Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. As my colleagues just heard, this motion would commit the bill to the Finance Committee and direct it to report back promptly with an amendment that eliminates an income tax for those earning more than $500,000 a year, and use those savings to establish a tax credit to help families afford the cost of long-term care. Before I explain the need for my motion, let me first commend Senators Grassley and Graham of Florida, who have provided true leadership on a critical issue for seniors across America, the issue of long-term care. This motion does not require adoption of their specific approach, though I am proud to support their bill which would provide a $3,000 tax credit for long-term care expenses. Now is the time to address America's long-term health care needs, before we approve one of the largest, and I believe one of the most inequitable, tax cuts that we could bring before the country, a tax cut that would undermine the largest surplus ever and prevent us from meeting critical health care needs, particularly for our seniors. Over 12 million seniors and disabled Americans need long-term care, and as many as twice that number may need it as the population ages, as the baby boomers retire. Families who are primary caregivers pay a tremendous price for this care. I believe no one should have to go bankrupt or stress their budgets to afford long-term care and no family should bear the burden alone. Long-term care should not be just a privilege for the wealthy. A tax credit, as I propose, would provide much needed relief to the families who provide long-term care for their loved ones. It is to ensure a better and fairer use of the surplus than a rate cut targeted for the very wealthiest Americans. This is not about class warfare. This is about providing relief for our elderly and for the overburdened families who care for them. I hope my colleagues will agree that we should not provide a windfall for those earning more than $\1/2\ million a year while ignoring the very real needs of so many families and the loved ones for whom they struggle.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to support my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Florida. I very much agree and concur that we would be better served by a series of tax cuts that would provide for understanding where we are in the economy. As we move along in this process, we could fit circumstances much more effectively into that process. I have some trouble with the overall tax program we are considering. I have trouble with the issues with regard to how this is formulated for debate. I compliment Senator Byrd for his truly remarkable comments this morning with regard to reconciliation. That said, there is trouble with the size, trouble with the structure and distribution, but maybe most importantly, as Senator Graham and I are addressing, trouble with the timing. This tax structure we are about to vote on does too little at a time when we have real needs in a weakening, slowing, and, I think, very fragile economy. Seventy percent of this tax cut comes in the second 5 years, the outyears, and only $10 billion in the current year, and that is in a $10 trillion economy. It is one-tenth of 1 percent. It is like throwing a coin in an ocean. It will have little, if any, significant impact on the current state of our economy. There are real reasons to believe that there is a need for the current stimulus. With the actions and words of the Federal Reserve just this week, with a remarkable additional 50-basis-point cut in interest rates, that is five times this year, with a total 250-basis- point cut, because of their serious concern. And their concern is demonstrated not only by what they have done but by their words when they have reviewed current economic conditions--seeing a decline in employment, a rise in the unemployment rate, weakness in productivity numbers, which have been so much a part of suggestion that we have this great surplus. There has been a real undermining of one of the major sectors of our economy in technology, but also it has moved very substantially into our manufacturing sector. And there are concerns about overseas economic growth, which will have a very important impact on our external accounts. There are many signs in our economy that give one great pause for concern about the fragility of our economy and its direction. We need a stimulus now. I think the program that the senior Senator from Florida has talked about in the Finance Committee, and we have discussed in this Chamber for now 2 months, is an insurance policy that is fundamental to working hand in hand with the Federal Reserve to make sure we have a strong economy going forward. Those rising tides do lift all boats. A strong economy is the best way to make sure all Americans benefit from our fiscal policy and how we manage our economic affairs. So I stand strongly in support of the approach Senator Graham will outline. