loss. I served with Paul for only 2 short years, but in that brief time, he became one of my closest friends. His enthusiasm was infectious, his values, uncompromised and his honor, unquestioned. His loss was a personal and painful one for me, and I miss him every day. Indeed, Paul's loss was a tragedy for the entire United States Senate. As most would agree, there was no Senator quite like Paul Wellstone. He was unique. He left a void in this body that no one will ever fill. What was it about Paul that made him so unique? It's hard to point to any one thing. Perhaps it was his sincerity. Paul was a real, genuine person who never tried to be someone other than who he was. He said what he thought. He was the same man in the back rooms as under the glaring lights of the Senate floor. Paul was Paul. Perhaps it was his humility. To say that Paul didn't put on airs would be an understatement. There simply wasn't an ounce of pretense to Paul--none. He wasn't trying to impress anyone. He wasn't impressed with himself. He should have been, but he wasn't. Perhaps it was his empathy. Paul cared about other people, and he cared deeply. He spent his life helping others. It's what made him tick. It's what drove his politics. It's how he lived his life. Perhaps more than his sincerity, more than his humility, and even more than his empathy, what made Paul--Paul was his passion. To this day, Paul Wellstone was the most passionate public servant I have ever met. In a day and age when it is difficult to reconcile a public servant's actions with their statements, Paul was truly unique. His stirring words--``We should never separate the lives we live from the words we speak'' were the compass by which he set his course. He didn't just speak about helping others, he did it. He didn't just preach about righting wrongs, he did it. He wasn't just talking about the need for social justice, human rights, civil rights, workers' rights, health care, education, environmental protection, and political reform. Paul was the most committed, compassionate, and tireless advocate for these causes I have ever met. Paul's passions defined him as a human being, and you could not be around this Chamber for long without witnessing those passions first hand. He would come to this Chamber to speak, and it wouldn't be long before his voice would rise, his fist would pound the desk, and his finger would jab the air. When Paul spoke, he dominated the Chamber, and we listened. No, we will not see another person like Paul Wellstone for a very long time. And this body, and our Nation, will be the worse for it. In many ways, Paul was the conscience and soul of the Senate. When he saw something that wasn't right, he would speak out. He didn't wait for a cadre of his colleagues to approve. Often, that meant he upset some of us. Frequently, it meant he upset lobbyists and special interests. But, for millions of working Americans, Paul was the one voice on which they could always depend. And, they were grateful for him. Sometimes, all it took was Paul Wellstone to raise a wrong--to bring it into the sunlight for all to see--for it to be made right. He truly was our conscience and our soul, and he made a difference. That is why I wanted to come to the floor to honor Paul's memory. These speeches are not what he would have sought. He probably would have been embarrassed. That said, he would have hoped we would come to advocate his causes--none more personal, none more passionate, than his quest for mental health parity. Paul Wellstone was not only a hero. He was a model for all of us who are representatives of all the people. It's only right that we honor him here in this Chamber--where he stood for so many. Remembering who he was and what he stood for can only make us better Senators. Sadly, unavoidably, it also reminds us of the terrible loss that this Senate and our Nation suffered on that heartbreaking day 1 year ago. Paul--like all of us--I was blessed to know you and will always remember that you said, ``Politics is what we create by what we do, what we hope for and what we dare to imagine.'' Thank you for daring to hope and imagine. I miss you. We all do.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, the primary topic I will talk about today is the markup tomorrow with regard to chemical plant security. The Environmental and Public Works Committee will take up legislation dealing with one of the most serious security threats to our Nation. According to statistics by EPA, there are 123 facilities in 24 States where a chemical release could expose more than a million people to a toxic chemical, and nearly 3,000 facilities spread across 49 States where 10,000 people could be exposed. This is a serious issue that can create real health and safety hazards to our community, particularly in a time when we know we are under potential terrorist attack at home. This is an issue that has been identified by the Department of Homeland Security and by almost every security expert as one of the most serious exposures we have in our infrastructure. When we go from code yellow to code orange, chemical plants are identified as part of the infrastructure that needs to be hardened in those events. It seems to me we need to be addressing this matter. I am pleased Chairman Inhofe, EPW, and others are taking up this challenge to address this issue. I have been pushing on this for the last 2 years, actually got a vote in EPW on a bill that had 100-percent support of everyone in the committee a year and a half ago. Until the lobbyists went to work, we thought we had a real response that would work on a bipartisan basis. We have adjusted that bill, made changes, offered economic incentives to