Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today we are considering the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be the next Attorney General of the United States. Like many of my colleagues, I was inclined to support Judge Gonzales's nomination. I have had several dealings with Judge Gonzales and each time I have found him to be both cooperative and a gentleman. He has been extremely helpful and gracious in our mutual effort to fill the vacancies on the New Jersey Federal bench, and for that I am thankful. Unfortunately, I cannot in good conscience support his nomination. Even though my personal interactions with Judge Gonzales have always been positive and productive, I have serious reservations and concerns about his role in the administration's attack on our laws and, more importantly, our sensibilities of what is right and just. My vote against Judge Gonzales is not a vote against the man. In many ways, Judge Gonzales's story is the American success story. He grew up of modest means, the son of immigrants who came to this country in search of a better life. Judge Gonzales would not disappoint his parents. He has persevered academically and professionally, displaying a work ethic that would see him rise to the upper echelons of his profession and earn the trust and confidence of a President. Yet while Judge Gonzales has ably served President Bush as his Counsel, as Attorney General his duty will be to the American people. And therein lies my concern. As White House Counsel, Judge Gonzales played an integral role in formulating the Bush administration's policy on coercive interrogations in its war on terror. He advised the President to suspend the application of the Geneva Conventions, calling these international standards for humane treatment of detainees ``quaint'' and ``obsolete.'' He then tasked the Department of Justice with the job of identifying legal authority to justify the harsh interrogation tactics that became an international stain on our country's once proud moral standing in the world. The ramifications of this abhorrent policy condoning torture cannot be downplayed. The United States has the most to lose by turning its back on the Geneva Conventions. Not only does the position advocated by the administration prevent the United States from claiming the moral high ground in future international entanglements, it also compromises our Nation's ability to build international coalitions. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it signals to other countries that all bets are off, endangering U.S. troops who might be captured in future conflicts. As many legal observers have noted, Judge Gonzales's advice was not only flawed from a legal standpoint, it also spoke to a larger failure. A client--even when he is the President--cannot always be deferred to. This is especially true when a client seeks justification for a position that runs contrary to the law. Judge Gonzales advocated for the administration's reversal of longstanding U.S. policies and practices supporting application of the Geneva Conventions and antitorture laws. He urged their suspension, relying on convoluted legal reasoning in order to justify an end. This willingness to skirt international law demonstrates a lack of independence from an administration committed to violating international principles of justice and humanity. The job of Attorney General, unlike other Cabinet positions that advocate the President's agenda, requires independence. The Attorney General is tasked with enforcing the laws of the land, whether they advance or impede the President's policies. Judge Gonzales has not demonstrated a willingness to break from the President's agenda, and I fear his penchant for deferring to the President would hamper the Department of Justice in its mission to uphold the law. The need for independence is especially important in an administration that time and time again has demonstrated a cavalier attitude toward civil rights and civil liberties. Should he eventually be confirmed, the challenges facing Judge Gonzales are numerous and daunting. And it is against this backdrop that I ask him to take on remedial efforts to restore not only America's moral standing in the world, but to restore the civil rights and liberties trampled on by this administration. We need to strive to curb this administration's overreaching and to reinstate constitutionally protected civil liberties sacrificed by the administration in the name of fighting terrorism. I believe strongly that we can protect our Nation while preserving our cherished freedoms. Indeed, we can be both safe and free. Measures like racial profiling, which make people suspect because of their ethnicity or religion-- rather than because of suspicious activity--are repugnant to our citizens, divert valuable resources from finding real terrorists, and ignore our Nation's commitment to freedom. I am certain that we can fight terrorism without resorting to hateful tactics such as racial profiling that cast a cloud of immorality over our country. I sincerely hope that, if confirmed, Judge Gonzales takes up these challenges and provides an independent voice for the Department of Justice. I know Judge Gonzales to be a gentleman and a patriot. And while I regrettably must oppose his nomination, I know that his confirmation is assured and pledge to work with him to ensure that our laws are enforced and our freedoms protected.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, this legislation addresses the serious national problem of drunk driving by helping to ensure that when drunken drivers are arrested, they can't simply get back into their car and put the lives of others in jeopardy. This is based on original legislation, known as ``John's Law,'' that I introduced in the Senate in the 108th Congress and that has already been enacted at the State level in New Jersey. I am proud that Senator Lautenberg will be co- sponsoring this legislation. 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. What 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. With this legislation, States would be allowed to use some of their drunk driver prevention grant money from the Federal Government to impound the vehicles of drunk drivers for no less than 12 hours. This would help ensure that a drunk driver cannot get back behind the wheel until he is sober. And that would make our roads safer, and prevent the loss of many innocent lives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, this legislation addresses the serious national problem of drunk driving by helping to ensure that when drunken drivers are arrested, they can't simply get back into their car and put the lives of others in jeopardy. This is based on original legislation, known as ``John's Law,'' that I introduced in the Senate in the 108th Congress and that has already been enacted at the State level in New Jersey. I am proud that Senator Lautenberg will be co- sponsoring this legislation. 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. What 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. With this legislation, States would be allowed to use some of their drunk driver prevention grant money from the Federal Government to impound the vehicles of drunk drivers for no less than 12 hours. This would help ensure that a drunk driver cannot get back behind the wheel until he is sober. And that would make our roads safer, and prevent the loss of many innocent lives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein be added as a cosponsor of S. 187, the Ensuring College Access for All Americans Act. I would like to note for the Record that Senator Feinstein should appear as an original cosponsor of S. 187. As a result of an administrative error by my office, she was not added to the bill when it was introduced.