Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. As many of my colleagues have expressed--and my remarks are not from the talking points of the People for the American Way--there are a few responsibilities of Senators that are more important than the review of judicial nominations. There are few things we will involve ourselves in on the floor of the Senate that actually will survive many of us in our careers in the Senate. The Constitution delegates us both the authority to advise the executive about possible nominations and the power to give or withhold consent. It is critical that we exercise these responsibilities seriously and with the utmost care. We need to be judicious. After all, judicial nominations are fundamentally different than nominations for executive branch appointments. Unlike the nominations of Cabinet officers, judges, ambassadors, they do not serve the President. They function in an entirely independent branch of Government, a branch with significant power to shape the actions and policies of the other two. As a consequence, there is far less reason to be deferential to a President's judicial nominations than executive branch nominations. A President deserves to have his own team, but when we are talking about the judiciary, we are talking about an independent branch of Government. Perhaps even more important, judges, unlike executive branch officials, have lifetime appointments. Once the Senate approves their nominations, there are few effective ways to hold them accountable for their decisions. Only in extraordinary circumstances--when a judge is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors--can the legislative branch recall a judge who does a bad job. That is why it is especially important that Senators assure themselves about the quality of a nominee and their philosophy before he or she is sent to the bench. This power should not be just a review of their biographical information or their academic credentials, their resume. It ought to be complete with regard to understanding their judicial philosophy and how they may approach their demeanor on the bench. Of course, while all judicial nominations deserve careful review, the particular nomination before us is unusually important. I think it is pretty clear that the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is widely acknowledged to be the most powerful appellate court in the Nation, below only the Supreme Court itself. Because it hears appeals for so many cases, involving Federal agencies, the work of Government, its decisions often have broad national impact. It regularly establishes rules with profound implications for workers' safety, consumer protection, civil rights, the environment, and on and on. And its decisions help determine the extent to which ordinary Americans are allowed to challenge the decisions of their Government or the judiciary. Moreover, the person who is ultimately selected to fill the current vacancy is likely to be a swing vote on the court. The fact is, there currently are eight active judges in place, who are often divided on a 4-4 split. So this individual will almost certainly have an enormous impact on the lives of millions of Americans and vital concerns to them, for better or worse. That, no doubt, is largely why the President and the majority of the Senate have made it such a high priority. And it is a high priority. That is why all Senators need to think long and hard before approving this or any nomination. Unfortunately, at this point, all of my colleagues face a serious problem in evaluating the nomination before us. We simply do not have enough information to do the job properly. At least that is my view. That is because this nominee has no record in public office, and basically has refused to provide us with information necessary to evaluate his judgment, fitness for appointment to the second highest court in the land. He has refused to answer many basic questions that were posed during the Senate Judiciary Committee review. And he has withheld examples of his work and thought in the past, things I think would be available to anyone who would be actually scrubbing down this nominee if he were in the executive branch. As a result, it is extremely difficult--frankly, impossible--for any Senator to evaluate his full set of views, his temperament, values, and method of analyzing legal issues, and his likely approach to the bench. Fundamental questions on issues before the Nation are at stake very regularly in this court with respect to affirmative action, Roe v. Wade, how our labor laws are interpreted, interpretation of the commerce clause, basic fundamental directions I think Senators should understand and at least have a little bit of perspective about on how this nominee might feel about it. Let me be clear, I recognize it is not appropriate to ask judicial nominees to say anything in the nomination process that would undermine their ability to judge particular cases in the future. They should not be asked to evaluate particular facts, nor to comment on specific legal issues likely to come before them, if confirmed. Nominees have a right and responsibility to exercise reasonable discretion throughout the nomination process. I respect that. I think my Senate colleagues do. That said, we still need to have an understanding of how one might approach generally the philosophy of being a judge, how one might look at the Constitution, their judicial temperament. All those kinds of things seem to be fair questions people ought to have some understanding of before someone is approved. While it is not appropriate to expect to comment on specific cases, it is entirely appropriate for nominees to answer general questions about their philosophy, their views and thoughts on broad types of legal issues. In fact, it is essential to do so. Otherwise, Senators, in my view, will be unable to exercise their own constitutional responsibilities to provide serious advice and consent in this process. By the way, this is fundamental. It is clearly a bipartisan viewpoint. It certainly was as we looked at the judicial appointment process under the previous administration. People wanted to understand what a candidate's judicial philosophy was and how issues might be framed in a general context as they went forward and looked at nominees forthcoming from the previous administration. Unfortunately, the nominee before us today--and I believe this is really the heart of the matter--has essentially refused to answer any of those relevant questions. He won't provide any information about his approach to the legal issues. He won't comment about any past cases. He won't give us even a clue about his judicial philosophy or his views on the way judges should handle their responsibilities. Instead, time after time, in his appearance before the Judiciary Committee, he simply refused to answer questions at all. Now, that does not mean there wasn't any testimony or there were no questions answered. I saw a big book raised up that has a transcript of the hearing, but when it got to the basic questions of judicial philosophy, temperament, and how one would approach issues, there were no answers to the questions. Nor has the administration been willing to share any of Mr. Estrada's work product during his service in the Solicitor General's Office--a refusal that is apparently not consistent with precedent, at least in a number of cases in recent history, Justice Bork's nomination being one of those cases. But there are a number of others as well. This is the kind of stonewalling, frankly, that I find unacceptable, and I think the American people would find unacceptable if they were focused on it. We, as Senators, must not tolerate it either. If this stealth and secretive approach to nominations is validated in this case, I am afraid all nominees in the future will adopt a similar ``secret strategy.'' It will not reveal anything, and so we will sort of play Russian roulette with how candidates will serve once they get to the bar. Senators will be asked to exercise their constitutional duties with little or no information. Frankly, being blindfolded as a Senator when you are considering such an important issue is not acceptable. Governing in the dark, governing in secret is most certainly contrary to the philosophy underlying our constitutional premises, and approving a nomination in such circumstances would represent a gross abdication of our responsibilities. In effect, we become nothing more than a rubberstamp. I hear there has been some argument about the rubberstamp concept. The distinguished Senator from Utah used that phrase when he was taking a different view about judicial philosophy for other candidates at another point in time and didn't appreciate it. I don't think we should at this point accept it and embrace it as our approach. We need to be a part of this process and understand more about the nominee. Remember the stakes that could well be involved in the pending nomination. Is the Senate really willing to put the fate of worker safety in the hands of someone we know so little about? What about the myriad of consumer protections or civil rights, environmental protections, and so on? Would any of my colleagues be willing to hire a legal counsel into their own staff, would any of us bring anybody into our own activities, as we represent the people from our States, without knowing at least something about their general approach to how they would deal with issues and how they approach their worklife? Who would do that? I don't know that anybody would do that in the private sector where I came from, and I doubt very seriously anybody would do that right here with their own staffs. That is true even though any of us can easily remove our own staffers if they fail to perform adequately. In the case of a judicial nomination, by contrast, we are talking about a lifetime appointment over which we will have no control once confirmation is in place. Let me ask my colleagues this: Do we really think the White House and the Justice Department nominated Mr. Estrada without knowing his views and approach to the law? Do we really think the same kinds of questions we would expect to ask ourselves, maybe of our own employees or someone who was giving us legal advice, don't we think that process was followed by the Justice Department and the White House? Once again, if that didn't happen, I would be disappointed. I would think the executive branch would not be following its responsibilities. I doubt anyone would take on someone with a lifetime appointment in a most serious position without understanding where they stood philosophically, temperament-wise, and with regard to how they view the law. Beyond the constitutional issue, which by a wide margin is the most important, I would like to take a moment to respond to some claims that have been made by supporters of the nomination during the course of the debate. I am actually a little bit offended by it. First, some of the supporters of Mr. Estrada have suggested those opposed to the nomination somehow are obstructing the process of filling vacancies on the Federal bench. This is a ridiculous statement on its face. During the last 17 months of the last Congress, under Democratic leadership, the Senate confirmed 100 of President Bush's judicial nominees. In fact, under Democratic leadership, the Senate worked at a rate almost twice the average during the preceding years when a Republican-led Senate repeatedly blocked the nominees of a Democratic President. I can tell you in my own experience in New Jersey, we had four openings on the district court. We worked very carefully and thoughtfully and cooperatively with the administration to fill those vacancies with a diverse set of candidates, quite broad based. And we are now working very cooperatively to try to fill a circuit court judgeship in the same way that is now being debated with regard to the district court in Washington, DC. This is not something where cooperation is lacking. Over and over and over again people are prepared to reach out even when people have different judicial philosophies and work together. I am not suggesting Democrats should block nominations in some sort of a tit for tat. In fact, we have not. I don't agree with that approach. I don't think it would be appropriate. But it is wrong and unfair for others to argue we are being obstructionist just because we refuse to serve as rubberstamps. I don't plan on being one. I was not elected to be a rubberstamp. Let's remember, Senator Schumer has pointed out so eloquently that in the case of judicial nominations, the burden of proof does not lie with the Senate or those opposed to a nomination. The burden appropriately rests with the nominee himself or herself and the President who made the nomination. It is their affirmative obligation to convince the Senate of a nominee's suitability. It is clear in this case Mr. Estrada and the administration have not met this obligation. To the contrary, they have tried to say as little as possible about Mr. Estrada and his views. Again, we have a stealthy, secretive nomination process going on, and it is inconsistent with what our responsibilities are. It degrades the integrity of our role as Senators in the confirmation process. Unfortunately, others in this body have also gone so far as to say that opposition to Mr. Estrada's nomination has been based on an ethnic background. I heard that just recently. It has even been suggested that opponents of the nomination are intent on keeping Hispanics off the court and opposition is disrespectful to our Hispanic citizens. Let's get real. These kinds of attacks are outrageous, part of an attempt to intimidate those opposed to the Estrada nomination. Frankly, they just don't represent the kind of debate we should be having in the Senate, and they won't work. After all, most major national organizations that exist to represent the Hispanic