the industry to move forward. We have a roadblock to dealing with one of the most important risks we have in our infrastructure. I commend Senator Inhofe and other members of the committee for addressing the issue. Unfortunately, I do not think the bill meets the needs of what we are trying to accomplish. Constructively, the committee has moved to require chemical plants to develop security plans and submit them to the Department of Homeland Security. The administration had not asked them to submit the plans. Unfortunately, DHS will not have to review them according to the bill, as I understand it. They would not have to evaluate them. They would not have to approve them. They would not have to do anything to assure the public is protected. That is a problem. The Department could simply let the plans sit on a back shelf and let dust accumulate. Furthermore, it would tighten all 15,000 chemical plants without any kind of prioritization in the country, which is also a big mistake. We need to make sure these plans are actually reviewed, that there is real accountability. That is my major concern with the mark that will be coming through tomorrow. There are other problems also. It is not strong enough on one of the fundamental issues with regard to my original bill, inherently safer technologies. There are alternative approaches. We cannot build fences high enough and put enough guards to make sure that every possible terrorist attack or criminal attack on a chemical plant could actually be accomplished. We need to make sure if there is a successful attack, that it has minimal exposure. We ought to do everything we can to have inherently safer technologies within economic feasibility. That is practical. While there is a step forward in recognizing this is immediate, and there is necessary evaluation that is being asked for from chemical producers, I don't think we are going far enough in requiring the use of inherently safer approaches if they are economically feasible and practical. That should be a requirement of the law. This is one of the major issues I have. Finally, there is a gaping loophole in this legislation as I understand it, and I hope others will challenge it tomorrow in the committee mark. I certainly will if it gets to the floor; that is, if the chemical industry or any particular private sector approach has a substantially equivalent standard as opposed to what DHS puts out as a standard, that will be acceptable to the Department of Homeland Security. They have already embraced a private standard that they have suggested is very good. It does not include inherently safer technologies. It does not require accountability in that other standard being established by the chemical industry. As a consequence, we are actually moving back to a completely voluntary approach. I don't get it. I don't understand it. I don't think it is the direction we should be taking. It is a loophole that erases all the good things that have been included in the mark if you go to a substantially equivalent standard. There are serious shortfalls in the mark, at least as I understand them. I hope they will be debated seriously in the committee tomorrow. I want folks to know this is not an issue that will die down. We have eight of these plants in New Jersey. They are located right smack dab in the middle of some of the highest concentrations of population in our country. We have had accidents over the years in my community that have taken lives in the community and evacuated the surrounding citizens. This is a vulnerability that everyone acknowledges is real, it is present, and it needs to be addressed. That is why I feel so strongly about it. This should be a bipartisan issue. I am glad Senator Chafee has been working to push the issue in committee this year. But we need to move it. By the way, just finally, there is something I have a problem with also in the bill in the sense that if somebody turns loose one of the plans that is filed by an individual plant, that will be subject to criminal penalties. But if a chemical producer does not comply with the standards they set down in the plan, that is a civil liability. It sounds right to me there would be criminal penalties for people who leak information into the public that could be dangerous and used against the public. But it strikes me as unequal treatment; it sort of does not jibe with regard to parity that those people who are actually not complying with the law are going to be treated on a civil basis. Where is the parity? It seems to me we are listening to industry more than we are listening to the needs of the American people. If September 11 taught us anything, it is that America can no longer avoid thinking about the unthinkable. We have to face up to the Nation's most serious vulnerabilities. We have to focus on them. And we have to confront them head on. That is why I have long advocated the adoption of legislation to create meaningful and enforceable security standards for chemical facilities. Under my proposal, the Federal Government would identify ``high priority'' chemical facilities--those that potentially put a larger number of people at risk. It then would require those facilities to assess their vulnerabilities and implement plans to improve security. These plans would have to be submitted for review. And changes could be required if deficiencies are identified. In the last Congress, my legislation was approved on a unanimous vote by the Environment and Public Works Committee. But after the committee acted, the bill was killed after some in industry lobbied against it. This year, the committee apparently is planning to take up a different bill. And let me say, first, that I