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today we are considering the nomination of Condoleezza Rice to be Secretary of State. Dr. Rice is professionally competent and accomplished. Her academic background is impressive and she has the diplomatic skills necessary to serve as Secretary of State. I intend to vote in favor of her nomination, but not without expressing serious reservations and concerns. This administration's first term was marked by a series of failures and miscalculations that have cost this country dearly. Dr. Rice, as National Security Adviser, must bear some of the responsibility for these mistakes. Now, however, she also has an opportunity to correct them. I will therefore cast this vote with the hope and expectation that she will work with the Congress to forge a new approach to our foreign policy. Dr. Rice's tasks, if she is eventually confirmed, are numerous and daunting. The administration should be rapidly expanding efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union and throughout the world. The prospect of these materials in the hands of terrorists is truly the greatest risk to our national security. Mobilizing our allies in a concerted and coordinated effort to stop Iran's nuclear program must also be at the top of the new Secretary's agenda. Additionally, the administration must finally engage with the rest of the world in addressing global climate change. Almost every day, new scientific evidence raises the world's concern and challenges our fate. The administration should also expand efforts to combat HIV/AIDS to include India and other second-tier countries. Thus far, its words have been right, but the financial reality has fallen short. We should fully fund our development and disaster assistance accounts and finally meet the promises of the Millennium Challenge Account. The administration, working with our allies, needs to broaden nation- building efforts in Afghanistan so that warlords and narcotics do not destroy the hope of Afghan democracy. And it must confront human rights abusers, not just in the ``outposts of tyranny'' mentioned by Dr. Rice in her testimony to the Foreign Relations Committee, but in Saudi Arabia, China, Central Asia and throughout the world. And, we must address these and many other challenges with a new commitment to our alliances. For 50 years, American leadership helped build international institutions to fight common threats and promote the common good. We drafted treaties to articulate universal values and entrench them in international law. And we constructed great military alliances to protect not just ourselves but our friends overseas. With a renewed commitment to alliance building and real engagement around the world, we can begin to end our own current isolation, rescue the reputation of U.S. policy overseas, and bring the resources of our friends and allies to bear on the global challenges we all face. While Dr. Rice will face many challenges ahead, I intend to speak in detail today on two topics: Iraq and Darfur. The administration's approach to Iraq has been disastrous from the start. The intelligence used by the administration on weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda were flat wrong. We must begin to learn the lesson of this colossal failure and ensure that we have accurate, objective intelligence. I have and will continue to call for a full accounting of the development and use of the intelligence that led us into Iraq. But in the coming years, I also expect our Secretary of State to join in demanding real intelligence reform. Without it, we will be unable to stabilize Iraq or confront other current and future threats. Our foreign policy must be based on an understanding of our enemies. And our policies and the intelligence behind them must be credible with our friends. The Administration's approach to the war in Iraq was disastrously unilateral. It ignored the weapons inspectors, rejected our allies, and ended up isolating America. The result of these policies is now borne by our troops, who are fighting nearly alone in Iraq, and by American taxpayers, who are paying 90 percent of the costs of the war. We cannot afford to continue in this vein. I hope that, in this second term, the administration will recognize the heavy costs of unilateralism and place a priority on diplomacy and alliances. With Iraqi elections less than a week away, the new Secretary of State can begin by acknowledging that ballots do not equal democracy, and that the hard work of stabilizing Iraq will require a concerted global effort. Intellectual honesty is a must for this administration and for our Secretary of State. There have been a series of miscalculations with regard to almost every aspect of the occupation. The administration failed to commit sufficient troops. It did not consider the political, military and economic challenges inherent in occupying a foreign country. It anticipated neither an insurgency nor sectarian and ethnic conflict. It permitted looting and chaos, when order was so critical. It failed to raise an Iraqi security force before the insurgency was already raging. And its confused policies regarding detention and interrogation led to the abuses at Abu Ghraib. On the international stage and in Iraq itself, the damage caused by these mistakes must be addressed head on. Trust must be rebuilt, through candor and through real changes in policy. Another great challenge facing the new Secretary of State is Darfur. Secretary of State Powell's declaration of September 9, 2004 that genocide was occurring was appropriate, and I applauded the administration at the time. But having made that declaration, we cannot allow genocide to continue. Nor is the reluctance of other nations to take a tougher position an excuse for inaction. In her testimony to the Foreign Relations Committee, Dr. Rice stated that the reason the U.N. Security Council resolutions on Darfur have been so weak was because other members of the Council opposed sanctions against Khartoum. While this is true, it is time to put real pressure on those countries. Hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake in Darfur. We cannot accept business as usual at the U.N. If our bilateral relations with countries that oppose action to stop the genocide suffer, then that is how it should be. Saving lives, stopping genocide is the high ground. It is a moral imperative. But through principled and sustained leadership, we have an opportunity to find common ground with our allies and partners. Next week, a U.N. Commission is expected to identify those in Sudan responsible for crimes against humanity. This is the time for accountability. All parties need to put aside their own agendas and do what is right for the sake of stopping this genocide, and deterring future crimes against humanity. Those countries who have opposed sanctions against Sudan need to accept the findings of the Commission and change course. And the administration should be open to all forms of justice and accountability, including the International Criminal Court. This week, the United Nations General Assembly is holding a special session to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camps. This session is convening in the spirit of ``never again.'' Soon we have the names of those committing genocide, brought to us by a U.N. Commission established thanks to pressure from the United States. We must not allow