community are actively opposing this nomination. I know this from actual dialog, not from some lobbying organization that represents a particular judicial philosophy. I hear it from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, hardly an anti-Hispanic organization. I hear it from the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials; again, hardly an anti-Hispanic organization; Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund--I could go on and on--National Puerto Rican Coalition; Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. None of these organizations are anti- Hispanic. By the way, those of us on this side of the aisle who are trying to express a principle with regard to the Constitution are not, either. To have any kind of implication that we are is over the top. When virtually every credible Hispanic group opposes this nomination, it simply does not pass the laugh test to argue otherwise. The claim is ridiculous. It is similarly preposterous to claim the Democratic Party is anti- Hispanic. Of the 10 Hispanic appellate judges currently seated in the Federal courts, eight were appointed by President Clinton. Three of President Clinton's first 14 judicial nominees were Hispanic, and he nominated more than 30 Hispanic men and women to Federal courts. Let's contrast that record to that of our friends from the other side of the aisle. First, let's look at the Bush administration record. Of the 42 vacancies that existed in the 13 circuit courts of appeal during President Bush's tenure, the President has nominated only two Hispanics. That is 42 vacancies, two Hispanics. Now let's look at the record of Republicans in the Congress. During President Clinton's tenure, 10 of the more than 30 Hispanic nominees were delayed or blocked from receiving hearings or votes, and many highly qualified Hispanic nominees were delayed for extended periods of time. Take Richard Paez, for example. He was a highly qualified candidate, well respected in his profession, yet his confirmation was delayed for more than 1,500 days--1,500 days and we are complaining about 500 here. And 39 Republican Senators voted against him then. In sum, the other party doesn't have a strong record when it comes to promoting this. I think it is hard to put it into a framework that somehow or another this campaign is anti-Hispanic. Speaking for myself, I strongly believe in promoting diversity on the Federal bench. I was proud to join my colleagues who spoke about the efforts of working together with the White House and actively supporting the nomination of Jose Linares to the district court last year. Mr. Linares, a first-generation American born in Cuba, has been a leader in the Hispanic community in my State for many years, serving as president of the New Jersey Hispanic Bar Association and representing many clients of Hispanic origin while operating in private practice. Mr. Linares is just one example of my continued dedication, and I believe most of us in the Senate on both sides of the aisle, to promoting diversity on the Federal bench. While I strongly believe in the value of promoting diversity and increased Hispanic representation in the judiciary, that doesn't mean the Senate should be rubberstamping any and every Hispanic nomination. In this case, we have a nominee who has consistently refused to answer any substantive questions regarding judicial philosophy, has no judicial experience, and is actively opposed by most of the mainstream organizations that represent the Hispanic community. I hope my colleagues will remember what is at stake here. This is not just another vacancy on a single court. This debate, ultimately, is about our responsibilities as Senators. The question is whether we are going to become nothing more than that proverbial rubberstamp, abandoning our duty of advice and consent on judicial nominations. The question is whether we are going to start approving nominees about whose philosophies we know virtually nothing; whether we are going to vote like a gambler, blindly spinning a wheel of chance and hoping for the best. I don't think the American people want that. I know the folks in New Jersey don't want that kind of attitude out of their Senator. I, for one, hope that the Senate will live up to our constitutional duties and that Senators will embrace the responsibilities entrusted to us by the people who elected us. That is why we are here: To ask those questions, to be diligent, thorough, and judicious, and to make sure we have an impartial judiciary after we go through the process. I hope enough of my colleagues will have the strength to stand up to the demagogic attacks coming from many proponents and supporters of this nomination. I hope some of those on the other side will reconsider their approach. Speaking for myself, this is one Senator who cannot and will not face down under these irresponsible attacks. This is one Senator who will not abandon his sense of responsibility to our Constitution. I simply cannot, in good conscience, support this nomination as it stands today without the information being provided that is necessary to understand the context of the nominee. I would very much like to see a more diverse court, and I will work to make sure it happens. But I will not put my seal of approval on an individual who has basically challenged the nomination process in refusing to answer the kinds of questions that would allow me to have the assurance, when I speak to the people of New Jersey, that I understand how someone with a lifetime appointment might think about some of the most important issues that impact their lives in the days and years and decades ahead, particularly for a 43-year-old nominee. I do not intend to be a rubberstamp. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am honored and pleased to introduce legislation today that Senator Kennedy and I introduced with Senator Wellstone in the 107th Congress. Today, Senator Kennedy and I reintroduce the Chance to Succeed Act, legislation that will give TANF recipients with barriers to employment the tools they need to address these issues and move into employment. Studies show that between 44 and 64 percent of TANF recipients have multiple barriers to employment. These barriers range from mental health issues and substance abuse problems to learning disabilities, limited English proficiency and homelessness. We must assist TANF families in meeting their work and parenting obligations, while at the same time addressing the multiple barriers undermining their economic security. The Chance to Succeed Act encourages states to better serve the needs of TANF recipients with barriers to employment by giving States broad flexibility to place TANF recipients in barrier-removal activities and count recipients participating in such activities toward Federal work participation rates for at least six months. In addition to providing families the time they need to seek services, the legislation would assist States in developing a screening, assessment and service delivery system. This includes providing funding for State-level advisory panels to improve state policies and procedures for assisting families with barriers to work. Additionally, under the Chance to Succeed Act, States would create personal responsibility plans, a proposal endorsed by the Senate Finance Committee in the 107th Congress, that outline an employment goal for moving an individual into stable employment, the obligations of the individual to work toward becoming and remaining employed in the private sector, the individual's long-term career goals and the specific work experience, education, or training needed to reach them, and the services the State will offer based on screening and assessment. Finally, the Chance to Succeed Act would bar States from inappropriately sanctioning families with barriers to work. As many as one-half of parents who were sanctioned off of welfare for failure to comply with state welfare rules, were unable to comply because of their disability, health condition or illness. Under this legislation, states would be prohibited from imposing sanctions on individuals for whom the appropriate screening, assessment, or services are unavailable. Some States, including New Jersey, have already taken many of these steps, however, they have done so at their own expense. Last November, New Jersey granted an extension of benefits to 900 TANF recipients whose benefits were about to expire. Most of these families are too sick or disabled to work. Rather than forcing them off assistance, the state has recognized that these recipients need help. The Chance to Succeed Act will help states like New Jersey to identify these recipients and provide them supportive services to give them the tools they need to live independently. Ultimately, this will help states move this hard-to-serve group one step closer to self-sufficiency. Simply ignoring the needs of these families and sanctioning them off assistance will neither help them achieve independence, nor will it reduce their burden on the states or federal government. Thank you, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am honored and pleased to introduce legislation today that Senator Kennedy and I introduced with Senator Wellstone in the 107th Congress. Today, Senator Kennedy and I reintroduce the Chance to Succeed Act, legislation that will give TANF recipients with barriers to employment the tools they need to address these issues and move into employment. Studies show that between 44 and 64 percent of TANF recipients have multiple barriers to employment. These barriers range from mental health issues and substance abuse problems to learning disabilities, limited English proficiency and homelessness. We must assist TANF families in meeting their work and parenting obligations, while at the same time addressing the multiple barriers undermining their economic security. The Chance to Succeed Act encourages states to better serve the needs of TANF recipients with barriers to employment by giving States broad flexibility to place TANF recipients in barrier-removal activities and count recipients participating in such activities toward Federal work participation rates for at least six months. In addition to providing families the time they need to seek services, the legislation would assist States in developing a screening, assessment and service delivery system. This includes providing funding for State-level advisory panels to improve state policies and procedures for assisting families with barriers to work. Additionally, under the Chance to Succeed Act, States would create personal responsibility plans, a proposal endorsed by the Senate Finance Committee in the 107th Congress, that outline an employment goal for moving an individual into stable employment, the obligations of the individual to work toward becoming and remaining employed in the private sector, the individual's long-term career goals and the specific work experience, education, or training needed to reach them, and the services the State will offer based on screening and assessment. Finally, the Chance to Succeed Act would bar States from inappropriately sanctioning families with barriers to work. As many as one-half of parents who were sanctioned off of welfare for failure to comply with state welfare rules, were unable to comply because of their disability, health condition or illness. Under this legislation, states would be prohibited from imposing sanctions on individuals for whom the appropriate screening, assessment, or services are unavailable. Some States, including New Jersey, have already taken many of these steps, however, they have done so at their own expense. Last November, New Jersey granted an extension of benefits to 900 TANF recipients whose benefits were about to expire. Most of these families are too sick or disabled to work. Rather than forcing them off assistance, the state has recognized that these recipients need help. The Chance to Succeed Act will help states like New Jersey to identify these recipients and provide them supportive services to give them the tools they need to live independently. Ultimately, this will help states move this hard-to-serve group one step closer to self-sufficiency. Simply ignoring the needs of these families and sanctioning them off assistance will neither help them achieve independence, nor will it reduce their burden on the states or federal government. Thank you, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I will speak a little bit on part of the main topic the President talked about last night, where we heard President Bush eloquently address America's challenging agenda--an agenda of war and peace, of health care, and the American economy. In fact, as it relates to the economy, he said our first goal is clear, that we must have an economy that grows fast enough to employ every man and woman who seeks a job. He suggested that we work to have a prosperity that is broadly shared. I am certain his rhetoric resonated well with the American people. It sounds good. Today, I want to talk not about the rhetoric of the President's address but of the reality of the policies that have both been implemented and the purposes and possibilities of the policies he has laid on the table, which he suggests would turn our economy around and meet those lofty objectives. Let me be clear in my own view. There is a huge gap between the rhetoric and the reality of the President's economic stewardship and certainly with respect to the policies and proposals laid on the table. Let me begin by saying I am glad the President seems to finally recognize that our economy has problems. You will recall that the Vice President, only 2 weeks ago, was arguing at the National Press Club and at the Chamber of Commerce that the President's economic policies were succeeding. In this particular case, we will take the President's analysis because I think there is a