commend the chairman, Senator Inhofe, and the other members of the committee for addressing this matter. Unfortunately, while I no longer serve on the committee and have not been privy to all of its discussions, it appears that the bill currently under discussion has at least one glaring weakness. The committee is considering requiring chemical plants to develop security plans and submit them to the Department of Homeland Security. But--and here is the problem--the bill doesn't require the Department to do anything with them. DHS wouldn't have to review them. It wouldn't have to evaluate them. It wouldn't have to approve them. It wouldn't have to audit them. It wouldn't have to do a thing to ensure the public is protected. Instead, the Department could simply let these plans sit on a back room shelf, collecting dust. Some might ask: Would the Bush administration really do that? Would it really just let security plans sit on the shelf, and not even review them? Well, for those who think that is unrealistic, consider this: The administration's own plan didn't require companies to submit their security plans to the Government at all. And that would certainly be the preference of many of their friends in industry. So, yes, there is every reason to be concerned that, unless forced to do so, the administration will take a hands-off approach and simply ignore these security plans. And the end result would be a lax security system with no real teeth. Beyond the failure of the bill to require review of security plans, the legislation under development in the Environment and Public Works Committee has other problems, as well. First, it fails to require industry to adopt alternative technologies--such as the use of safer chemicals--if those alternative approaches are cost effective. I think that is a mistake. After all, no matter how many security personnel are hired, and no matter how high a security fence, no security scheme is impenetrable. And we need to prepare for the possibility that terrorists will be successful in attacking a chemical plant and releasing toxic materials. That is why it is important for facilities to implement inherently safer technologies, where practicable, to reduce the resulting death and destruction in the event of an attack. Thanks largely to the involvement of Senator Chafee, the Inhofe mark has made real progress in this area. As I understand it, the chairman has agreed to require detailed consideration of safer technologies. And I think that's a step forward. In my view, though, it still falls short. Given the number of lives that are at stake, I think companies should be required to implement safer technologies if they are cost effective. Unfortunately, the requirement that facility owners consider safer technologies could be undermined because of a huge loophole in the bill that may allow industry to sidestep many Federal security requirements. Under this provision, DHS's security standards could be waived for any facility that participates in an industry program that is, ``substantially equivalent.'' At first, that may sound like a reasonable approach. But the term ``substantially equivalent'' is so broad that it could well allow the Bush administration to simply rubberstamp an existing chemical industry program that is grossly inadequate. For example, the chemical industry's program has no requirement that industry evaluate safer technologies in any detail. Yet it seems very possible that the Bush administration would exploit the bill's loophole to rubberstamp this industry program, and exempt participating plants even from the bill's limited requirement for consideration of safer alternative approaches. The last point I want to make about the bill apparently being discussed relates to enforcement. Under the legislation, as I understand it, if a Government employee wrongly discloses a chemical plant's security plan, that employee would be subject to criminal penalties. That sounds right. Yet, if the owner of a chemical plant knowingly violated Federal security standards, the only remedies prescribed in the legislation are civil. That sounds wrong. That disparate treatment of Government employees and chemical industry officials doesn't seem fair. Nor does it seem appropriate, given the nature of the threats are now confronting. After all, criminal penalties are available for violations of certain anti- pollution laws. Surely violations of a new chemical plant security law--a law designed to save lives--should be punished with an equal degree of severity. Before I conclude, let me step back for a moment and again remind my colleagues that should terrorists attack one of 123 chemical facilities around the country, at least a million American lives could be at risk. These are real people--mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers--all innocent Americans who have no choice but to rely on their Government leaders to protect them. We, in Congress, have an obligation to do everything we can to protect these Americans, and to prevent what really could be a tragedy of catastrophic proportions. We should not be satisfied with a largely toothless plan that leaves industry free to design security plans to their own choosing, with no requirement that those plans even be reviewed. That is just unacceptable. I hope my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee will reconsider this approach. And, if not, I intend to pursue this matter aggressively if, and when, the bill ever reaches the Senator floor. We need to address chemical plant security. But we need to do so in an enforceable way that will really make Americans safer. The lives of many thousands of Americans may well hang in the balance.