ideology to stand in the way of accountability. Referring this case to the ICC will not threaten any Americans. Rather, it will push the ICC toward the purpose for which it was created and affirm America's leadership with regard to universal values of justice and accountability. Finally, on Darfur, we must push harder for the full deployment of African Union troops. Dr. Rice testified that only a third of a 3,300 person AU force is currently in Darfur. It has been more than 4 months since the U.N. Security Council called for the ``rapid expansion'' of the AU force. Congress has appropriated $75 million specifically for this expansion. Getting those troops in place immediately and providing them with all the resources they need to succeed must be a top priority for the new Secretary of State. And if they succeed, this success will ripple outward across Africa. Having stopped a genocide, visionary African leaders will be positioned to address future crises on the continent and the AU will have taken an important step forward as a credible and forceful institution. Darfur represents an opportunity for this administration to live up to the words articulated by the President in his inaugural address. The President said, ``All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors.'' How, then, can we stand by in the face of genocide? The President, quoting Abraham Lincoln, said, ``Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it.'' With the names of those responsible for the killing in Darfur, are we not obligated to see justice served? And the President, speaking to our allies, said, ``We honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help.'' When the African Union expresses a desire to deploy an effective force in Darfur, how can we not do everything in our power to make sure that they succeed? The challenges ahead our many. And this administration, in its first term, has made many mistakes. But the collective wisdom of America is great. Our new Secretary of State and the rest of the Administration's national security team can, if it chooses, work together with Congress and forge a new approach--one that will make us safer and create a better world.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the introduction of the Military Retiree Survivor Benefit Equity Act of 2005. This bill is a major step forward in making our military's Survivor Benefit Program fairer, more equitable, and more in keeping with our Nation's promise to our service members and their families. The bill combines two important fixes to the SBP. The first corrects a serious inequity in SBP that currently requires over a hundred thousand older military survivors to pay extra into the system for the same benefits as more recent enrollees. I have been fighting to fix this problem since the last Congress and am confident that this year we will succeed in providing basic fairness to these survivors. This bill also eliminates the dollar-for-dollar deduction of the dependency indemnity compensation, DIC, which the VA pays to survivors, from SBP annuities. This policy is effectively a tax on military survivors at a time when so many of our brave men and women in uniform are dying in Iraq and their families are struggling to get by. Senator Nelson has long fought to eliminate this unfairness, and I am proud to stand with him today in introducing this comprehensive legislation. The legislation that I introduced in the last Congress and which is included in this bill eliminates a major inequity in the SBP arising from a 1999 congressional act limiting the time required to pay into the plan. That act deemed retirees who are at least 70 years old and have already been paying into SBP for at least 30 years to be fully ``paid up'' for the purpose of receiving benefits. This was an important piece of legislation, but, unfortunately, Congress only made it effective in 2008. The result was that earlier enrollees--those who enrolled between 1972 and 1978--were forced to pay into SBP longer than enrollees from 1978 or later, up to 6 extra years of premiums. In other words, they had to pay in longer for the same benefits. This inequity was further magnified by the fact that those earlier retirees paid much higher SBP premiums--10 percent of retired pay--for two full decades, until 1992, when the premium was reduced to 6.5 percent of retired pay. This bill, by making the ``paid up'' provision effective this year, will finally grant these survivors--the widows and widowers of the Greatest Generation--the same benefits of those who enrolled in SBP in subsequent years. It will provide basic fairness to 135,000 survivors and allow us to honor their sacrifice and that of their loved ones. This bill also eliminates the dollar-for-dollar reduction of SBP benefits by the amount received in dependency and indemnity compensation. Under current law, the surviving spouse of an active duty or retired military member who dies from a service-connected cause is entitled to $993 a month--for a survivor without children--from the Department of Veterans Affairs. However, the surviving spouse's SBP annuity is reduced by the amount of DIC. SBP and DIC payments are paid for different reasons. SBP, in most cases, is elected and purchased by the retiree to provide a portion of retired pay to the survivor. DIC payments represent special compensation to a survivor whose sponsor's death was caused directly by his or her uniformed service. To offset DIC--which we provide to the families of those who have lost their life in the service of their country--from annuities earned and paid for, is blatantly unfair. This bill has the broadest possible support among organizations representing our troops and their families, including Air Force Association, Air Force Sergeants Association, Air Force Women Officers Associated, American Logistics Association, AMVETS, Army Aviation Association of America, Associations of Military Surgeons of the United States, Association of the U.S. Army, Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health Service, CWO and WO Association U.S. Coast Guard, Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the U.S., Fleet Reserve Association, Gold Star Wives of America, Jewish War Veterans of the USA, Marine Corps League, Marine Corps Reserve Association, Military Officers Association of America, Military Order of the Purple Heart, National Association for Uniformed Services, National Guard Association of the U.S., National Military Family Association, National Order of Battlefield Commissions, Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, Naval Reserve Association, Navy League of the U.S., Noncommissioned Officers Association of the United States of America, Reserve Officers Association, Society of Medical Consultants to the Armed Forces, Military Chaplains Association of the USA, Retired Enlisted Association, United Armed Forces Association, USCG Chief Petty Officers Association, U.S. Army Warrant Officers Association, VFW, and Veterans' Widows International Network. The Military Coalition has described this bill as a top legislative goal, and it is my expectation that it will have strong support in the Senate. It is vital that we keep faith with the men and women who serve in our military as well as their families. The widows and widowers of our service members, those who are serving now and those who served us in earlier times, are owed our deepest gratitude. But in the face of their sacrifice, there is more that we should do. We cannot ever fully compensate them for their loss. But we can ensure that the benefits that they have earned are fair and just.