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, the ninth of June marks an historic and important occasion for the Allenhurst Fire Department, its 100th anniversary. For the past century, a commendable number of dedicated volunteer firefighters have risked their lives and sacrificed their spare time to protect the lives and property of the people of Allenhurst. Therefore, it is with great pleasure that I bring these individuals from the great State of New Jersey to your attention. Volunteer firefighters are the great unsung heros of everyday life and we often take their diligent efforts for granted. When the fire alarm sounds, these devoted individuals put their lives on hold and respond, whether it be a call for assistance or a full-fledged fire, they are on the scene and prepared. Let us not forget that firefighters routinely put themselves in harm's way to protect us. This dedication to their community is worthy of only the highest praise. At a time in our Nation when things are in a constant state of change, it is truly refreshing to honor a selfless and noble enterprise that has endured for an entire century. It is appropriate to applaud both the longevity of the Allenhurst Fire Department and the charitable acts of courage that have fueled it. I am proud to wish them a very happy 100th anniversary and continued success for many more years to come.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the conference report on the budget resolution. Before I make specific comments on the resolution, let me express my sincere appreciation to the distinguished senator from North Dakota for his leadership in revealing the hard truth about this budget. He has done a truly outstanding job of analyzing, clarifying and revealing this budget proposal for what it is--a overreaching, transparent defense of a misguided and oversized tax cut. I know all of us on this side of the aisle are grateful for Senator Conrad's and his staff, disciplined and intellectually honest efforts. I am new to the federal budget process. But I find virtually everything about this resolution, and the so-called process by which it was developed, utterly mystifying. It appears to have been produced in a partisan way with no meaningful input from Democrats--and with little regard for the Senate-passed version of the budget resolution. The conference report now has been put on the Senate floor with little opportunity to study the final numbers and language. And it leaves more questions than it answers. What we do know, is that its numbers are based on surplus projections that are little more than guesses based on assumptions with incredibly real world variability. What we do know, is that the resolution puts no new money into education, the environment or other priorities. What we do know, is that the resolution raids the Medicare Trust Fund. What we do know, it that it does nothing to prepare for the future of Social Security and the retirement of the baby boomers. And if changes in productivity and economic growth lead to a reduction in future revenues, and Congress later, as expected, increases defense spending substantially, we clearly will be invading the Social Security Trust Fund--an outcome anathema to senators on both sides of the aisle. Mr. President, as most of my colleagues know, I used to run a major investment banking firm. We didn't plan with abstract numbers or set inflexible budgets that fixed policies for ten years without review. And I can tell you that if I ever presented a prospectus or budget plan to my management team or the investing public, and gave them 24 hours to review and approve it, I'd be opening myself up to an enforcement action by the SEC. And if I produced prospectus which ignored major costs or risks that I knew our company would be facing, I could have faced potential criminal liability. Unfortunately, that's what's happening here in the United States Senate as we debate this budget resolution. And it's simply wrong. We haven't had time to study it. There are a whole bunch of risks that are ignored, and we are making commitments that go on far too long relative to the priority mix that I think the country needs to address. There are so many unanswered and unaddressed issues in this resolution that it's hard to know where to begin. But I'm profoundly concerned that it fails to make needed investments in education. In my view, the people of New Jersey believe that nothing is more important for the future of our country than investing in our kids, and they want a real partnership between the federal, state and local governments to pay for that investment. New Jersey's citizens are fed up with property taxes having to bear the major brunt of the costs of education. They want relief. They expect the unfunded mandate of special education to be paid for by those who create the mandates. Unfortunately, the conferees rejected the Harkin amendment, a bipartisan effort to increase the Federal government's investment in a variety of education programs. And the end result is a totally inadequate commitment to the many educational needs facing our country, from dilapidating schools to the need to reduce class sizes, to the need to fully fund IDEA and Title I. Unfortunately, education is just one of many priorities being ignored by this conference report. It also does too little to move forward in protecting our environment, to keep our air and water clean, too little to provide prescription drug coverage for our seniors, too little to expand health care coverage for the uninsured, and too little to strengthen our national defense. And, incredibly, we are turning our backs on the successful economic formula of the last few years: paying down the debt, and keeping interest rates low so that the private sector isn't competing with the federal government for scarce investment dollars. All of these priorities have been sacrificed on the alter of huge tax breaks--tax breaks that, in all likelihood, will be provided disproportionately to the top one percent of taxpayers in our nation-- the most fortunate--those who have done the best, and who need help the least. I support cutting taxes--cutting them for the middle class. But the proposed mix of tax cuts we are about to debate and the subsequent limitations on priority investments is flatout irresponsible. In light of my