Mr. CORZINE. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Lastly, Mr. President, I want to say something about the bill that we are going to be debating in the next hour or so, class action fairness. I am not a lawyer, so I am not as sharp on all of the terminology and all the other issues, but it is very clear to me that we are taking the small ``d'' democratic processes out of access to our courts with the legislation that is underlying the motion to proceed. I think it is absolutely essential that we maintain the checks and balances in our present Federal constitutional system. That does not mean there are not abuses, and it does not mean we should not move to correct some of the things with regard to venue shopping, with regard to coupon procedures, which, by the way, are not even dealt with in this bill. I think this is a radical move. I am very much in favor of Senator Breaux's proposal, a modified approach, that will deal with some of the flaws. His bill would preserve state class actions while sending truly national class actions to Federal court. At the same time, it addresses the problem of abusive coupon settlements, which is something that the bill before us does not touch. But instead, at a time when we are fighting a war in Iraq, when we are fighting a war on terrorism worldwide, and we are facing historic budget deficits and job losses, we are debating a radical bill that would legislate away the legal rights of American families. This legislation would dramatically alter the constitutional distribution of judicial power. It would: remove most State law class actions into Federal court; clog the Federal courts with State law cases and make it more difficult to have Federal civil rights cases heard; deter people from bringing class actions; and impose barriers and burdenson settlement of class actions. I am not a lawyer, but I can appreciate that class actions are critical tools for ordinary citizens who want to hold wrongdoers accountable. For many people who can't afford lawyers, class actions are the only way to vindicate their rights. For consumers victimized by negligence, fraud and reckless misconduct, it is their opportunity to exercise their democratic rights. Simply put, class actions promote efficiency and level the playing field, giving persons who are injured in the same manner by the same defendants the ability to hold the wrongdoers accountable. This sort of collective action gives ordinary citizens the ability to level the playing field with powerful defendants. For example, by allowing groups of citizens to band together and demand a safe and healthy environment, class actions often result in courts requiring companies to stop poisoning our neighborhoods and our water. Without the class action tool, it would often be impossible for ordinary citizens to take on powerful defendants when they damage the environment and cause illness. Class actions are also essential to the enforcement of our Nation's civil rights law. They are, in fact, often the only means by which individuals can challenge and obtain relief from systemic discrimination. Class actions have on important occasions served as a primary vehicle for civil rights litigation seeking broad equitable relief. In far too many cases, justice delayed is justice denied. No one recognizes this better than the manufacturers and the polluters, who would prefer these cases to be in the Federal court system, where there is a tremendous judicial backlog. Overloading these courts will inevitably delay the resolution of all cases in Federal courts. Indeed, the Judicial Conference of the United States, headed by Chief Justice Rehnquist--not someone with whom I often agree, I might add--has told Congress that the Federal courts are not equipped to handle all these cases. That is why he opposes this bill. The delays caused by clogged courts would be particularly damaging in cases where civil rights plaintiffs are seeking immediate injunctive relief to prohibit discriminatory practices--such as racial profiling or predatory lending. In addition to the above concerns, I was very distressed to learn that the manager's amendment slips mass torts back into this bill, greatly expanding the scope of the bill. This change makes the bill even more extreme, and, by federalizing individual tort suits, will flood the Federal courts with cases involving questions of State tort law. By sending a majority of mass tort actions--cases involving products liability and environmental damages--to Federal courts, the bill would completely jam the already overburdened Federal courts and delay justice to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people injured by defective drugs and medical devices, like the Dalkon Shield, and environmental contamination. Class actions are an important tool for ordinary citizens to level the playing field and vindicate their rights. They promote safety, protect our health and environment, and are essential to enforcement of our civil rights laws. The legislation before us would impose new and substantial limitations on access to the courts for victims of discrimination, mass torts, consumer fraud, and other misconduct. This is not a balanced, fair approach. I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, this amendment is based on legislation I introduced earlier this year, S. 1327, which proposed an innovative way to improve anti-spam laws. The amendment would move us toward a system that creates an incentive for individuals to assist the FTC in identifying spammers, by giving them a portion of any collections resulting from information provided to the Commission. It also calls for the FTC to set forth a plan for requiring all unsolicited commercial e-mail to be identifiable from its subject line by means of the use of the characters ``ADV'' or other