need to get job growth and economic momentum back into our economy. I am afraid he really doesn't appreciate the depth of the problems we have in our overall economy and the compelling need to take effective and strong action now. Since March 2001, 2.4 million Americans have lost their private sector jobs. That is a lot of folks. The unemployment rate stands at 6 percent, which is the highest it has been in 8 years. Mortgage foreclosures are at record highs. The stock market has declined dramatically in the past 2 years, losing about $5 trillion in value--a significant amount of value. Consumer confidence has been seriously undermined. In fact, yesterday we had an announcement that the consumer confidence level is at its lowest in 9 years. By the way, that is lower than in the 2 months that followed September 11. Demand has declined to such an extent in American business that businesses are operating at about 75 percent of operating capacity--well below the mid-1980s, which is on average. We have had 2 years of declining business investment. Our current account deficit is exploding--it is at record highs--and our Federal deficit is growing, with little improvement in sight for years. I think all of us know that as recently as 2 years ago, we were talking about projections of a $5.5 trillion surplus for America. Today, projections over the next decade have us anywhere from $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion in deficits. I think we have some serious issues today. CBO announced they project a $200 billion deficit for this current fiscal year, and that is before tax cuts and any changes; and those estimates are based on our activities in the Middle East and a war on Iraq. I could go on. But, in short, we have serious economic problems and we need a serious and effective economic stimulus program, something that will really deal with the soaring rhetoric the President talked about to make sure every man and woman who seeks a job can have one and make sure prosperity is broadly shared in the American economy. I don't think the prescriptions on the table do the job, frankly. I will try to talk about it in specifics. In many ways, I think some of the President's suggestions are actually antigrowth. The President's rhetoric would lead one to think his plan would provide a stimulus. But the reality is very different. Look at some of the facts. Only $36 billion of the plan's $675 billion in total tax cuts would kick in this year. By the way, that $675 billion--if you add the interest, it would be $950 billion in the decade, and if you take the acceleration of the tax cuts that the President also has proposed, the cost to the Federal Treasury would be about $1.5 trillion--a relatively serious amount of money. The $36 billion the President is targeting for fiscal year 2003 is a mere drop in the bucket. It is not even half of 1 percent of GDP. I do not read anywhere or hear in broad discussions from the Congress that this is going to do much of anything with regard to stimulating growth today and creating jobs today. The right and the left--it is almost universal--talk about growth packages as opposed to stimulus packages because it is such an insignificant amount of input into the current economy. In fact, the President's plan, in my view, actually could do real harm in the short run. Its proposed dividend exclusion will encourage corporations to do something that is negative with regard to growing the economy. It will shift cash off the corporate balance sheet, away from investments, away from employment into dividend payments. It may be nice for the people who receive it, the very narrow segment of folks who actually will receive dividend payments, but it reduces the capacity of business to do anything. Taking cash off the balance sheet is the opposite of what we want to be doing if we are trying to stimulate the economy. Accelerated depreciation puts cash on the balance sheets. It lets business retain value of cash. It is hard for me to understand why anyone thinks that is a stimulus program. In fact, as I suggest, it may actually be antigrowth. We cannot spend a dollar twice, so for each dollar distributed as dividends, companies will have one less dollar to invest in plant and equipment, one less dollar to plow into research and development, one less dollar to hire or retain personnel. The end result will be lower investment and fewer jobs in the short run. By the way, it takes a long time for those dividends to work their way back into the job growth and economic expansion that all of us would like to see. Another point I believe is very important within the context of the view that this proposal is antigrowth, the President's plan does absolutely nothing to help our State and local governments which are suffering severe fiscal crises throughout our country. The estimates are that it is a cumulative $90 billion deficit for States. That is before the local governments. That is much larger than that $36 billion we are going to put into the economy. Back home, our State governments are raising taxes and cutting services $90 billion while we are putting $36 billion into the economy. I do not see how that relates to stimulating growth, and it fits pretty clearly into a commonsensical analysis to say we are not on the right track to get this economy moving again. New York City, New Jersey's neighbor, is having to raise property taxes 18 percent. In my State, property taxes have been raised 7 percent. Everywhere I go across the country, State and local governments are raising property taxes to offset those very actions we are trying to take to stimulate the economy in Washington. I do not understand why we are not thinking about this in a more holistic and comprehensive approach. These cuts in services and rises in taxes are going to create more economic problems and lead to almost an antigrowth policy if we implement it as it now stands. The Federal Government needs to be a partner in this process. By the way, in the long run, there are even more serious problems if there is no help to the States. Dividend exclusion is actually going to create an investment instrument that will compete with how State and local governments borrow in the tax-exempt market. It is going to increase the borrowing costs, that is at the same time we are laying down new mandates with regard to homeland security and education--Leave No Child Behind--where we are underfunding the mandates we promised we would bring to bear, and I think we are putting our State and local communities in a financial vise that is actually going to offset a lot of what we are trying to accomplish in Washington, regardless of how one feels about specific elements of the program. All these reasons--the very small amount of stimulus for 2003, its incentives to take cash off the balance sheets, which is incomprehensible, in my view, and its failure to help States--make this plan one that is failed on arrival, even if it is not dead on arrival, and I certainly believe it is misguided. Again, the President's rhetoric sounds good. We are all for making sure every man and woman has a job, but I think the reality of the program is substantially different and should be evaluated accordingly. Let's take a look at another part of the rhetoric of the speech last night: The claim that somehow this plan would benefit ordinary middle- class families and create a broad-based prosperity. I feel strongly that it is not particularly an effective macroeconomic stimulus program, but I think there is a big gap in rhetoric and reality with regard to where the money goes. We talk about averages as opposed to means. There is a general agreement among economists that people with low or moderate incomes are more likely to spend; they have a higher propensity of consumption for tax cuts than people with higher incomes. This is a matter of general economic policy. Any stimulus plan ought to focus--if you are really trying to stimulate the economy--largely on tax cuts for middle- and lower-income families. The Bush plan does exactly the opposite. Over the next 10 years, those with annual incomes of more than $1 million will get a tax break worth almost $90,000 a year. That is $900,000 over 10 years. Yet some middle-class families with incomes--by the way, middle class in New Jersey might very well fall into this category--$75,000 to $100,000 would get only about 2 percent of that tax break, about $1,800 annually or $18,000 over the 10 years. Consider people making between $30,000 and $40,000, which is closer to the $27,000 median income for the U.S. as a whole, and that would be $350 from the Bush plan. We are looking at different segments of income earners and seeing what this actually means, and that is about four-tenths of 1 percent of the benefits going to $1 million earners. It certainly does not jibe with trying to put the stimulus into the pockets of people who will turn around and spend it to stimulate the economy. This is a hard sell. Consider the 25 million taxpayers who reported adjusted gross income of less than $10,000. These are people worrying how they are going to put food on the table. They are 20 percent of all taxpayers, if you consider payroll taxes. What will they get? They will get a grand total of $5 a year. Let's review: $90,000 a year for people over $1 million, $1,800 for those with incomes of between $75,000 and $100,000, $350 for those with incomes between $30,000 and $40,000, and $5 a year for 20 percent of taxpayers below $10,000 adjusted gross income. I don't know, it does not sound to me we are going to put money in the hands of people who will spend it. This is not class warfare, it is how we are going to get an effective, efficient stimulus program; how do we get this turned around so the economy is growing. Businesses are taking inventories off the shelf and restarting their businesses to restimulate those inventory growths. We need to go back to the principle of the President, which is we want to promote prosperity for all Americans, and to do that, we ought to make sure that a program works. I am not against people doing well in our economy. As a matter of fact, we made more millionaires in the 1990s with an entirely different proposal with regard to taxes and structure with regard to taxes than at any time in the history of America. Rising tides do lift all boats, and I think it is important that when we are thinking about our tax policy, we talk about how do we grow the total economy. I think this program is focused in an upside down way completely ignoring payroll taxes, State, local, sales and property taxes, and the distribution of all of those taxes together on all these individuals, and we are getting too much of it going in one particular area. The next type of Presidential rhetoric I want to address is in the administration's claim that the President's plan benefits seniors. The reality is very different. There are 37 million seniors. I think most people would agree with that number. Yet only about one-fourth of them, less than 10 million, receive dividends, according to the President. So 75 percent, or 27 million, of America's seniors will get absolutely nothing from the President's dividend exclusion. Moreover, only a small fraction of the wealthiest seniors would enjoy most of the benefits. Nearly 40 percent of the dividend tax cut for seniors would flow to those filers with incomes exceeding $200,000. That may be a high concentration of seniors in a lot of States, but I do not know too many seniors in New Jersey, 65 years and older, who have $200,000 incomes. That is a mere 2.5 percent of the tax returns filed by senior citizens. They get 40 percent of that so-called 10 million seniors benefiting from the dividend exclusion. It is less than 500,000 of the 37 million seniors that we are talking about. It can be cut and sliced in other ways, but we are talking about a very narrow segment of seniors in America getting the benefit from the dividend exclusion. It is great rhetoric to claim that seniors will benefit, but the reality is it is a very small number relative to those who are doing well and have a great deal of wealth. More fundamentally, the truth is this plan will dramatically increase Federal deficits in the long term, and the problem with that is, how are we going to continue to sustain our Social Security programs and our Medicare programs if we are running serious deficits and they are going to explode as the baby boomers retire in the outyears. So if one wants to put all of these programs together, as we talk about seniors, I think we have a real gap between the rhetoric and the reality of who is going to benefit and how this is going to benefit our economy. I have some other examples with regard to small business. With most of the numbers we hear talked about, the rhetoric does not match the reality. I think there are a whole series of flaws with regard to that. I would love to see us go back on a bipartisan basis and talk about an immediate, temporary and substantial stimulus program more fairly distributed across the breadth of America, as suggested in the President's opening remarks last night as he talked about the economy. I think we could all benefit. If there is growth in the economy, our deficits will be reduced. We will have greater resources to take care of the needs in this Nation. It is hard to understand, at a time when we are talking about going to war, when we are trying to ask people to sacrifice, that we have such an economic program so focused on those already doing well and doing so little to stimulate the economy. If one reviews almost all of the economic literature and commentary, a lot of it from business, they will find many of the views are that this program has grave weaknesses as far as the stimulus program and needs to be rethought. I hope we can stand back, work together, make a serious effort to come together to produce an effective, efficient, bang-for-your-buck