experience in the private sector, it is hard for me to comprehend why we would make such enormous long-term commitments based on 10-year projections that nobody accepts as reliable. After all, 1 year ago, CBO's then 10-year projection was lower by $2.4 trillion than this year's. Think about that. One year ago, we were projecting $2.4 trillion less than what we are now using as the baseline to make these tax cuts and set our investing priorities. If last year's projection was so far off, for the life of me, I do not understand why we can be so certain about this year's, and we want to set all these variables in place. I also think it is remarkable that, even as we vote to establish this budget, many around here already are talking about pushing beyond the resolution's limits. This conference report says we should have $1.35 trillion of tax cuts over the next 11 years. I believe that is more than we can afford. Yet many assume that Congress will soon violate even that limit with a series of additional tax breaks beyond those anticipated in this resolution, sort of the Lego approach to how we build things. Forgive me for asking the obvious, but what is the point of having a budget if you know you are going to ignore it? I am new around here; I admit it. I am reluctant to cast aspersions based on only a few months of Senate service, but the more I see, the more I share Americans' deep frustration with the political rhetoric that does not match the discipline that I think they expect us to bring to this budget process. No legitimate business, no individual, no family would budget this way. None would completely ignore such huge unfunded liabilities. None would rely on speculative 10-year projections to lock itself into vast, permanent commitments. None would adopt a budget knowing that it later would be ignored. In the real world, it just would not happen. People would get fired and creditors would just say no. I hope my colleagues will forgive my frustration with this process and substance of this budget resolution. Maybe that is the way it works around here, but I believe this budget is wrong for our Nation and wrong for our future. I suspect it will pass, but for me I think we are making a very serious mistake--a serious mistake with regard to priorities, a serious mistake in locking in on a plan that gives us very little flexibility down the road. Simply put, I hope that many of my colleagues will rethink their views, bring some flexibility to their own thinking and have a truly bipartisan approach to putting together this budget resolution. The Senator from North Dakota has done a terrific job of informing us. I appreciate his help. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today, there is much focus on the problems in our schools but, I would like to bring to your attention the students and citizens in the great State of New Jersey who are doing something to make our schools a better place to learn and grow. The Quest Program is an amazing group of 11- and 12-year-olds who are positively affecting the student body and facilities at Dr. John Howard Jr. Unique School of Excellence in East Orange, NJ. Noting the rise of suspensions and other discipline issues in their school, a group of 13 fourth and fifth graders gathered under the leadership of their teacher, Ms. Christine McAdams, and created the Quest Program. They developed this program to find ways to improve student behavior. Volunteering more than 400 hours toward the goal of bettering the student body, these young people established 14 enrichment programs through which students could positively direct their youthful energy and exuberance. These exceptional students even successfully bought property to expand their school playground by researching grant and funding opportunities in their community. The Quest Program placed first in New Jersey in the junior division of the Community Problem Solving Component of the International Future Problem Solving Program. The Dr. John Howard Community Problem Solving Team will represent New Jersey at the International Competition in Athens, Georgia this June. These 13 students are an excellent example of the creativity and dedication of which America's young people are capable. Joshua Baily, Sabre Burroughs, Teri Jones, Orion Khan, Kamiah Mitchell, Shanteea Moore, Chetachi Odelugo, Cory Patterson, Rubi Ramirez, Katiria Torres, Reymond Torres, John Wilson, and Minette Wilson are a credit to their families, their school, and the State of New Jersey. As a Senator who believes very strongly in the importance of education, I am exceptionally proud of these prodigious young people and their decision to spend their time and energy making their school a better place to learn. It is my hope that you will join me in wishing them good luck in June and in all of their future endeavors.