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I join with Senators Kennedy and Smith and twenty-seven of our colleagues today in introducing a very important piece of legislation, the Ensuring College Access for All Americans Act. This bill would prevent any student from seeing a reduction in the Pell grants under recent changes by the Bush administration to the formula used to calculate student aid eligibility. On December 23, 2004--just 2 days before the Christmas holiday, I might note--the Department of Education published updates to the allowance for state and other taxes that is used by students and their families to calculate their expected family contribution, or EFC, to college tuition. The EFC is the amount that students and their families are expected to contribute towards college in a given year. Changes in a student's ``expected family contribution'' have a direct impact on that student's eligibility for a variety of types of financial aid. Simply put, as a student's expected family contribution goes up, their eligibility for financial aid goes down. The Administration's changes to the tax tables have the effect of cutting $300 million from the successful Pell grant program, upon which more than five million students nationwide rely. It is projected that, as a result of these cuts, 1.3 million students will see a reduction in their Pell grants and another 89,000 will become ineligible for Pell grant assistance. Not only will these changes drastically affect Pell grant eligibility and aid, but because the EFC formula is used to calculate eligibility for other forms of Federal aid, including federal student loans, as well as private institutional and state aid, these changes will cut practically all forms of student aid. Unfortunately, the Department's changes to the state and local tax allowance will increase the EFC for nearly all American families and students. While no New Jersey students are projected to lose assistance under this year's proposed cuts, they were projected to lose assistance under similar cuts proposed in 2003. I am very concerned that New Jersey students could be hurt going forward if the administration continues to update the tax tables based on outdated tax information. Certainly, I do not disagree that the tax tables used to determine EFC, which have not been updated since 1988, may need to be revised to reflect current state and local tax burden. However, the administration's proposal does not reflect current tax levels. The updates reduce the credit that families receive for paying state and local taxes at a time in which they are actually paying more taxes. For example, the administration's new tax tables are based on Fiscal Year 2002 state tax information. According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, though, since FY 2002, states have enacted $14.1 billion in tax and fee increases. Again, because the administration's proposal is based on outdated tax information, it does not take into account these substantial increases in State tax burden. In fact, the General Accounting Office issued a report last week that found that the Department of Education's procedures for revising the tax tables and the formula the Department used are seriously flawed. The GAO report, entitled Student Financial Aid: Need Determination Could be Enhanced through Improvements in Education's Estimate of Applicants' State Tax Payments, states, ``Education could not provide us with written procedures guiding staff on the routine steps necessary to update the tax allowance, nor did it maintain detailed records of its efforts to obtain data.'' The report goes on to say of the data the Department used to revise the tables, As a result of certain limitations of the SOI [statistics of income] dataset for the purpose of calculating the allowance and problems with how Education uses this dataset, the current state and other tax allowance may not fully reflect the amount of taxes paid by students and families. The dataset itself is not ideally suited for calculating the allowance because it is limited to financial data from those who itemize their taxes, does not include state and local taxes, and is several years older than the income information reported by students and families on the FAFSA. The report further notes that because the SOI compiles data only for those who itemize their tax deductions, who may pay different tax rates than non-itemizers, the data is further flawed. The GAO goes on to suggest improvements to the Department's calculations and the data they use. These changes also come at a time when tuition is rising dramatically at double digit rates, and students and working families are straining to provide the financial wherewithal to access America's promise of education. According to the College Board, tuition, room, and board at a four-year public university costs an average of $11,354, $824 more than last year and $1775 more than 2 years ago. In other words, tuition at public institutions has been increasing by almost ten percent a year. In fact, according to the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, tuition and fees at public institutions in New Jersey has increased by more than 40 percent since the 1999-2000 school year. In some states they've increased by more than 60 percent in the last five years. To really understand these numbers, though, it's necessary to look at the people who are struggling to afford to go to college. To that end, I would like to read a couple of personal stories about the importance of the Pell grant program to a college-bound student and a student struggling to afford college now. One student writes, I am lucky enough to be attending a top-rate University and receiving a quality education, but I rely on many federal loans and aid, including a Pell Grant, in order to remain where I am. When President Bush decided not to fully fund Pell Grants, he left me and many others in a precarious position. My Pell grant is still pending and I really am counting on it to cover some of my basic expenses; it will be a hardship until it comes--or worse if it doesn't come in full. The President says he's an advocate for young people with his dubious social security plans, but he leaves us behind with his non-commitment to higher education. A mother who fears she will no longer be able to afford to send her son to school writes, I've saved money from the day my son was born so that he may attend the college of his dreams. He is a gifted musician and was awarded scholarships to attend Berklee in Boston. With the help of the Pell Grant and other student loans, he is now a freshman there and I'm proud to say is doing very well. However, I am worried that with Bush having lowered the income standard for Pell, Timmy may lose his grant and there won't be enough money saved for him to stay in school. I would like to give him the opportunity to pursue his dreams and let his talent take him where it may. I see Bush cutting programs from the have nots to give to the haves. How many dreams is he going to destroy and how many more programs is he going to cut?'' It's wrong, to cut $300 million--a small price to pay to ensure that low-income families can afford to send their children to college--from this program. And it's even worse to cut aid to 1.4 million families based on faulty calculations. A college education today is essential to survival in our competitive marketplace. Not only does our economy thrive on an educated workforce, but also those who are educated and as a result are gainfully employed contribute enormously to our tax base. I am willing to venture that the costs of the Pell grant program are more than paid back by those who were able to go to attend college because of a Pell grant and today are productive, tax-paying citizens. The Senate must prevent these cuts from becoming a reality. Thirty Senators stand behind the legislation I introduce today a bipartisan group of thirty Senators, I might add. I hope that we can put politics aside and pass this legislation immediately to prevent any student from losing Pell grant assistance. Finally, I strongly urge the administration to take a close look at the GAO report and to reform the flawed system they have used to revise the tax tables. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the introduction of the Military Retiree Survivor Benefit Equity Act of 2005. This bill is a major step forward in making our military's Survivor Benefit Program fairer, more equitable, and more in keeping with our Nation's promise to our service members and their families. The bill combines two important fixes to the SBP. The first corrects a serious inequity in SBP that currently requires over a hundred thousand older military survivors to pay extra into the system for the same benefits as more recent enrollees. I have been fighting to fix this problem since the last Congress and am confident that this year we will succeed in providing basic fairness to these survivors. This bill also eliminates the dollar-for-dollar deduction of the dependency indemnity compensation, DIC, which the VA pays to survivors, from SBP annuities. This policy is effectively a tax on military survivors at a time when so many of our brave men and women in uniform are dying in Iraq and their families are struggling to get by. Senator Nelson has long fought to eliminate this unfairness, and I am proud to stand with him today in introducing this comprehensive legislation. The legislation that I introduced in the last Congress and which is included in this bill eliminates a major inequity in the SBP arising from a 1999 congressional act limiting the time required to pay into the plan. That act deemed retirees who are at least 70 years old and have already been paying into SBP for at least 30 years to be fully ``paid up'' for the purpose of receiving benefits. This was an important piece of legislation, but, unfortunately, Congress only made it effective in 2008. The result was that earlier enrollees--those who enrolled between 1972 and 1978--were forced to pay into SBP longer than enrollees from 1978 or later, up to 6 extra years of premiums. In other words, they had to pay in longer for the same benefits. This inequity was further magnified by the fact that those earlier retirees paid much higher SBP premiums--10 percent of retired pay--for two full decades, until 1992, when the premium was reduced to 6.5 percent of retired pay. This bill, by making the ``paid up'' provision effective this year, will finally grant these survivors--the widows and widowers of the Greatest Generation--the same benefits of those who enrolled in SBP in subsequent years. It will provide basic fairness to 135,000 survivors and allow us to honor their sacrifice and that of their loved ones. This bill also eliminates the dollar-for-dollar reduction of SBP benefits by the amount received in dependency and indemnity compensation. Under current law, the surviving spouse of an active duty or retired military member who dies from a service-connected cause is entitled to $993 a month--for a survivor without children--from the Department of Veterans Affairs. However, the surviving spouse's SBP annuity is reduced by the amount of DIC. SBP and DIC payments are paid for different reasons. SBP, in most cases, is elected and purchased by the retiree to provide a portion of retired pay to the survivor. DIC payments represent special compensation to a survivor whose sponsor's death was caused directly by his or her uniformed service. To offset DIC--which we provide to the families of those who have lost their life in the service of their country--from annuities earned and paid for, is blatantly unfair. This bill has the broadest possible support among organizations representing our troops and their families, including Air Force Association, Air Force Sergeants Association, Air Force Women Officers Associated, American Logistics Association, AMVETS, Army Aviation Association of America, Associations of Military Surgeons of the United States, Association of the U.S. Army, Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health Service, CWO and WO Association U.S. Coast Guard, Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the U.S., Fleet Reserve Association, Gold Star Wives of America, Jewish War Veterans of the USA, Marine Corps League, Marine Corps Reserve Association, Military Officers Association of America, Military Order of the Purple Heart, National Association for Uniformed Services, National Guard Association of the U.S., National Military Family Association, National Order of Battlefield Commissions, Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, Naval Reserve Association, Navy League of the U.S., Noncommissioned Officers Association of the United States of America, Reserve Officers Association, Society of Medical Consultants to the Armed Forces, Military Chaplains Association of the USA, Retired Enlisted Association, United Armed Forces Association, USCG Chief Petty Officers Association, U.S. Army Warrant Officers Association, VFW, and Veterans' Widows International Network. The Military Coalition has described this bill as a top legislative goal, and it is my expectation that it will have strong support in the Senate. It is vital that we keep faith with the men and women who serve in our military as well as their families. The widows and widowers of our service members, those who are serving now and those who served us in earlier times, are owed our deepest gratitude. But in the face of their sacrifice, there is more that we should do. We cannot ever fully compensate them for their loss. But we can ensure that the benefits that they have earned are fair and just.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I join with Senators Kennedy and Smith and twenty-seven of our colleagues today in introducing a very important piece of legislation, the Ensuring College Access for All Americans Act. This bill would prevent any student from seeing a reduction in the Pell grants under recent changes by the Bush administration to the formula used to calculate student aid eligibility. On December 23, 2004--just 2 days before the Christmas holiday, I might note--the Department of Education published updates to the allowance for state and other taxes that is used by students and their families to calculate their expected family contribution, or EFC, to college tuition. The EFC is the amount that students and their families are expected to contribute towards college in a given year. Changes in a student's ``expected family contribution'' have a direct impact on that student's eligibility for a variety of types of financial aid. Simply put, as a student's expected family contribution goes up, their eligibility for financial aid goes down. The Administration's changes to the tax tables have the effect of cutting $300 million from the successful Pell grant program, upon which more than five million students nationwide rely. It is projected that, as a result of these cuts, 1.3 million students will see a reduction in their Pell grants and another 89,000 will become ineligible for Pell grant assistance. Not only will these changes drastically affect Pell grant eligibility and aid, but because the EFC formula is used