comparable identifier. If the Commission recommends against such a plan, it will have to provide Congress with a full explanation. The fundamental problem in dealing with spam is enforcement. It is one thing to propose rules governing e-mails. But it is often hard for Government officials to track down those who violate those standards. Spammers typically use multiple e-mail addresses or disguised routing information to avoid being identified. As a result, finding spammers can take not just real expertise, but persistence, time, energy and commitment. The concept of requiring the FTC to pay a bounty to those who track down spammers actually isn't my idea. It was originally proposed by one of the leading thinkers about the Internet, Professor Lawrence Lessig of Stanford Law School, and introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. The proposal would invite anyone who uses the Internet to hunt down these law-violating spammers. These would include people who send fraudulent e-mail, e-mail with inaccurate routing information, and e-mail that fails to include the required opt- out. The FTC would then fine the spammer and pay a portion of that fine as a reward to the person who provided the information. Creating incentives for private individuals to help track down spammers is likely to substantially strengthen the enforcement of anti- spam laws. It promises to create an army of computer geeks who seek out spammers for their and the public's--benefit. Those who share my belief in the efficiency of entrepreneurial capitalism should understand the potential value of this free market approach to enforcement. At the request of the managers, I have modified the original proposal I introduced earlier this year. This amendment calls for the FTC to develop a plan to implement a bounty hunting system and issue a report to the Congress within 9 months of enactment. The Commission then could implement the plan, but not before 12 months after the date of enactment. While this doesn't go quite as far as I proposed originally, I think it is an important step forward. And I am pleased that the managers have committed to me that they will secure inclusion of the proposal in any related conference report. I also am pleased that the amendment calls on the FTC to investigate another proposal that I actually believe is very important in the reduction of spam, and that also was included in legislation I introduced earlier this year: a requirement that the subject line of unsolicited commercial e-mails include a so-called ``ADV'' label. In my view, such an approach would give individuals and ISPs considerable power to keep spam out of their in boxes, and I am hopeful that we will return to this proposal before long. In fact, I understand that some members of the House of Representatives will be pursuing this on a related bill, and I hope there will be a way to include an enforceable labeling requirement in a conference report on anti-spam legislation.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. If the Chair would notify me when I have used 8 minutes please.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, how much time is available?

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today, an icon of Puerto Rico has passed away. I want to express my sadness at the passing of Luis Ferre, former Governor of Puerto Rico, only 4 months shy of his 100th birthday. Luis Ferre was a great leader, businessman, and a faithful believer in social justice. Born February 17, 1904, in the city of Ponce, Puerto Rico, Ferre was a member of the Assembly that produced Puerto Rico's 1952 Constitution. In 1969, he became the Island's third Governor under its new constitution. He established the Luis A. Ferre Foundation to support the development of the arts and the culture, and in 1991, received the Medal of Liberty from President George H.W. Bush. I extend my condolences to the Ferre family and to all Puerto Ricans, on the Island and here on the mainland.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, after giving this matter considerable thought, I have decided to vote for this emergency supplemental. I do so with great reluctance, and I wanted to take a few moments to explain how I came to this decision. Let me begin by saying that I voted in October 2002 against the resolution to give the President broad authority to go to war in Iraq. At the time, I believed the administration had failed to make the case that Iraq posed an imminent threat; had failed to develop a meaningful international coalition with whom to share the burdens and costs of war; had failed to prioritize the more serious risks of global terrorists, North Korea and Iran; had failed to develop a plan for reconstruction once the war was over, and had failed to be straight with the American people about why we were going to war in the first place. Looking back at my decision, I am more convinced than ever that it was correct. It has become increasingly clear that numerous administration claims about the Iraqi threat were either exaggerated or simply wrong. With little international support, America has been left to fight the war and rebuild Iraq largely on our own. America is shouldering 90 percent of the costs, providing 90 percent of the troops, and tragically bearing 95 percent of the casualties on the ground. In that context, the administration still has not put forward a meaningful, long-term plan to rebuild Iraq and move toward its self- governance. And, after all this time, the Bush administration still has not developed a consistent position about the rationale for this war. In fact, each passing day leads me to be more certain that the development and use of intelligence pre-conflict has been misused for political justification, not informed policy formulation. This is why I continue to call