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the importance of adopting legislation to expand and improve the Federal Government's commitment to education. In my view, there is no more important issue before the Congress than how we deal with education. As our economy becomes increasingly global, based on high technology, its future is increasingly dependent on the quality of our workforce. The better our educational system, the stronger our economy and our Nation will be. That is why as a nation we should make education our number-one priority. Let me begin by saying our current educational system, while it has many faults, does have real strengths. Today, throughout our Nation, dedicated teachers are working long, hard hours to educate our children. Often they get little public recognition and acknowledgment for their contributions. Almost always, they are paid much less than individuals educated similarly can earn in the private sector. I know because my mother was a teacher for 30 years, my wife for 7. We have an incredible commitment to teaching from folks across the country. We should start this debate on education by saying thank you to these teachers. They deserve our appreciation and our support. Of course, while our Nation is fortunate to have so many dedicated and selfless teachers, the fact remains our educational system still has serious problems. Too many of our schools are dilapidated, ill- equipped, and unsafe. During the recent recess I visited schools in Jersey City, NJ, that were 100 years old or older. There are still too many children in too many classes that are not up to the latest standards. Too few schools are at the cutting edge of new technologies and new approaches, and mediocrity continues to be tolerated in too many of our school systems, without the accountability necessary to improve performance. Some have suggested that local school boards should be left alone to solve these problems on their own. I disagree. I do support local control of education. It is fundamental in America. But local control does not mean much if you don't have adequate resources within your control. And it's not enough to leave the problem to states, which can pit urban areas against suburban communities--a fight with no winners. Common sense makes clear that a property-tax-based financial system for our public education leaves unequal education rampant in our society. No, if we are serious about education, we need to make it a national priority. We need to ensure that our national government plays an active and aggressive role, making sure every child has access to quality public education. Our public schools can not assure equal outcomes in life, but they should provide equal opportunity. I am optimistic that we can make that happen, and that we will soon pass a strong bill that addresses the most serious pressing issues facing education today. I thank Senator Jeffords, Senator Kennedy, and the many other leaders in the Senate for their tremendous bipartisan efforts to ensure we have an exceptional bill. These are true leaders, making sure our children come first. I want to do what I can to help ensure their efforts are rewarded with passage in the Senate. Today, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss some of the most important issues that I hope we will be addressing in the debate ahead. First, let me mention some of the areas in which I think most of us agree. For example, I think we all agree that we need to promote parental involvement in education. It is common sense. That means giving parents more information about their children's schools, and giving them increased options in choosing among public schools. That is the right thing to do, and I am glad these ideas have broad support. I am also glad that we generally agree about the value of promoting literacy. President Bush--and I compliment him for this--has proposed $1 billion annually for a reading first bill, and I applaud him for that. We need to make sure appropriations follow the authorization. We need to make sure we put our money where our mouth is, so we ensure that all children can read by the end of the third grade. Another area of broad agreement is the need to improve teacher quality. A good teacher is probably the most important single factor in the quality of a child's education. We can do everything else right, but if we do not have excellent teachers, the educational system just will not be top drawer. That is why it is critically important that we provide real resources to attract and retain quality teachers, and to help teachers develop their skills and create a career of teaching our children. Unfortunately, there is a lot of work to do in this area. Last year, schools in high poverty areas hired 50,000 unqualified teachers, and only 39 percent of teachers in these areas have an undergraduate major or minor in the primary field of instruction. That is not acceptable. And I am grateful that colleagues on both sides of the aisle seem to agree. Unfortunately while there is much about education with which we can all agree, there are also some areas of disagreement. I'm especially concerned about the need to reduce class sizes. In my view, it is abundantly clear that smaller classes are better for children, and we have made progress in recent years. But we have not gone far enough. That Jersey City school I visited, the average class size was 29--29 children. No one believes that is the right size to make sure that you have quality education going on in the classroom. It is abundantly clear that smaller classes are better for children and we have made some progress in recent years, but we have not gone far enough. The Bush administration in my view is walking away from the class size initiative. In my view, that's a serious mistake. I look forward to working with Senator Murray and my other colleagues to secure approval of an amendment to reduce class sizes later in the debate. We ought to move that down to 18 per class. I am also disappointed that the administration has failed to address one of the most compelling needs in education: the need to modernize our schools. Mr. President, 14 million children now attend schools that need major renovations, like fixed heating and plumbing systems. Nationwide, school construction needs total more than $127 billion. The problem is worse in our cities, where two-thirds of the schools-- serving 10 million students--report problems. In my State of New Jersey, 87 percent of schools