stimulus program, and get on with meeting those high-minded objectives that were part of the rhetoric. The quality of life for millions of Americans depends on our success and being able to come up with that integrated, cooperative, and bipartisan approach. There are a number of great ideas on the table. I hope we can sit down and work together to make that happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Lautenberg, I am introducing legislation, the Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area Act, to establish the Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area in the State of New Jersey. I am proud to be joining my New Jersey colleagues, Representatives Rodney Frelinghuysen and Rush Holt, who are introducing this legislation in the House of Representatives, with the support of the entire New Jersey delegation. This legislation recognizes the critical role that New Jersey played during the American Revolution. In fact, New Jersey was the site of nearly 300 military engagements that helped determine the course of our history as a Nation. Many of these locations, like the site where George Washington made his historic crossing of the Delaware River, are well known and preserved. Others, such as the Monmouth Battlefield State Park in Manalapan and Freehold, and New Bridge Landing in River Edge, are less well known and are threatened by development or in critical need of funding for rehabilitation. To help preserve New Jersey's Revolutionary War sites, this legislation would establish a Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area, linking about 250 sites in 15 counties. This designation would authorize $10 million to assist preservation, recreational and educational efforts by the State, county and local governments as well as private cultural and tourism groups. The program would be managed by the non-profit Crossroads of the American Revolution Association. Simply put, we are the Nation that we are today because of the critical events that occurred in New Jersey during the American Revolution and the many who died fighting there. By enacting the Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area Act of 2002, we will pay tribute to the patriots who fought and died in New Jersey so that we might become a Nation free from tyranny. In the 107th Congress, I was proud to see the Senate approve this legislation as part of a bipartisan package of heritage area bills. Unfortunately, the bill was not approved in the House of Representatives. I will work even harder in the 108th Congress to see that this important legislation passes both houses and goes to the President's desk for his signature. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Lautenberg, I am introducing legislation, the Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area Act, to establish the Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area in the State of New Jersey. I am proud to be joining my New Jersey colleagues, Representatives Rodney Frelinghuysen and Rush Holt, who are introducing this legislation in the House of Representatives, with the support of the entire New Jersey delegation. This legislation recognizes the critical role that New Jersey played during the American Revolution. In fact, New Jersey was the site of nearly 300 military engagements that helped determine the course of our history as a Nation. Many of these locations, like the site where George Washington made his historic crossing of the Delaware River, are well known and preserved. Others, such as the Monmouth Battlefield State Park in Manalapan and Freehold, and New Bridge Landing in River Edge, are less well known and are threatened by development or in critical need of funding for rehabilitation. To help preserve New Jersey's Revolutionary War sites, this legislation would establish a Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area, linking about 250 sites in 15 counties. This designation would authorize $10 million to assist preservation, recreational and educational efforts by the State, county and local governments as well as private cultural and tourism groups. The program would be managed by the non-profit Crossroads of the American Revolution Association. Simply put, we are the Nation that we are today because of the critical events that occurred in New Jersey during the American Revolution and the many who died fighting there. By enacting the Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area Act of 2002, we will pay tribute to the patriots who fought and died in New Jersey so that we might become a Nation free from tyranny. In the 107th Congress, I was proud to see the Senate approve this legislation as part of a bipartisan package of heritage area bills. Unfortunately, the bill was not approved in the House of Representatives. I will work even harder in the 108th Congress to see that this important legislation passes both houses and goes to the President's desk for his signature. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

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

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, this past November, after extensive discussions, the Congress authorized the establishment of a commission to investigate the event surrounding the September 11 terrorist attacks. This commission should play a critically important role by allowing us to better understand the events surrounding this national tragedy and to better prepare against the threats of similar attacks in the future. The commission's work is also essential for the thousands of families who lost loved ones on September 11, and who want better information about what happened on that fateful day, and who want to ensure that all those responsible are held accountable. These families have suffered tremendous losses and they deserve our support. I am very concerned, however, that the commission may lack the resources need to do the job right. So far, in defense appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2003, Congress has appropriated only $3 million for the commission. From all indications, this is grossly inadequate. And if we fail to supplement this with additional funding, we would not only be disgracing the memory of the victims of September 11, but we could be jeopardizing the future safety of all Americans. Mr. President, in recent days, my staff and I have discussed the operation of this important investigatory commission with several of the appointed commissioners, both Democrats and Republicans. They have explained that the $3 million appropriated so far appears woefully insufficient to meet the commission's anticipated needs this fiscal year. in fact, actual needs for FY2003 probably will exceed $6 million--more than twice the amount approved by the Congress. Mr. President, the responsibilities of the September 11 commission are much broader than the other commissions and it is simply unreasonable to expect the commission to function effectively with only $3 million. After all, that's a $2 million less than the funding received by a 1996 commission to look into the issues surrounding legalized gambling. Think about that: $5 million to study gambling, $3 million to study the worst terrorist attack in the history of this country. That simply does not make sense. Mr. President, it is important to remember that this commission has responsibilities and requirements that go far beyond those of any other commission in U.S. history. There are unique and expensive logistical requirements, including the hiring of expert staff with high-level security clearances. The commission must secure real estate appropriate for top secret discussions, and provide high-level security of its employees and its information systems. In order to complete the work of this important commission thoroughly and on time, more resources will be needed during this fiscal year, and in the future. Mr. President, I am hopeful that if the Congress considers a supplemental appropriations bill later this year, that legislation will include needed additional resources for the commission. In fact, I had prepared an amendment to this bill to increase funding for the commission by $3 million. However, after a conversation with Governor Tom Kean, chair of the commission, I have decided not to introduce my amendment at this time. Rather, I will wait until a formal budget is drawn up by the commission. I want to assure my colleagues, however, that I will not stop fighting for increased funding for the commission until I am convinced that the September 11 commission has received the funding that it needs to investigate the worst attack on American soil in our history. This matter is simply too important to do anything less.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Will my colleague from New Jersey yield?

Mr. CORZINE. I just want to reinforce and reemphasize how important this is in our State of New Jersey with the 113 sites. By the way, there is an increasing sense--scientific sense, data sense--that we are having a high incidence of cancer in areas that surround these sites. This is a health problem. It really is something that needs to be addressed. I think my colleague from New Jersey is doing exactly the right thing to bring this issue forward.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment along with Senator Clinton that would prevent the Immigration and Naturalization Service from deporting the spouses of children of the victims of the September 11 attacks. This simple legislation would allow some 300 people who are still grieving the loss of their loved ones to remain in the United States to sort out their affairs. The Patriot Act responsibly included a provision that allowed nonimmigrant survivors of victims of the September 11 attacks to remain in the United States until September 11, 2002. That length of time, however, was not sufficient for those families to sort out their affairs before returning to their countries of origin. I remain steadfast in my belief that these families should be permitted to stay in the United States indefinitely as legal permanent residents. I intend to raise that issue in the future. This amendment, however, is crafted narrowly as a stopgap humanitarian response to the everyday challenges these families face before being able to return to their native countries. Tough in mourning for well over a year, many widows and children have not recovered the remains of their loved ones. Instead, they are awaiting DNA analyses of the samples collected from the attack site. The children of these widows and widowers are enrolled in American schools. In fact, some are native-born American citizens and would have to return to a country they don't know or face the prospect of separating from their one surviving parent. The great majority of these families is still awaiting awards from the victims' compensation fund. They have homes that will need to be sold and other unfamiliar financial matters to settle before returning to their native countries. And many are participating in support groups with other survivors, groups that simply will not exist in their birth country. It would be inhumane to deport them at this time. This amendment will provide these brave families with additional time to attend to their affairs and undertake the unenviable task of dismantling their lives in the United States. I urge my colleagues to support this simple but important legislation.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that represents an important step towards the goal of addressing the threats posed by global climate change. I am pleased to be joined on this bill by Senator Jeffords and Senator Lieberman. They were cosponsors of this legislation in the 107th Congress, they are recognized environmental leaders in the Senate, and are long-standing, outspoken advocates for taking action to mitigate climate change. I appreciate their help in introducing this legislation today. Climate change is a complex issue. Scientifically. Economically. Politically. But complexity is no excuse for inattention or inaction. Because the health and viability of the global ecosystems upon which we all depend are at stake. And the time to act is now. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its Third Assessment Report. That report shows that climate change science is increasingly clear and alarming. We know that human activities, primarily fossil fuel combustion, have raised the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to the highest levels in the last 420,000 years. We know that the planet is warming, and that the balance of the scientific evidence suggests that most of the recent warming can be attributed to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. We know that without concerted action by the U.S. and other countries, greenhouse gases will continue to increase. These findings were echoed by a National Academy Sciences report published later in 2001, which concluded that: ``Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. . . . ``Despite the uncertainties, there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years.'' Climate science and climate modeling have improved. These models predict warming under all scenarios that have been considered. Even the smallest warming predicted by current models, 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century, would represent the greatest rate of increase in global mean surface temperature in the last 10,000 years. If these trends continue, the results may be devastating. People in my State of New Jersey treasure their Jersey Shore. With the exception of the 50 mile northern border with New York, New Jersey is surrounded by water. The State's Atlantic coastline stretches 127 miles. Fourteen of 21 counties have estuarine or marine shorelines. Rising sea level is already having adverse impacts, by exacerbating coastal erosion, and causing inundation, flooding, and saline intrusions into ground water. The NJ coastal area also supports one of New Jersey's largest industries, tourism. Sea level is rising more rapidly along the US coast than worldwide. Studies by EPA and others have estimated that along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, a one-foot rise in the sea level is likely by 2050 and could occur as soon as 2025. In the next century, a two-foot rise is most likely but a four-foot rise is possible. The implications for New Jersey and many other coastal States are potentially very significant. I am concerned about this impact. And I am concerned about other climate change impacts across New Jersey, the country and the globe. The time for inaction and delay is over. We need to take steps today to start dealing with this issue. This bill is a modest step. But I think it's an important one, and it's one that I believe we should be able to act on during the 108th Congress. The main provisions of the bill establish a system that would require companies to estimate and report their emissions of greenhouse gases, and a place where companies can register greenhouse gas emissions reductions. In addition, the bill would require an annual report on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. I'd like to go through each of these components in more detail. First, the bill requires EPA to work with the Secretaries of Energy, Commerce and Agriculture, as well as the private sector and non- governmental organizations to establish a greenhouse gas emission information system. For the purposes of the bill, greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. EPA is directed to establish threshold quantities for each of these gases. The threshold quantities will trigger the requirement for a company to report to the system, and are included to enable EPA to exclude most small businesses from the reporting requirements. Companies that emit more than a threshold quantity of each gas will be required to report their emissions on an annual basis to EPA. The requirements will be phased in, beginning with direct, stationary source emissions in 2004. The following year, in 2005, companies subject to the reporting requirements will need to submit to EPA estimates of other types of greenhouse gas emissions, such as process emissions, fugitive emissions, mobile source emissions, forest product-sensor emissions, and indirect emissions from heat and steam. By reporting to the system, companies will be able to establish emissions baselines. Perhaps more important than the reporting system is the greenhouse gas registry established by the bill. The bill requires EPA a greenhouse gas registry, which will enable companies to register greenhouse gas reductions. Many companies are voluntarily implementing projects to reduce emissions or sequester carbon. The registry would establish a place for companies to be able to put these projects on public record in a consistent and reliable way. Taken together, these provisions of the bill will accomplish several important goals. First, they will create a reliable inventory of the sources of greenhouse gas emissions within our economy. But more importantly, these provisions will provide a powerful incentive for companies to continue to make voluntary greenhouse gas reductions. The reason is that the greenhouse registry will be a place where companies can register their greenhouse gas reductions in a consistent and uniform way. This will enable companies to publicly verify the actions they are taking to reduce their emissions. It also provides a place where farmers, ranchers and foresters can register their carbon sequestration projects. They can then trade these registered reductions with any companies that might wish to purchase them. This had the potential to create a new carbon market that our farmers can benefit from. Prior efforts to provide ``future credits'' in a registry bill have run up against a Constitutional problem in that we cannot bind future Congresses in legislation. So the bill does not provide such credits, per se. But it does establish a robust and credible reporting system and registry. And if companies register their reductions in a strong registry, they will have as much assurance as we can provide them that their reductions will be taken into account if a mandatory greenhouse gas emission reduction program is enacted. I believe that such a mandatory emissions reduction program will be necessary, and I already support such a program, for example, Senator Jeffords' Clean Power Act. I don't believe that a reporting and registry system such as I am proposing is a substitute for such a mandatory emissions reductions program. But a reporting and registry system is a necessary component of any such program, and is a step that Congress may be able to agree on now, despite differences of opinion about whether mandatory emissions reductions are necessary at this time. A greenhouse gas reporting system and registry is a step we ought to take now, because it would provide a structure that encourages companies to make voluntary reductions now. That's the main purpose of the bill. In addition, the bill requires EPA to annually publish a U.S. greenhouse gas emissions inventory. This will be a national account of greenhouse gas emissions for our nation, and will incorporate the information submitted to the greenhouse gas information system and registry. EPA has issued a similar report for several years now, and this provision is intended to explicitly authorize and specify the scope of that report going forward. I want to add that I think that many of the emissions measurement challenges have been worked out or are being worked out now. Many advances have been made in recent years, often in a cooperative way, with industry, environmental groups and governments at the table working towards measurement protocols, such as the GHG Protocol Initiative. It's my intent that in developing the systems and protocols developed under this bill that EPA take advantage of the best practices that have been and continue to be developed in this fashion. I first introduced this bill in December 2001. Since that time, I think it's fair to say that the Bush Administration has done literally nothing of consequence to address the climate change threat. But I think that there are many in industry who disagree with the Bush policy. Last September 16, the Pew Center ran an ad in the Washington Post that was signed by 40 major companies, including energy producers such as American Electric Power, BP, Cinergy, Entergy, and Sunoco. In that ad, these companies stated their support for policies to ``disclose major sources of greenhouse gas emissions and recognize early action.'' In addition, ExxonMobil stated in their 2002 report, ``Corporate Citizenship in a Changing World,'' that they are ``working with governments and industry associations to promote development of procedures for mandatory reporting by all businesses, so that in the future we can report emissions for activities we operate and also those in which we share ownership with others.'' So there is a willingness on the part of many major U.S. corporations to move to emissions reporting. Congress needs to follow the leads of these companies. I also want to note that I worked on a bipartisan greenhouse gas registry and reporting bill with Senator Brownback last year. That bill passed the Senate by voice vote as a Brownback-Corzine amendment to the Senate energy bill. While it did not require reporting immediately, it ensured robust participation in the reporting and registry system in the near future through a trigger mechanism. And while I preferred a mandatory system, and still do, I am primarily concerned with getting results. And the Brownback-Corzine approach had the support of the full Senate. So while I still prefer a mandatory system, as this bill would create, I remain willing and open to work with Senator Brownback on an alternative again in this Congress. In closing, it's clear that it's up to Congress to lead on climate change. I urge my colleagues to work with me this Congress to create a credible greenhouse gas reporting and registry system that will encourage voluntary reductions. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution calling on the United States Postal Service to issue commemorative postage stamps honoring distinguished servicemen and servicewomen from the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard. On May 3, 2000 the United States Postal Service formally recognized four distinguished Army soldiers with ``Distinguished Soldiers'' commemorative postage stamps. These stamps serve as an important tribute to the patriotism and uncommon valor of four individual soldiers who risked life and limb in defense of liberty. Clearly, as our military is being mobilized for possible military action, these stamps serve as a timely recognition of the sacrifice made by our Army personnel to defend the democratic values that we hold dear. To date, however, there has been an unfortunate, but easily remediable oversight: the Postal Service has issued a set of four stamps recognizing the accomplishments of individual U.S. Army soldiers, but has not followed through with similar stamp series commemorating the profound contributions of individual members of the armed forces from the Marines, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Coast Guard. Recognizing all the branches of our Armed Forces is long overdue. Men and women from all the military services deserve recognition for the risks they have taken and the sacrifices they have made for the freedom we all enjoy. As Mr. Einar Dyhrkopp, then Chairman of the Postal Service Board of Governors stated in May 2000, at the dedication ceremony for the block of four stamps commemorating the valor of individual ``Distinguished Soldiers,'' ``By doing their duty, they brought honor to us all and helped preserve this country that we love. Now it's time for the nation to do its duty and honor these distinguished soldiers.'' It is a mistake to pay tribute to one service without similar tributes to the other services. The Postal Service should issue similar four-stamp sets recognizing the military accomplishments of individual members of the Air Force, the Marines, the Navy and the Coast Guard soon to redress this lamentable omission. I am sure that each member of Congress can think of at least one military hero who deserves this special recognition. For instance, I have long felt that a stamp commemorating the courageous service of Gunnery Sergeant John Basilone would be a fitting memorial to a great Marine. Raised in Raritan, NJ, Basilone, enlisted in the U.S. Army soon after his 18th birthday. Shortly thereafter, he was deployed to the Philippines where he earned a nickname that would stick with him for the rest of his career: ``Manila John.'' Following his tour of duty in 1937, Basilone returned to Raritan. But he wouldn't stay there long. In July 1940, with much of Europe at war and the United States on the brink, ``Manila John'' left New Jersey, enlisting in the military once again, this time joining the United States Marine Corps. On October 24, 1942, Basilone earned his Congressional Medal of Honor. He was sent to a position on the Tenaru River at Guadalcanal and placed in command of two sections of heavy machine guns. Sergeant Basilone and his men were charged with defending Henderson Airfield, an important American foothold on the island. Although the Marine contingent was vastly outnumbered and without needed support, Basilone and his men successfully repelled a Japanese assault. Other survivors reported that their success can be attributed to one man: ``Manila John.'' He crossed enemy lines to replenish a dangerously low stockpile of ammunition, repaired artillery pieces, and steadied his troops in the midst of torrential rain. He went several days and nights without food or sleep, and the U.S. military was able to carry the day. His exploits became Marine lore, and served as a patriotic inspiration to others facing daunting challenges in the midst of war. For his courage under fire and profound patriotism, Basilone was the first enlisted Marine to be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor in World War II. When he returned to the United States, he was heralded as a hero and quickly sent on tour around the country to help finance the war through the sale of war bonds. The Marine corps offered to commission Basilone as an officer and station him far away from the frontlines. But Basilone was not interested in riding out the war in Washington, DC. He was quoted as saying. ``I ain't no officer, and I ain't no museum piece. I belong back with my outfit.'' In December 1944, he got his wish and returned to the frontlines. General Douglas MacArthur called him ``a one-man army,'' and on February 19, 1945 at Iwo Jima, Basilone once against lived up to that reputation. Basilone destroyed an enemy stronghold, a blockhouse on that small Japanese island and commanded his young troops to move the heavy guns off the beach. Unfortunately, less than two hours into the assault on that fateful day in February, Basilone and four of his fellow marines were killed when an enemy mortar shell exploded nearby. When Gunnery Sergeant John Basilone died, he was only 27, but he had already earned the Congressional Medal of Honor, the Navy Cross, the Purple Heart, and the appreciation of his Nation. Basilone is a true American patriot whose legacy should be preserved. Basilone is just one of the many heroes who deserve to be memorialized on a U.S. postage stamp. That is why the Military Coalition, a group that includes associations representing every aspect of our Armed Forces community, from the Reserve Officers Association to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, has endorsed the initiative to see commemorative stamps issued honoring exceptional service men and women from all branches of the military. The Postal Service fittingly honored courageous men and women who fought in the Army by issuing stamps commemorating the tremendous sacrifice and unusual courage demonstrated by individual distinguished soldiers. Now it is time for Marines like Sergeant Basilone, and men and women from the Air Force, the Coast Guard, and the Navy to be honored in a similar fashion. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution as an important message to all our military servicemen and women that we appreciate and admire their efforts to defend our great country.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that represents an important step towards the goal of addressing the threats posed by global climate change. I am pleased to be joined on this bill by Senator Jeffords and Senator Lieberman. They were cosponsors of this legislation in the 107th Congress, they are recognized environmental leaders in the Senate, and are long-standing, outspoken advocates for taking action to mitigate climate change. I appreciate their help in introducing this legislation today. Climate change is a complex issue. Scientifically. Economically. Politically. But complexity is no excuse for inattention or inaction. Because the health and viability of the global ecosystems upon which we all depend are at stake. And the time to act is now. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its Third Assessment Report. That report shows that climate change science is increasingly clear and alarming. We know that human activities, primarily fossil fuel combustion, have raised the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to the highest levels in the last 420,000 years. We know that the planet is warming, and that the balance of the scientific evidence suggests that most of the recent warming can be attributed to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. We know that without concerted action by the U.S. and other countries, greenhouse gases will continue to increase. These findings were echoed by a National Academy Sciences report published later in 2001, which concluded that: ``Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. . . . ``Despite the uncertainties, there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years.'' Climate science and climate modeling have improved. These models predict warming under all scenarios that have been considered. Even the smallest warming predicted by current models, 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century, would represent the greatest rate of increase in global mean surface temperature in the last 10,000 years. If these trends continue, the results may be devastating. People in my State of New Jersey treasure their Jersey Shore. With the exception of the 50 mile northern border with New York, New Jersey is surrounded by water. The State's Atlantic coastline stretches 127 miles. Fourteen of 21 counties have estuarine or marine shorelines. Rising sea level is already having adverse impacts, by exacerbating coastal erosion, and causing inundation, flooding, and saline intrusions into ground water. The NJ coastal area also supports one of New Jersey's largest industries, tourism. Sea level is rising more rapidly along the US coast than worldwide. Studies by EPA and others have estimated that along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, a one-foot rise in the sea level is likely by 2050 and could occur as soon as 2025. In the next century, a two-foot rise is most likely but a four-foot rise is possible. The implications for New Jersey and many other coastal States are potentially very significant. I am concerned about this impact. And I am concerned about other climate change impacts across New Jersey, the country and the globe. The time for inaction and delay is over. We need to take steps today to start dealing with this issue. This bill is a modest step. But I think it's an important one, and it's one that I believe we should be able to act on during the 108th Congress. The main provisions of the bill establish a system that would require companies to estimate and report their emissions of greenhouse gases, and a place where companies can register greenhouse gas emissions reductions. In addition, the bill would require an annual report on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. I'd like to go through each of these components in more detail. First, the bill requires EPA to work with the Secretaries of Energy, Commerce and Agriculture, as well as the private sector and non- governmental organizations to establish a greenhouse gas emission information system. For the purposes of the bill, greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. EPA is directed to establish threshold quantities for each of these gases. The threshold quantities will trigger the requirement for a company to report to the system, and are included to enable EPA to exclude most small businesses from the reporting requirements. Companies that emit more than a threshold quantity of each gas will be required to report their emissions on an annual basis to EPA. The requirements will be phased in, beginning with direct, stationary source emissions in 2004. The following year, in 2005, companies subject to the reporting requirements will need to submit to EPA estimates of other types of greenhouse gas emissions, such as process emissions, fugitive emissions, mobile source emissions, forest product-sensor emissions, and indirect emissions from heat and steam. By reporting to the system, companies will be able to establish emissions baselines. Perhaps more important than the reporting system is the greenhouse gas registry established by the bill. The bill requires EPA a greenhouse gas registry, which will enable companies to register greenhouse gas reductions. Many companies are voluntarily implementing projects to reduce emissions or sequester carbon. The registry would establish a place for companies to be able to put these projects on public record in a consistent and reliable way. Taken together, these provisions of the bill will accomplish several important goals. First, they will create a reliable inventory of the sources of greenhouse gas emissions within our economy. But more importantly, these provisions will provide a powerful incentive for companies to continue to make voluntary greenhouse gas reductions. The reason is that the greenhouse registry will be a place where companies can register their greenhouse gas reductions in a consistent and uniform way. This will enable companies to publicly verify the actions they are taking to reduce their emissions. It also provides a place where farmers, ranchers and foresters can register their carbon sequestration projects. They can then trade these registered reductions with any companies that might wish to purchase them. This had the potential to create a new carbon market that our farmers can benefit from. Prior efforts to provide ``future credits'' in a registry bill have run up against a Constitutional problem in that we cannot bind future Congresses in legislation. So the bill does not provide such credits, per se. But it does establish a robust and credible reporting system and registry. And if companies register their reductions in a strong registry, they will have as much assurance as we can provide them that their reductions will be taken into account if a mandatory greenhouse gas emission reduction program is enacted. I believe that such a mandatory emissions reduction program will be necessary, and I already support such a program, for example, Senator Jeffords' Clean Power Act. I don't believe that a reporting and registry system such as I am proposing is a substitute for such a mandatory emissions reductions program. But a reporting and registry system is a necessary component of any such program, and is a step that Congress may be able to agree on now, despite differences of opinion about whether mandatory emissions reductions are necessary at this time. A greenhouse gas reporting system and registry is a step we ought to take now, because it would provide a structure that encourages companies to make voluntary reductions now. That's the main purpose of the bill. In addition, the bill requires EPA to annually publish a U.S. greenhouse gas emissions inventory. This will be a national account of greenhouse gas emissions for our nation, and will incorporate the information submitted to the greenhouse gas information system and registry. EPA has issued a similar report for several years now, and this provision is intended to explicitly authorize and specify the scope of that report going forward. I want to add that I think that many of the emissions measurement challenges have been worked out or are being worked out now. Many advances have been made in recent years, often in a cooperative way, with industry, environmental groups and governments at the table working towards measurement protocols, such as the GHG Protocol Initiative. It's my intent that in developing the systems and protocols developed under this bill that EPA take advantage of the best practices that have been and continue to be developed in this fashion. I first introduced this bill in December 2001. Since that time, I think it's fair to say that the Bush Administration has done literally nothing of consequence to address the climate change threat. But I think that there are many in industry who disagree with the Bush policy. Last September 16, the Pew Center ran an ad in the Washington Post that was signed by 40 major companies, including energy producers such as American Electric Power, BP, Cinergy, Entergy, and Sunoco. In that ad, these companies stated their support for policies to ``disclose major sources of greenhouse gas emissions and recognize early action.'' In addition, ExxonMobil stated in their 2002 report, ``Corporate Citizenship in a Changing World,'' that they are ``working with governments and industry associations to promote development of procedures for mandatory reporting by all businesses, so that in the future we can report emissions for activities we operate and also those in which we share ownership with others.'' So there is a willingness on the part of many major U.S. corporations to move to emissions reporting. Congress needs to follow the leads of these companies. I also want to note that I worked on a bipartisan greenhouse gas registry and reporting bill with Senator Brownback last year. That bill passed the Senate by voice vote as a Brownback-Corzine amendment to the Senate energy bill. While it did not require reporting immediately, it ensured robust participation in the reporting and registry system in the near future through a trigger mechanism. And while I preferred a mandatory system, and still do, I am primarily concerned with getting results. And the Brownback-Corzine approach had the support of the full Senate. So while I still prefer a mandatory system, as this bill would create, I remain willing and open to work with Senator Brownback on an alternative again in this Congress. In closing, it's clear that it's up to Congress to lead on climate change. I urge my colleagues to work with me this Congress to create a credible greenhouse gas reporting and registry system that will encourage voluntary reductions. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I want to say a few words to reflect what I know the people of New Jersey believe with regard to the debate we are having on the floor about the omnibus appropriations bill, particularly with regard to the two priorities we talked about today-- homeland defense, but particularly as it relates to our educational priorities in this country. I feel as if I am living in a different world from what I hear talked about on the floor of the Senate. We are experiencing in my home State a severe fiscal crisis. We have a $5 billion budget deficit this year that has to be closed at the expense of our kids and investing properly in our homeland defense. Then I hear, by the way, that we are having on average, across our local communities, about a 7-percent increase in property taxes, which is really going to fund education. Since I have been here in Congress, we are doing a lot to put new mandates on our local communities about what their responsibilities are with regard to education. But we are not providing the kind of resources that will allow them to fulfill those mandates effectively to meet the needs of our kids--those 6 million children left behind under title I whom Senator Kennedy so appropriately tried to address with his amendment. I just have an incredible misunderstanding of why we think we need a $675 billion tax cut and $375 billion of it going to dividend exclusions, 80 percent of the overall tax cut going to the top 5 percent, and 60 percent going to the top 10 percent in our society, when we are unwilling to invest in those 6 million kids and the 10,000 failing schools that have already been identified. And 40 percent of the title I schools don't have teachers who are qualified to sit in the classroom. I don't get it. I don't understand why there is this serious deficit problem back in our State and local communities and we are talking about a tax cut and a priority that doesn't relate to the long- term health and growth of our Nation. It just doesn't make sense. I hear all the arguments about who is growing the educational budget faster, or whether it is this year or over in the Clinton administration. The fact is we have a real need. These are tangible needs to be addressed. They need to be addressed now. We have choices. Six billion dollars is not even a tenth of the $675 billion we are talking about in the tax cut. And, by the way, when you add the interest, it is $1 trillion. What is $6 billion among friends? This is not the right priority, in my view, and it certainly is not what the people of New Jersey are telling me they want.