for an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate the development and use of intelligence related to Iraq. Having said all that, the decision to go to war has long since passed. And the question before the Senate today is how to move forward from here. Needless to say, all of us are glad that Saddam Hussein, a tyrannical dictator, is out of power. However, notwithstanding Saddam's departure, Iraq is now a country with very serious problems. Violence against American soldiers, and crime generally, plagues the country. Iraq's economy is struggling. Many Iraqis have lost jobs and are having a hard time making ends meet. And we have made very little progress in shifting power from American forces to Iraqis themselves. While I opposed this war, I also am convinced that we cannot and must not just walk away from Iraq at this point. Having invaded the country and created a situation with such problems, we have a responsibility to help address them. Even more fundamentally, helping Iraq get back on its feet is very much in the interests of the United States itself. A strong, democratic Iraq could well help stabilize the entire Middle East region, even if this rationale is often overstated. By contrast, an unstable Iraq would not only destabilize the region, but is likely to further become a breeding ground for terrorists. Our own national security could be put at risk as a result, as it was by a festering Afghanistan. So, I do think we need to address the problems facing Iraq in a meaningful way. And that, inevitably, is going to cost money. I voted for the first supplemental appropriations bill, which provided almost $80 billion for the effort. And I recognize that we are going to have to provide much more in future years. At the same time, we in the Congress have a responsibility to do it right. And I have had serious concerns about the approach recommended by the administration. Let me be clear: I fully support the funding requested for our military. But, as I see it, the administration's request for reconstruction funding was problematic in many ways. First, the administration asked for a huge amount of money, but failed to identify a single penny in savings to offset that cost. Every dollar requested was a dollar to be added to the debt that our children, and their children, will be forced to bear long into the future. That, in my view, is fiscally irresponsible. And that is why I was pleased to join Senator Biden in cosponsoring an amendment to fully offset the bill's cost by merely scaling back a portion of the large new tax breaks for those with taxable incomes well over $300,000. Unfortunately, our amendment was defeated. So this bill now will be financed entirely by new debt. That is troubling to me. I also am concerned about the sheer size of the administration's request. There is no need to appropriate $87 billion today. Funds already appropriated are sufficient to get us through the end of this year, and perhaps well beyond that. And we could sustain operations well into next year at a cost far below $87 billion. In my view, Congress would be wiser to keep the Iraq operation on a short leash, to help ensure greater accountability. Along the same lines, I remain very concerned about the widespread reports of abuses in the management of the reconstruction effort. Huge contracts have been awarded to companies with close ties to administration officials, often without any bidding, and there already have been major cost overruns. Halliburton is the most notorious example. But there are others. I was pleased to cosponsor an amendment with Senator Lautenberg in an effort to address some of these abuses, and I am pleased that another amendment, proposed by Senator Collins, should help block future no-bid contracts. It is important that this type of protection be included in the final conference report. Another concern I have had about the administration's $87 billion request is that it has not been matched by an effective or coherent outreach to bring other countries into the reconstruction process. So far, America has borne the overwhelming share of the costs of Iraq operations, and there is little evidence that this will change in the foreseeable future. While I was pleased that the U.N. approved a resolution yesterday that seemed to signal at least some outreach to the international community and some reciprocal accommodation, many of our allies who voted for the resolution, including France, Germany, and Russia, said that because the resolution did not go far enough, they will not provide any additional resources beyond those already pledged. As a result, American soldiers, and American taxpayers, will continue to bear a grossly disproportionate share of the operation's ongoing costs. That needs to change. I believe it would be especially appropriate to ask the Iraqi people themselves to help share in the immediate costs of reconstruction, given that Iraq has vast oil reserves that, in the long term, will produce a huge stream of--revenue conservatively estimated $30- to $40 billion per year. As I see it, Iraq should securitize those revenues-- borrowing today, using future oil production as collateral. That securitization would help relieve the huge burden that the President is imposing on American taxpayers. Unfortunately, the administration has been unyielding in its determination to simply hand out $20 billion in grants to Iraq, with no strings attached. As I see it, that is not a responsible way to manage the people's money. Nor is it an effective way to build long-term public support for the effort in Iraq. That is why I supported the Bayh amendment, which would turn half of the President's requested grants into loans that could be forgiven only if most of our allies agree to forgive debts incurred by the regime of Saddam Hussein. Another