report a need to upgrade or repair a building; one in six say that the effort will require between $1.7 million to $30 million. The average age of all New Jersey school buildings is 47 years, compared to the national average of 35 years. That is why in New Jersey, we have begun a $12 billion funding program to modernize our schools. I believe the Federal Government should be a partner in that effort. Despite the size of these needs, the Bush administration is proposing to eliminate virtually the entire school construction program that means higher taxes at the local level. That would be wrong. I look forward to working with my colleagues to protect the program, and increase our commitment to school modernization. We have heard a lot of rhetoric lately about the need to ensure that no child is left behind, and about the need for school reform. But, at least until now, Congress simply has been unwilling to put our money where our mouth is. Whether we do now may be the most important issue of all. There may be broad support for increased testing in our schools. But it does no good to diagnose a problem if you lack the resources to treat it. I have heard in the last few hours that even in the conference committee on the budget we have now dropped the Harkin amendment, putting $225 billion over 10 years into supporting our school system. This is a mistake. We need to put money where we want our priorities to be--and our children should be that. If we want to reform schools, we need to provide them with real resources. I would highlight, in particular, the title I program, which focuses funds on areas with the greatest needs. Title I can and should be the real engine for reform. Yet today we are meeting only one-third of related needs. And that is just not good enough. My own State struggles to cover the costs of implementing parity in education for the school children in our Abbott Districts--urban districts, the economically deprived. Especially given our historic surpluses, is not the time to leave behind the children from low-income families who need our help the most. I look forward to working with my colleagues to dramatically increase our commitment to the critical title I program. I also want to take a few moments to discuss an issue of particular interest to me: teaching students the basic principles of financial literacy. Unfortunately, when it comes to personal finances, young Americans do not have the skills they need. Too few understand the details of managing a checking account, for example, preparing tax returns or using a credit card. A recent survey by the non-profit JumpStart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy revealed the extent of this problem, finding that only 36 percent of surveyed high school students could correctly answer basic personal finance questions, and only 33 percent of students believed that financial issues strongly impacted their daily lives. In my view, it is time to make sure that our education system teaches our children all the skills they need, including the fundamental principles involved with earning, spending, saving, and investing. These skills will help them stay out of debt and maintain a good credit record, save money for the future, and negotiate an increasingly exceedingly complex financial system. I filed an amendment that would include financial education in S. 1, and I am very fortunate to have the support of my colleagues, Senators Enzi and Akaka. I am hopeful that, working together, we can ensure that our next generation is prepared to meet the challenges of the new economy. In conclusion, I again thank Senators Jeffords and Kennedy for their remarkable leadership on this legislation. I look forward to working with them and with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make a real commitment to education in the legislation before us. But we must put resources with reform. The stakes couldn't be higher because the future of our children and our Nation depends on it. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. CORZINE

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

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues a great man in the State of New Jersey, Reverend Dr. Kenneth L. Saunders, Sr. Reverend Saunders is a man of integrity who is committed to the spiritual, mental, social, civil and economic well-being of his congregation and residents of the City of Piscataway. Reverend Saunders has dedicated his life to public service. As Council President of the City of Piscataway, he insures that everyone has a voice. Reverend Saunders is also an outstanding advocate for children and their families. Reverend Saunders is a true American, who believes that all people should have access to America's Promise. He has the enviable gift of being able to bring people together to work for a common cause. Reverend Saunders is an unselfish man whose motivation is not self- gratification. He possesses a higher calling. This week, Reverend Saunders is celebrating 12 wonderful years of pastoral ministry at North Stelton A.M.E. Church in Piscataway. Under his unparalleled guidance, North Stelton A.M.E. Church has experienced enormous growth and is a warm congregation filled with joy and love. I want to also mention his wife, Mrs. Shirley Saunders and want you to know that they make an exceptional team. Her devotion to the community is very well-known, and the State of New Jersey is a better place because of the leadership of Reverend and Mrs. Kenneth L. Saunders, Sr. Lastly, I am a better man today because of my friendship with Reverend and Mrs. Saunders, and it is an honor for me to bring them to your attention.