to calculate eligibility for other forms of Federal aid, including federal student loans, as well as private institutional and state aid, these changes will cut practically all forms of student aid. Unfortunately, the Department's changes to the state and local tax allowance will increase the EFC for nearly all American families and students. While no New Jersey students are projected to lose assistance under this year's proposed cuts, they were projected to lose assistance under similar cuts proposed in 2003. I am very concerned that New Jersey students could be hurt going forward if the administration continues to update the tax tables based on outdated tax information. Certainly, I do not disagree that the tax tables used to determine EFC, which have not been updated since 1988, may need to be revised to reflect current state and local tax burden. However, the administration's proposal does not reflect current tax levels. The updates reduce the credit that families receive for paying state and local taxes at a time in which they are actually paying more taxes. For example, the administration's new tax tables are based on Fiscal Year 2002 state tax information. According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, though, since FY 2002, states have enacted $14.1 billion in tax and fee increases. Again, because the administration's proposal is based on outdated tax information, it does not take into account these substantial increases in State tax burden. In fact, the General Accounting Office issued a report last week that found that the Department of Education's procedures for revising the tax tables and the formula the Department used are seriously flawed. The GAO report, entitled Student Financial Aid: Need Determination Could be Enhanced through Improvements in Education's Estimate of Applicants' State Tax Payments, states, ``Education could not provide us with written procedures guiding staff on the routine steps necessary to update the tax allowance, nor did it maintain detailed records of its efforts to obtain data.'' The report goes on to say of the data the Department used to revise the tables, As a result of certain limitations of the SOI [statistics of income] dataset for the purpose of calculating the allowance and problems with how Education uses this dataset, the current state and other tax allowance may not fully reflect the amount of taxes paid by students and families. The dataset itself is not ideally suited for calculating the allowance because it is limited to financial data from those who itemize their taxes, does not include state and local taxes, and is several years older than the income information reported by students and families on the FAFSA. The report further notes that because the SOI compiles data only for those who itemize their tax deductions, who may pay different tax rates than non-itemizers, the data is further flawed. The GAO goes on to suggest improvements to the Department's calculations and the data they use. These changes also come at a time when tuition is rising dramatically at double digit rates, and students and working families are straining to provide the financial wherewithal to access America's promise of education. According to the College Board, tuition, room, and board at a four-year public university costs an average of $11,354, $824 more than last year and $1775 more than 2 years ago. In other words, tuition at public institutions has been increasing by almost ten percent a year. In fact, according to the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, tuition and fees at public institutions in New Jersey has increased by more than 40 percent since the 1999-2000 school year. In some states they've increased by more than 60 percent in the last five years. To really understand these numbers, though, it's necessary to look at the people who are struggling to afford to go to college. To that end, I would like to read a couple of personal stories about the importance of the Pell grant program to a college-bound student and a student struggling to afford college now. One student writes, I am lucky enough to be attending a top-rate University and receiving a quality education, but I rely on many federal loans and aid, including a Pell Grant, in order to remain where I am. When President Bush decided not to fully fund Pell Grants, he left me and many others in a precarious position. My Pell grant is still pending and I really am counting on it to cover some of my basic expenses; it will be a hardship until it comes--or worse if it doesn't come in full. The President says he's an advocate for young people with his dubious social security plans, but he leaves us behind with his non-commitment to higher education. A mother who fears she will no longer be able to afford to send her son to school writes, I've saved money from the day my son was born so that he may attend the college of his dreams. He is a gifted musician and was awarded scholarships to attend Berklee in Boston. With the help of the Pell Grant and other student loans, he is now a freshman there and I'm proud to say is doing very well. However, I am worried that with Bush having lowered the income standard for Pell, Timmy may lose his grant and there won't be enough money saved for him to stay in school. I would like to give him the opportunity to pursue his dreams and let his talent take him where it may. I see Bush cutting programs from the have nots to give to the haves. How many dreams is he going to destroy and how many more programs is he going to cut?'' It's wrong, to cut $300 million--a small price to pay to ensure that low-income families can afford to send their children to college--from this program. And it's even worse to cut aid to 1.4 million families based on faulty calculations. A college education today is essential to survival in our competitive marketplace. Not only does our economy thrive on an educated workforce, but also those who are educated and as a result are gainfully employed contribute enormously to our tax base. I am willing to venture that the costs of the Pell grant program are more than paid back by those who were able to go to attend college because of a Pell grant and today are productive, tax-paying citizens. The Senate must prevent these cuts from becoming a reality. Thirty Senators stand behind the legislation I introduce today a bipartisan group of thirty Senators, I might add. I hope that we can put politics aside and pass this legislation immediately to prevent any student from losing Pell grant assistance. Finally, I strongly urge the administration to take a close look at the GAO report and to reform the flawed system they have used to revise the tax tables. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, as we prepare to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, we are called on to look back and reflect on whether we have fixed the systemic problems that this historic legislation sought to address. Have we ensured that all citizens are provided equal access to the ballot, regardless of race, ethnicity, or language-minority status? Have we created the proper safeguards and procedures that make certain that every vote is counted? Have we done enough to protect our democracy's most sacred right--the right to vote? The accounts from our most recent Presidential election suggest that we have not yet met our goal of securing a free and fair election for all Americans. Driving this point home is yesterday's 102-page report published by the House Judiciary Committee's Democratic staff. The report goes into great detail describing the voting irregularities that arose in Ohio last November. The allegations include accounts of voter registration barriers, voter intimidation, voting machine shortages and failures, and confusion over the counting of provisional ballots. These accounts raise serious doubts about whether Ohio electors selected on December 13, 2004, were chosen in a manner that conforms to Ohio law or Federal requirements and constitutional standards. The most troubling revelation from the committee staff's report is the seeming disproportionate impact these voting irregularities had on minority voters. And so I ask, 40 years later, have we done enough to make sure the letter and spirit of the Voting Rights Act is being enforced? I ask my colleagues to join me in pushing for congressional hearings on the alleged voting irregularities witnessed in Ohio and elsewhere this past election season. I also ask them to join me in examining whether we need to reform our election laws to ensure that we have free and fair elections for all Americans, regardless of race or ethnicity. Only then can we be sure that we have adequately protected the constitutional right of all qualified citizens to participate in our democracy's most cherished right. I am traveling overseas on a humanitarian mission to Southeast Asia to visit the areas most affected by the recent tsunami and regret that I will not be available to participate in this afternoon's debate. I nonetheless commend my colleagues who are raising these important issues, and applaud their efforts to give a voice to those who were disenfranchised last November.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, this week, our Nation suffered the loss of two of the finest Americans to grace the public stage in my life time. Congressman Matsui and I served here together, and as a result of our passionate efforts to preserve and protect Social Security, and from leading our respective caucus's campaign efforts last year, Bob and I became friends. Bob was a man of strong beliefs and principles and a tireless advocate for children, women, minorities, seniors and virtually every segment of society that too often has been left behind. I am saddened by his passing and my heart goes out to his family, friends and constituents. Those of us who knew Bob are richer for the experience, and the institution of Congress is poorer now that he is gone. Shirley Chisholm too was a woman of strong belief and character. I am deeply saddened by her death and my thoughts and prayers are with her family. When Shirley Chisholm was elected the first African-American woman to Congress in 1968 America was in the midst of dramatic change. Congresswoman Chisholm's refusal to be labeled or marginalized by what she called ``a small group of old men'' in Washington challenged the status quo and changed America for the better. Her barrier-breaking run for the 1972 Democratic Presidential nomination represented the best qualities of our democracy. Her unique friendships, bi-partisan style and staunch advocacy for the people she represented are a lesson to us all. She will be missed.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to vote for the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The bill represents a critical step toward improving our intelligence capabilities. If faithfully implemented, it will allow our intelligence community to coordinate its efforts to thwart terrorism and defeat terrorists abroad. The establishment of a Director of National Intelligence is also necessary if we are to successfully prioritize our efforts to fight terrorism, confront threats from nation states, stabilize failed states that act as breeding grounds for terrorists, and stop the proliferation of nuclear and other dangerous weapons. The Director will also be responsible for ensuring that our policies are once again informed by accurate and objective intelligence. Improving our intelligence capabilities is especially important to the people of New Jersey. More than 700 of New Jersey's citizens died on September 11, 2001. At least two of the 9/11 terrorists lived in New Jersey, and the anthrax that struck Washington in October 2001 originated in New Jersey. Our State is also especially vulnerable to terrorist attack. Our transportation infrastructure, chemical plants and ports are not adequately secured, and one stretch of road has been called by the FBI the most dangerous 2 miles in America. We would not be passing this bill were it not for the families of 9/ 11 victims. They turned our national tragedy into meaningful reform. They have inspired us, even as they have helped make us safer. This bill is also a testament to the incredible work of the 9/11 Commission. Under the steady leadership of former New Jersey Governor Tom Kean and former Representative Lee Hamilton, the bipartisan commission put our Nation's safety ahead of politics. The Commission brought the country together in understanding the attacks of 9/11 and the events that preceded the attacks. Through its public hearings and transparent approach, they also rallied the country behind the hard, but critical work of intelligence reform. The bill itself will not, however, make us safer, unless it is fully implemented in letter and spirit. The success of these reforms is also dependent on the people tasked with carrying them out. As a new member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I will make sure that the bill is implemented as intended, that our intelligence community has the tools and resources to protect us, and that reforming our intelligence does not result in the infringement of our civil liberties. I will also ensure that our intelligence agencies are led by the best people our country has to offer.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, it is my understanding this provision now being described not only deals with conscience issues but also deals with what potentially HMOs or insurance companies can choose to not inform, not because of an issue of morality or religious beliefs, but because they just flat out believe it is not in their best business interests to do that. So we are changing the whole generic and fundamental reason on how we are addressing this issue.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, to put this in the context of this 3,500- page bill that we are legislating outside of the Constitution, of the formal processes of hearings, not unlike the abomination of the IRS where we are creating policies that are changing both State law and privacy issues, both in the case of a woman's right to have access to protecting her health, and dealing with things like the Federal privacy laws with regard to the IRS--what we are doing with these 3,500 pages is the American people are getting legislation tucked into bills without any kind of debate or transparency.