concern of mine about the administration's request is that it failed to include sufficient mechanisms to ensure that reconstruction money is well spent, and well accounted for. The request asks Congress to give the executive branch largely unfettered discretion to shift funding approved by Congress for virtually any other purpose related to Iraq. That is why I was pleased to support amendments by Senator Byrd to eliminate these broad grants of authority, and to improve reporting requirements. I also supported the proposal to establish an inspector general to review related spending. These accountability measures must remain in the final conference report. Yet better reporting and monitoring of spending in Iraq still does not address the more fundamental need for the administration to develop a long-term plan for operations in Iraq. Some will argue that the administration recently did submit a document to the Congress. But that document contains few details about the number of troops that will be needed, the cost of operations beyond this year, or the process by which power eventually will be shifted from the Coalition Provisional Authority to Iraqis. In my view, it is premature, at best, to appropriate such a massive amount of money until the administration produces a real long-term plan, and until that plan is subject to full public debate. Having said that, I was pleased that the Senate did approve an amendment I drafted that will require the President to report every 90 days to the Congress about the long-term costs of Iraq operations, including military operations and reconstruction. This requirement would force the administration to think beyond the short-term. And it would give Congress the ability to plan long term. I hope the provision will be retained in the final version of the legislation. Today I have detailed many of the problems associated with the administration's request for Iraq. Some of those problems have been addressed on the floor through the amendment process, and I am proud to have been part of those efforts. Yet serious shortcomings remain, and the bill before us remains substantially flawed. At the end of the day, however, I have reluctantly concluded that this flawed bill, for all its problems, is better than nothing. There is no getting around the fact that our troops are in Iraq, and they must be supported. Similarly, we have to accept that, even if we shouldn't have begun this conflict, it is now our Nation's responsibility, and it is in our Nation's interest, to ensure that Iraq is rebuilt and emerges as a modern democratic state in the context of its own culture. We simply can't walk away from Iraq. And it is imperative that we demonstrate to the Iraqi people, and the international community, that Americans across the political spectrum are committed to this cause, and will fully support the Iraqi people as they move toward a free Iraq. Reluctantly, after balancing these many considerations, I will cast my vote ``aye.''

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, the goal of this commission is not about blame. This is about trying to find out what went wrong and why we had the kind of development and use of intelligence that is so patently inconsistent with the facts that seem to be coming out. Most of us do not sit inside those quiet halls of the Intelligence Committee. The public does not, but they are seeing fact after fact refuted. They see CIA agents outed. They see people who were a part of the intelligence community complaining. One of the ways to restore the confidence in something that is absolutely necessary to be able to carry out the war on terrorism, which we all believe in and want to support, is to have confidence in our intelligence community. It is not to undermine the Intelligence Committee. This amendment underscores a commitment to support the ongoing congressional reviews regarding the collection and analysis of data. It is not to undermine it. We all have tremendous faith in the chairman and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, but this is to restore the confidence of the American people, to restore the confidence of all of us who have to use the information to draw the conclusions that are necessary as to whether we are going to put men and women in harm's way. I could not agree more with the Senator from West Virginia. Intelligence and military operations now are absolutely intimately linked. They are one in the same. If it is faith based, then we will reach the wrong conclusions. I hope the Senate will support my amendment.

Mr. CORZINE. I yield 1 minute to my friend.

Mr. CORZINE. How much time remains?

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Illinois and a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I would still like to hear the full development of the argument. I understand very clearly the comment that the committee is in the midst of its work. I appreciate and believe very strongly in the distinguished Senators from Kansas and West Virginia about this process. But to my knowledge, there have not been public hearings even on things that can be talked about in public. I am very clear in my amendment that the Congress underscores its commitment to and support for ongoing congressional views regarding the collection and analysis of intelligence related to Iraq. This is not an attempt to usurp. It is trying to bring additional attention to a very difficult issue. As I said last night, there has been since the last time we debated this on the floor a long litany of weaknesses, questions about the development and use of intelligence. It is in that vein that I will be speaking, as I did last night. I would like to hear why it is so important only to do it in one vein when we certainly thought it was important to look at the intelligence operations failures.