Mr. CORZINE

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

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 350, the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation. This bill proves that environmental protection and economic development can go hand in hand, that we can take depressed, blighted areas, such as those in New Jersey with which we have worked, and make them vibrant and productive, and that we can do so in a cooperative, bipartisan manner. Hundreds of thousands of contaminated industrial sites lie underutilized or even abandoned across the country, largely because of the potential risk and expense of cleaning them up. New Jersey has more than 8,000 of these brownfields. When developers now look at these sites, they see a hornet's nest of problems. But when I look at them, I see opportunities. Many of these brownfields are located in economically depressed urban areas. Cleaning them up can spur economic development, create jobs, and bring in additional tax revenue. Of course, cleaning up brownfields does more than help the economy. It also protects the public health. In addition, by cleaning up sites in our urban areas, we redirect development away from our remaining open space and reduce many of the problems associated with sprawl. Unfortunately, despite the broad benefits of cleaning up brownfields, the private sector often finds it unattractive or unrealistic to take on the task. Nor is it always easy for States and local governments. That's why this legislation is so important. By providing needed funding and placing reasonable limits on developers' liability, it should encourage the development of many brownfields and the revitalization of depressed areas around our Nation and across the State of New Jersey. This legislation also represents an important compromise of Federal and State interests. It provides funding for grants to States to help them enhance and develop their own brownfields programs. It recognizes the important lead role that States play in dealing with brownfields, but it also retains the right of the Federal Government to intervene under certain circumstances to address serious threats that may arise. In general, I see this as a sound balance. We should be proud that we have been able to work this in a way that leads to a positive long-term result. I do point out, however, that this bill merely provides an authorization for funding in the future. It doesn't provide the funding itself. Often we talk about authorizations and take victory laps, but the appropriations process is important. That will be up to those in the appropriations process later on, and we'll all have to work hard to make sure that we can find real dollars to be placed against this real need. Along these lines, I was very disappointed that the Bush budget included only $98 million for brownfields redevelopment. That's far short of the $250 million authorized in this bill for fiscal year 2002. The Bush administration has said that it would support the bill, but their budget doesn't have the money to show this support. Congress will have to do better. Finally, I acknowledge the leadership of my predecessor, Senator Frank Lautenberg, who took the lead in the last Congress to develop this legislation. Senator Lautenberg for years has been a strong advocate of addressing brownfields. I am pleased that his efforts--and the efforts of staffer Lisa Haage, who now works for the Environment Committee--soon should bear fruit. I also want to thank Senators Smith, Reid, Chafee, and Boxer for their leadership and hard work in crafting and advancing this bipartisan legislation this year. This bill proves that bipartisanship can and will lead to positive results, particularly with regard to environmental legislation. I am hopeful that that spirit of cooperation will operate here in the Chamber. With that, I conclude my remarks and again urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORZINE

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

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about our environment, and the right of all American families to clean air, clean water, and a clean future for generations to come. Maintaining a clean and safe environment should not be a partisan issue. All of us live on the same planet. We all breathe the same air. We all drink the same water. When it comes to our global environment, we are one community. In fact, when Americans voted last November, they voted for two Presidential candidates who both professed a strong commitment to our global environment. Former Vice President Gore obviously made environmental protection a top priority. But President Bush also made several promises to improve environmental conditions. Unfortunately, as we celebrate Earth Day, Americans around the country are growing increasingly concerned that these environmental promises have not been kept. Instead, we have seen a series of actions that threaten to have significant and adverse effects on the quality of our air and water, and on the natural resources that our children and grandchildren will inherit. First, President Bush reneged on a campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Then he caused an embarrassment abroad by announcing the United States' withdrawal from an international initiative to address global warming. He went on to block new protections against arsenic in our drinking water, even though scientists have clearly found that Americans face unacceptably high cancer risks from arsenic in drinking water under existing standards. These actions are out of step, in my belief, with the American people. Certainly they are out of step with the people of New Jersey. Americans understand and reject the outdated notion