Mr. CORZINE. I think it is absolutely in the hands of the people who sit in this Chamber to make the decisions. We are elected to talk about priorities. Where are the priorities in this Nation with regard to homeland defense, and certainly with our longrun health and security-- that American promise that we hear and we all embrace? We are making a choice that a tax cut, which is going to promise those who are already doing really well--that 1 percent, that 5 percent, or 20 percent; however you cut it--they are more important than our kids in making sure that everybody has access to the American promise.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 6 minutes from the time allotted to Senator Kennedy.

Mr. CORZINE. I will just wrap up. Again, I have a hard time understanding this debate, when we have such a clear choice in front of us, when we talk about the needs of these 6 million kids, the 10,000 identified failing schools. By the way, we are all in favor of the flexibility and making sure that the local school districts have the ability to deal with a lot of these issues. But we cannot turn around failed schools if we don't have teachers who are qualified to sit in the classrooms. And we need to do it. By the way, one of the ways we get those qualified teachers in those classrooms is to make sure the Pell grant program is properly funded, where people who need the opportunity to get a higher education actually have access. I hear about the tax cut, $30 billion that went into the tax system. That is great, as long as you have taxable income. If you don't have anything to have a tax credit against, it is pretty hard to figure out how you are going to use that to fund higher education that will ultimately end up providing our teachers, our doctors, our researchers, and all the people to go forward. So I hope my colleagues can understand the simple concept: Do we really need a $675 billion tax cut, for those who are already doing well, when we can't make the choice to provide the $6 billion that we want to invest in our schools? I appreciate Senator Kennedy's efforts here. I wholeheartedly support them and hope my colleagues will as well.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Senator Murray to restore funding for Amtrak for the remainder of this fiscal year. The underlying amendment before the Senate includes a $374 million cut in Amtrak relative to the level approved on a bipartisan basis by the Senate Appropriations Committee last year, and relative to the level requested by Amtrak. Amtrak tells us that if this cut remains in place, Amtrak would have to shut down as early as March. This amendment would restore Amtrak funding to $1.2 billion, the level it needs, and the level that originally was approved by the Appropriations Committee. It is absolutely critical that we approve this amendment, and save Amtrak from bankruptcy. I am sure I don't need to remind my colleagues how important it was to have a national intercity rail system in the immediate aftermath of September 11th. On that terrible day, our commercial aviation system was shut down, stranding thousands of travelers. Meanwhile, Amtrak ridership surged, as thousands of people took Amtrak to get home to their loved ones. It has been clear from that day that we can never afford to let this vital lifeline be shut down. A shutdown of Amtrak would have an especially devastating effect on commuters in my State of New Jersey; that is because Amtrak owns the Northeast Corridor, upon which many trains of New Jersey Transit also depend. So an Amtrak shutdown would not only inconvenience the many New Jerseyans who depend on Amtrak directly, but it would force more than 80,000 riders of New Jersey Transit to find another way to work. The end result clearly would be a disaster for New Jersey. Amtrak badly needs a guarantee of the financial assistance that will allow it to survive. Senator Murray's amendment would help ensure Amtrak's operations for the remainder of the fiscal year. We should approve it today. And then, before too long, we should take up and pass the National Defense Rail Act of 2003. That bill would authorize $35 billion to maintain and further develop our passenger rail system. It also would provide more than $800 million for vital safety improvements to the tunnels under the Hudson River that connect New Jersey with New York City. These tunnels are used on a daily basis by over 300,000 New Jerseyans. I was proud to get $100 million to begin work on these tunnels in the supplemental defense appropriations bill signed by the President last year. But we need to do more. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support the Murray Amendment. It is absolutely critical that Amtrak remains a safe and viable transportation alternative in the 21st century. And only by adopting this amendment can we make that happen.

Mr. CORZINE. The Senator from Massachusetts is, as always, using common sense. We are saying this tax cut is more important than investing in our kids, investing in our schools, fulfilling the promise that we talked about and debated and worked, on a bipartisan basis, to provide. Improvement and flexibility--all the things the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire talked about in principles--we are all for that, but we are saying this darn tax cut is a lot more important than the priorities of educating our kids.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Mobile Telephone Driving Safety Act, to enhance highway safety by encouraging States to restrict the use of cell phones by drivers while they are operating a motor vehicle. I am introducing this legislation because of the significant threat posed by people who use cell phones while driving. According to a study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis released in December of 2002, ``the use of cell phones by drivers may result in approximately 2,600 deaths, 330,000 moderate to critical injuries and 1.5 million instances of property damage in America per year''. Other studies have reached similar conclusions. One, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997, concluded that the ``use of cellular telephones in motor vehicles is associated with a quadrupling of the risks of a collision during the brief period of a call''. That study went on to say ``this relative risk is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit''. States, counties and municipalities around the country have considered bans on hand-held cell phone use while driving. New York actually enacted such a ban in 2001. The Governor of New Jersey has proposed such a ban and related legislation has been unanimously approved by the New Jersey State Senate. A number of New Jersey municipalities also have chosen to enforce bans within their borders, including Marlboro, Carteret and Nutley. This patchwork of laws, however, does not take the place of a consistent, nation-wide ban. Congress needs to step forward and pass legislation that will ban the use of hand-held cell phones nationwide. The Mobile Telephone Driving Safety Act of 2003 is structured in a manner similar to other federal laws designed to promote highway safety, such as laws that encourage states to enact tough drunk driving standards. Under the legislation, a portion of Federal highway funds would be withheld from States that do not enact a ban on cell phone use while driving. Initially, this funding could be restored if states act to move into compliance. Later, the highway funding forfeited by one state would be distributed to other states that are in compliance. Experience has shown that the threat of losing highway funding is very effective in ensuring that states comply. To meet the bill's requirements, States would have to ban cell phone use while driving. However, such a ban need not be absolute. It could include an exception where there are exceptional circumstances, such as the use of a phone to report a disabled vehicle or medical emergency. In addition, if a State makes a determination that the use of ``hands free'' cell phones does not pose a threat to public safety, such use could be exempted from the ban, as well. This is a necessary bill to keep our streets and highways safe. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would address the serious national problem of drunk driving. This bill, entitled ``John's Law of 2003,'' would help ensure that when drunken drivers are arrested, they cannot simply get back into the car and put the lives of others in jeopardy. On July 22, 2000, Navy Ensign John Elliott was driving home from the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis for his mother's birthday when his car was struck by another car. Both Ensign Elliott and the driver of that car were killed. The driver of the car that caused the collision had a blood alcohol level that exceeded twice the legal limit. When makes this tragedy especially distressing is that this same driver had been arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, DUI, just three hours before the crash. After being processed for that offense, he had been released into the custody of a friend who drove him back to his car and allowed him to get behind the wheel, with tragic results. We need to ensure that drunken drivers do not get back behind the wheel before they sober up. New Jersey took steps to do this when they enacted John's Law at the State level. I am pleased to offer a Federal version of this legislation today. This bill would require States to impound the vehicle of an offender for a period of at least 12 hours after the offense. This would ensure that the arrestee cannot get back behind the wheel of his car until he is sober. Further, the bill would require States to ensure that if a DUI offender arrestee is released into the custody of another, that person must be provided with notice of his or her potential civil or criminal liability for permitting the arrestee's operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. While this bill does not create new liability under Federal law, notifying such individuals of their prospective liability under State law should encourage them to act responsibly. John's Law of 2003 is structured in a manner similar to other Federal laws designed to promote highway safety, such as laws that encourage States to enact tough drunk driving standards. Under the legislation, a portion of Federal highways funds would be withheld from States that do not comply. Initially, this funding could be restored if States move into compliance. Later, the highway funding forfeited by one State would be distributed to other States that are in compliance. Experience has shown that the threat of losing highway funding is very effective in ensuring that States comply. Mr. President, I believe that this legislation would help make our roads safer and save many lives. I hope my colleagues will support it, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Mobile Telephone Driving Safety Act, to enhance highway safety by encouraging States to restrict the use of cell phones by drivers while they are operating a motor vehicle. I am introducing this legislation because of the significant threat posed by people who use cell phones while driving. According to a study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis released in December of 2002, ``the use of cell phones by drivers may result in approximately 2,600 deaths, 330,000 moderate to critical injuries and 1.5 million instances of property damage in America per year''. Other studies have reached similar conclusions. One, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997, concluded that the ``use of cellular telephones in motor vehicles is associated with a quadrupling of the risks of a collision during the brief period of a call''. That study went on to say ``this relative risk is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit''. States, counties and municipalities around the country have considered bans on hand-held cell phone use while driving. New York actually enacted such a ban in 2001. The Governor of New Jersey has proposed such a ban and related legislation has been unanimously approved by the New Jersey State Senate. A number of New Jersey municipalities also have chosen to enforce bans within their borders, including Marlboro, Carteret and Nutley. This patchwork of laws, however, does not take the place of a consistent, nation-wide ban. Congress needs to step forward and pass legislation that will ban the use of hand-held cell phones nationwide. The Mobile Telephone Driving Safety Act of 2003 is structured in a manner similar to other federal laws designed to promote highway safety, such as laws that encourage states to enact tough drunk driving standards. Under the legislation, a portion of Federal highway funds would be withheld from States that do not enact a ban on cell phone use while driving. Initially, this funding could be restored if states act to move into compliance. Later, the highway funding forfeited by one state would be distributed to other states that are in compliance. Experience has shown that the threat of losing highway funding is very effective in ensuring that states comply. To meet the bill's requirements, States would have to ban cell phone use while driving. However, such a ban need not be absolute. It could include an exception where there are exceptional circumstances, such as the use of a phone to report a disabled vehicle or medical emergency. In addition, if a State makes a determination that the use of ``hands free'' cell phones does not pose a threat to public safety, such use could be exempted from the ban, as well. This is a necessary bill to keep our streets and highways safe. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would address the serious national problem of drunk driving. This bill, entitled ``John's Law of 2003,'' would help ensure that when drunken drivers are arrested, they cannot simply get back into the car and put the lives of others in jeopardy. On July 22, 2000, Navy Ensign John Elliott was driving home from the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis for his mother's birthday when his car was struck by another car. Both Ensign Elliott and the driver of that car were killed. The driver of the car that caused the collision had a blood alcohol level that exceeded twice the legal limit. When makes this tragedy especially distressing is that this same driver had been arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, DUI, just three hours before the crash. After being processed for that offense, he had been released into the custody of a friend who drove him back to his car and allowed him to get behind the wheel, with tragic results. We need to ensure that drunken drivers do not get back behind the wheel before they sober up. New Jersey took steps to do this when they enacted John's Law at the State level. I am pleased to offer a Federal version of this legislation today. This bill would require States to impound the vehicle of an offender for a period of at least 12 hours after the offense. This would ensure that the arrestee cannot get back behind the wheel of his car until he is sober. Further, the bill would require States to ensure that if a DUI offender arrestee is released into the custody of another, that person must be provided with notice of his or her potential civil or criminal liability for permitting the arrestee's operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. While this bill does not create new liability under Federal law, notifying such individuals of their prospective liability under State law should encourage them to act responsibly. John's Law of 2003 is structured in a manner similar to other Federal laws designed to promote highway safety, such as laws that encourage States to enact tough drunk driving standards. Under the legislation, a portion of Federal highways funds would be withheld from States that do not comply. Initially, this funding could be restored if States move into compliance. Later, the highway funding forfeited by one State would be distributed to other States that are in compliance. Experience has shown that the threat of losing highway funding is very effective in ensuring that States comply. Mr. President, I believe that this legislation would help make our roads safer and save many lives. I hope my colleagues will support it, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to speak once again on last week's proposals by the President with regard to the so-called stimulus plan. I think this is one of the very most important things we need to be debating right here on the Senate floor. As the President and most of the Members of the Senate know, we just had another announcement of unemployment last week. We are at an 8-year high, 6 percent. We lost another 100,000 jobs in December. The number of people who are going on long-term unemployment without unemployment benefits is roughly 100,000 a week. Our capacity utilization is about 74 or 75 percent, well below historic averages. There is a real problem in our economy. We do not seem to put together our actions and our words. I have heard some of my colleagues label the President's so-called stimulative program an economic sedative package. I don't know whether it is a sedative or not, but in my view it borders on antigrowth, antijob. It certainly is anti-State. Without any question, from most people's perspectives, it has some serious distributional issues. If you believe rising tides lift all boats, one wonders why we are targeting all of this stimulus, a significant portion of these benefits, to a very narrow segment of America's population. Finally, maybe the most serious issue, it is reckless if you look at it in the long-term fiscal context. We are talking about taking another almost $1 trillion out of the fiscal flows that our Federal Government will receive to fund tax cuts and fund them at a time when we are approaching a war in the Middle East, when we have serious international challenges in North Korea, we have a tremendous need to make sure that our people here at home are secure. Homeland defense we hear talked about and talked about, and then we are not necessarily providing the resources to the first responders to make it happen. Whether it is a sedative program or not, I think it is close. I don't think it is a stimulus. I don't think it is fair. I actually think it is reckless and imprudent with regard to our long-run fiscal health. Let me go through a few points because I gave a rather lengthy speech last week with regard to a lot of these elements, and in more depth. That is in the Record. But I think it is important we have a repeated focus on the need to get stimulus into our economy and get our economy growing again, and I don't think this does it. First of all, 90-plus percent of this program gets implemented after 2003. The need in the economy is today--the people who are losing their jobs or have lost their jobs, and see the weakness in the economy. It is today. Again, 190,000 jobs were lost in the last 2 months. The President has talked about creating only 190,000 new jobs in 2003. I think that speaks to how much focus is in the near term. I think it is absolutely essential to get going. But that is not the real issue. Well over 50 percent of this program is in the dividend exclusion. Dividend exclusion puts money into a targeted, narrow segment of the American population in serious proportions. I will get to the fairness issue in a little bit. But the most undermining element of this program is it does something very simple; it takes cash off the balance sheets of corporations. If corporations are going to invest in jobs, if they are going to sustain jobs, if they are going to invest in new plant and equipment, how do they do that? They do it with the resources they have on their balance sheet. That is cash. That is what they have to have when they go to the bank to extend their ability to invest. That is how business works. If we are going to take cash away from corporations, how are they going to invest in growing America's economy? Sure, some of the dividends are going to go through a process that then will allow them to trickle back into the economy somehow or another. Some economic theorists say we will have more particular focus or the best rate of return investments, but the fact is, our corporations are going to have less money to be able to expend on driving our economy. That is antigrowth. It is very clear and very simple. I believe this is its major flaw, given that this is the centerpiece of this argument the President is making. The third piece is also very clear. Our States are in fiscal distress. Everybody knows it. I am sure the Presiding Officer knows his State is suffering from fiscal strain as well as anyone else. I know he has a high unemployment rate. I am sure the Medicare rolls are growing as is the need for charity care in our hospitals. Our school systems are stretched to meet mandates that we put down, the Federal Government, whether it is special education, IDEA, or now the Leave No Child Behind Act. The fact is, we here in Washington put requirements on our States and they are running very large deficits. They have a constitutional responsibility to not run deficits, to run balanced budgets. So what are they doing? They are raising taxes. In the State of New Jersey, we just raised our property taxes. In some areas it is a 15-percent increase, in some a 2- or 3-percent increase, but the average is 7- percent increases. That goes to the middle class. Those are the people who actually need it and, by the way, are getting virtually nothing out of this dividend exclusion. Here we have rising property taxes or cuts in services at our State level: $950 billion is the cumulative deficits of our State governments as we approach this coming year, and that is a major league drag on our economy. We are only putting in about $650 billion from this package that the President has proposed. I say that is antigrowth. For the reasons I have discussed, this is a bad plan with regard to whether you are stimulating the economy or whether you are doing what the White House says, trying to create a growth plan. There is no way it is going to be stimulative when we are emphasizing raising taxes at the State and local level because the Federal Government is not accepting its responsibility when we are taking all this cash off the balance sheets of corporations that would be reinvested in the economy and when we are putting so little money into this year. For all those reasons, this is clearly either a sedative or, I think even more seriously, an antigrowth problem. On the fairness issue, you don't have to be into class warfare to say it is going to a very narrow segment of the economy. Let me give some statistics. The 10-year benefit of this proposal the President laid down, for people who make $1 million or more, is $900,000. That is what it is over 10 years. For people, at least in New Jersey, who sort of consider themselves in the middle class, those earning $75,000 to $100,000 in adjusted gross income, the benefit is $18,500. That is 2.5 percent of what is going to the people at the top. If you were in the more national average of what middle class is, the $30,000 to $40,000 range, it is $3,500 over 10 years. And if you are one of those struggling at the bottom of our income classes--you are under $20,000--this is worth $50 over 10 years because you don't get the child tax credit the President is talking about. You didn't pay taxes. It doesn't mean anything to those people who would spend the most. It is not a refundable child tax credit, marriage penalty, all those things--they don't apply here. So we are leaving out broad swaths of our national population as we deal with how you are going to distribute this. By the way, one wonders how many of our men and women who are going to the Middle East to surround Iraq, who sit on the border of North Korea, the 37,000 American troops, are going to benefit from a dividend tax exclusion. I find it very doubtful. In fact, I am going to come back to the floor with some very precise numbers. What we are doing is rewarding those who are already doing well. And there is nothing bitter about people doing well. There were more millionaires made in the 1990s than there were at any time in the history of the country. But what we are talking about is just simple fairness. By the way, the people who are in the middle class and struggling to make ends meet in this country are the people who will spend money and drive the economy. They fill up that excess capacity. There is a major fairness issue that once again ties to economic growth. I think we have an antigrowth package here, and it is pretty clear by any simple analysis of who spends money and drives the economy. Finally, you can't get away from the serious considerations of long- term undermining of our fiscal health. We are going to put ourselves into a bad position. We already have taken $5.5 trillion off projected estimates of where our budget will be 10 years out--just, by the way, at the time the baby boomers are retiring and Medicare and Social Security will be at their greatest stress points. We are running deficits that are growing and growing and growing, and they are going to continue to grow. We are making that process worse. It is not $675 billion, because you have to put the interest against what you pay. That is another $300 billion over 10 years. I know people are going to talk about dynamic scoring. I tried to deal with this by speaking to why I think this is antigrowth. The fact is, we are not putting money in the hands of people who will turn around and spend it, and those estimates I think are risky to make. The fact is, we are putting in place a serious undermining of the revenues of this country at a time when we are talking about going to war. It is impossible to understand, in my mind, how we can take such an imprudent step of undermining the fiscal health of this country at a moment in time when the American people expect us to be protecting them, expect us to be supporting those people who are out there defending us, to make sure they have the equipment and all the kinds of things that will make a difference. We are talking about a tax cut that goes almost entirely to the very high income people in this country. That is not class warfare. That is just telling it like it is with respect to how we are shaping our economic policy in this country. I think it has failed. I think it will fail. I hope we can have a real debate here on the floor of the Senate about how we can get our economy going. I think it is great that the President recognizes we have a problem. He clearly believes that. He changed his whole economic team and came out with a second stimulus plan. We need to get this economy moving so that it supports our national economic health here at home. That is not being done by this program. It is a sedative program, if not worse. It is antigrowth. It is certainly a mistake, and I hope I can come up with some of these figures just thinking about how many of our military men and women are going to benefit from a tax exclusion on dividends. I think it is misplaced. I think the American people know it is misplaced. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.