that we need to sacrifice the environment in the name of the economy. Unfortunately, the attack on our environment continued in the President's budget, which would slash funding for EPA and natural resource programs by 15 percent over 10 years. This would significantly weaken our commitment to environmental protection in many ways. Consider, for example, the President's request for funding for water infrastructure funding. The President is reducing the funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and wastewater loan program by $450 million in this budget year. Yet more than 40 percent of our Nation's waters are not safe for fishing and swimming. In my own State of New Jersey, 85 percent of the water does not meet the quality standards of the Clean Water Act. I cannot and will not support a budget that will take us to even lower standards of protection. I also am concerned about the administration's proposal to cut funding for clean air programs at the EPA. More than 100 million Americans today breathe air that does not meet the standards of the Clean Air Act. Yet President Bush's budget cuts EPA's clean air programs by 6 percent next year, from $590 million to $564 million. This could have a serious impact, especially for those more vulnerable to dirty air: the young, the old, and the infirm. Just this week we saw new scientific evidence of the carcinogenic impact of breathing soot in our air. I know it will have an impact in my State where the air quality in 9 of our cities and countries is among the worst in the Nation. We need to move against this. While the cuts to programs like clean air and clean water may tend to get the most attention--and maybe they should--I am especially concerned about the cuts in the President's budget for EPA's enforcement operations--the so-called compassionate compliance. We can have lots of strong laws on the books to protect our environment, but if they're not enforced, they're worth little more than the paper they're written on. We in New Jersey have seen the consequences of underfunding enforcement. For example, our State reduced funding for our water pollution control enforcement program by 26 percent. I repeat, 85 percent of our waterways do not meet the clean water standards. That is a major reason why we continue to have such significant water quality problems in our State. We are not enforcing the rules that we have on the books. I hope we will not repeat this kind of mistake at the national level. The President's budget also underfunds initiatives to conserve energy and to develop clean energy technologies. Overall, the budget cuts for the Department of Energy are $700 million next year. This includes a $103 million cut in renewable energy research and development, and a $20 million cut in energy conservation programs. These cuts come at a time when our Nation is once again confronted with the need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and to develop a comprehensive energy policy. An energy policy that addresses this challenge should have renewables and energy conservation as centerpieces. Instead, this budget puts them on the chopping block. The President's budget also threatens our Nation's land and wildlife resources. It would weaken the protections of the Endangered Species Act, underfund land conservation initiatives, and generally weaken the Department of Interior's efforts to protect and preserve our Nation's great natural heritage, including our national parks. This will undermine numerous efforts by our States to fight the effects of sprawl and over-development, including the one spearheaded in my own State of New Jersey by our then-Governor, Christie Todd Whitman. She implemented a 100,000-acre open space initiative as Governor. I am concerned because in New Jersey the Sierra Club estimates that we are losing 10,000 acres of our dwindling open space a year. In New Jersey, these are real issues for us. We are the most densely populated State in the Nation. The budget goes beyond cuts in some cases; for example, it eliminates the popular Wetlands Reserve Program. This is a voluntary program that creates incentives for farmers to manage their lands as wetlands. Finally, the budget proposes to drill the pristine Arctic Refuge in Alaska at the expense of rare species and fragile ecosystems. Let me say that I would always prefer to give the President the benefit of the doubt. His actions, and the things he has to do, are difficult for everyone. But it is simply wrong to give big corporate interests such overwhelming influence in the development of environmental policies. The mining industry may do a lot of good, but it should not control policies over public lands. The oil and gas industries play important roles, but their short-term interests should not undermine the broader public interest in protecting our precious natural resources. We need a more balanced approach then we have been getting thus far in our discussion of the environment. It is a great disappointment to me and many of my constituents given how important the environment is to each of them and their families. I have certainly heard that as I have traveled across New Jersey in the weeks leading up to Earth Day. I hope we in the Congress will do what we can to help restore a balance to our Nation's environmental policy. I assure the people of New Jersey that I will continue to do all I can to resist efforts that would lead to dirtier water and dirtier air and erode our national heritage. The stakes are vital to our country and to my State. The American people deserve better. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. I ask unanimous consent further reading be dispensed with.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Nevada.

Mr. CORZINE. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment. The amendment will restore $50 billion in cuts included in the underlying resolution. The amendment will fund priority environmental and natural resource energy conservation programs--programs such as brownfield restoration, wildfire prevention, sewer and water infrastructure programs, energy conservation and efficiency programs, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. These restorations are offset by reduced tax cuts and administrative savings. The amendment also sets aside an additional $50 billion for debt reduction. I urge my colleagues to stand up for our legacy to future generations. I urge my colleagues to stand up for our environment and support the amendment. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. CORZINE. We will check those numbers.

Mr. CORZINE. It is $93.75 billion.

Mr. CORZINE. I agree with the Senator that a multi-faceted approach is necessary.

Mr. CORZINE. Yes, that is my intent.

Mr. CORZINE. Of course.

Mr. CORZINE. This uncertainty aside, we do know this undercuts a commitment the Congress made last year to support the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This blueprint cuts conservation initiatives by $2.7 billion. That is in the blueprint. Potentially most damaging, the Bush budget would undermine enforcement of our environmental laws. It would require deep cuts in the operating functions of our environmental agencies: the EPA, Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We just can't afford these cuts. If anything, we should be putting more resources into enforcement not less. Consider EPA's own data from just last month. They found that: Twenty-six percent of industrial facilities were in significant noncompliance with their clean air permits; Nearly 10 percent of industrial facilities were in significant noncompliance with their clear water permits; And 7 percent of industrial facilities were in significant noncompliance with their hazardous waste permits. When government lets polluters off the hook, all of us pay a price-- particularly those least able to protect themselves--our kids and seniors. The Bush administration has not been in office very long. But it has done a lot of damage and a lot of damage to our environmental laws. And it's time for them to reverse their course. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment I am offering today. It is really a very limited amendment. It simply would allow us to barely maintain funding for environmental programs at today's levels. Frankly, I think we should do substantially more. But I hope my colleagues can support at least this, because it is protection of where we are today. The message of this amendment is simple. It says that it's more important to keep our air and water clean than to give huge tax breaks to the very wealthiest Americans. And it's more important to address global warming than to give the top one percent of Americans a tax cut worth $55,000 a year. I think environmental priorities reflect the values of the American people. I think they're the right priorities for our nation and world. And I hope my colleagues will support the amendment and those values. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, this amendment would restore $50 billion of cuts built into the Republican resolution to environment, natural resources, and energy conservation programs. This means that environmental programs would be increased 4 percent in 2002. But keep in mind, this is the total. We are merely maintaining funding at the increase the President has requested for overall growth in discretionary spending this year. To offset these adjustments, the amendment would reduce administrative costs for fiscal year 2002 and reduce the size of the tax cuts in subsequent years. Further, the amendment would set aside an additional $50 billion for debt reduction. I believe protecting our environment deserves top priority. Yet in the past few months, we have seen the administration wage nothing less than an all-out attack on our environment. Three weeks ago, the administration pulled a complete 180-degree turn on a clear campaign pledge to address global warming through the regulation of carbon dioxide. They pushed back regulation designed to protect the public from arsenic in drinking water. They proposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And they refused to defend regulations designed to protect our national forests. Unfortunately, the Bush budget and this budget resolution continue this attack on our environment. The President's ``Budget Blueprint'' proposed a 15-percent cut in environmental and natural resource programs--15 percent. These cuts are a dramatic step backwards and would reverse much of the progress we have made on cleaning our air and water and protecting our Nation's natural resources. These cuts would contribute to the Nation's growing concern about sprawl and would weaken efforts to hold polluters accountable. These cuts have been especially serious in my State of New Jersey. I know I was sent here to fight to represent New Jersey's interests. Air quality in New Jersey is one of the worst--in six of our counties--in the Nation. We have 115 Superfund sites, 80 percent of our rivers and lakes and streams are unfishable and unswimmable. Unfortunately, while the President has not revealed all the specific cuts that will be included in his budget, we know that they are coming. We know they will be severe. Just today there is a report in the Wall Street Journal outlining leaked information about these prospective cuts. I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 257, which is currently at the desk. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, 10 minutes total, and I will yield time to other Senators.