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I want to address a troubling provision in the Criminal-Justice-State, CJS, Appropriations bill, contained in the omnibus, that applies to any nonprofit legal services organization receiving funding from the Legal Services Commission, (LSC). This ``private money restriction'' precludes these nonprofits from using any of their private funds--including individual donations, foundation grants, and State and local government funds--for any non-LSC-qualified services. The private money restriction places an unfair and costly burden on private and other non-Federal funds dedicated to helping families in need. As a result of the private money restriction, most civil legal services providers are forced to stop providing non-LSC- qualified services altogether. Many of the most vulnerable individuals and families--such as certain legal immigrants, including some battered women and children, mothers in prison trying to maintain visitation and custody of their children, and elderly homeowners seeking to file class actions to protect themselves from predatory lenders--find themselves without access to legal services at all. LSC has attempted a ``fix'' for this problem by allowing organizations to use their own private funds for non-LSC-qualified services only if they create physically separate nonprofits with separate staff, offices and equipment. Wasting scarce private resources on duplicate staff and offices adds significant costs and results in fewer families being served. Congress can provide a real ``fix'' for this problem by amending the CJS Appropriations bill to treat the privately funded activities of legal aid nonprofits equally with the privately funded activities of other nonprofits. In particular, we can require LSC grantees to abide by the same longstanding rules promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget for nonprofit grantees of Federal agencies and by the IRS for all nonprofit 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) organizations, as well as new rules promulgated by the Bush administration for faith-based groups. These rules authorize nonprofits receiving Federal funds to engage in various privately funded activities without requiring them to maintain physically separate entities with separate staff and equipment. Under this alternative approach, the restrictions on Federal LSC funds would still apply, whether one agrees with them or not, but they would allow local providers and donors to use private money to serve their communities as they see fit. I hope that in future discussions about the CJS Appropriations bill, we can consider this alternative approach to the problems that this bill will create for America's families and service providers.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased that Congress is in the final stage of reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. While I am glad that the bill emerged in a bipartisan way, I am still frustrated that Congress has yet again failed to fulfill its promise to fully fund IDEA. With IDEA still drastically underfunded, schools are left without the necessary resources to provide the best services to children with disabilities, and our communities are burdened with an unfulfilled federal promise. In my home State of New Jersey, school budgets are capped by law at 3 percent annual growth. Therefore, districts often have to cut other programs to accommodate mandated and rising special-education costs. Or--local property taxpayers, who already are overburdened--have to pay increased taxes to cover expenses that the Federal Government should be sharing. I have received many letters, phone calls, and emails from concerned constituents urging Congress to fulfill the promise of full funding for the services mandated under IDEA. I have supported efforts to require full funding of IDEA and intend to continue the fight so that every child receives the free and appropriate public education the law guarantees and we can ease the burden on our local communities. In addition, I would like to highlight one specific issue related to IDEA that has not only affected the children of New Jersey, but children across this nation. That is the staggering increase in the number of children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, ASD. Recent epidemiology studies have shown that autism spectrum disorders are ten times more prevalent than they were just 10 years ago, making ASD the second most common developmental disability. While there is currently much debate and still no conclusive evidence as to the cause of this alarming trend, it is clear that this trend will continue. Equally clear is the critical need for Congress to address the issue of early intervention and effective treatment for children diagnosed with ASD. Scientific evidence has proven that early intervention is a key to success when treating ASD. Over the last 20 years, experts have developed effective strategies for the correction of autism disorder, and research shows that with the early application of an effective therapy, substantial gains can be accomplished toward the remediation of autistic disorder in many children. With autism diagnoses escalating, expanding access to treatment, especially at an early age, is vital to improving the outcomes for children affected by ASD. That is why I introduced the Teacher Education for Autistic Children Act or TEACH Act. I worked closely with New Jersey Center for Outreach and Community Services for the Autism Community, NJCOSAC, Autism Coalition for Research and Education, and Parents of Autistic Children to create this legislation that addresses the needs of autistic children by bringing more qualified teachers into the classroom, helping families receive the support and services they need for their children, and ensuring quality vocational programs to assist people with autism transition from school to work. I am happy to report that some critical provisions of the TEACH Act have been included in the IDEA conference report currently being considered by the Senate. These provisions will make Federal funds available to develop and improve programs for children with autism, using research grounded in science. The grants will help ensure quality professional development for special education teachers by providing in-service training to schools and personnel who teach children with ASD. With the demand for services grossly outpacing the supply of qualified teachers and therapists, these provisions are critical to increasing the number of special education teachers trained to teach children diagnosed with ASD and help them reach their full potential. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to the entire HELP Committee for their tireless efforts in working with me to get this essential language included in the bill. In particular, I would like to single out Connie Garner for her dedication and diligent work on behalf of children with special needs. I look forward to continuing to work on this important issue with my colleagues in Congress and with the autism community to ensure that all children with ASD have access to quality teachers trained in providing cutting-edge treatments. The conference report was agreed to.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, first, let me say that it is this Senator's personal desire, following the comments the Senator from Kentucky has so ably given, that we came here to try to make things better for the world in the years beyond and for our children. So much of what he talk about--whether it is Social Security or the Tax Code or our needs and in foreign policy--does require that we work together. I commend the Senator for his comments. We do have to work together as we go forward. In fact, one of the things I want to talk about, and why I came to the Senate, one of the areas is where bipartisanship and joint effort has been fundamental to raising an issue, framing it, and getting it in front of the American people. I come to the Senate today to talk about the genocide in Darfur, Sudan, and what we, the United States of America, are going to be doing about it. Today, the U.N. Security Council is meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, to discuss Sudan and to seek the end of the civil war between the north and the south. This is a good thing and I congratulate Ambassador Danforth, in particular, for his personal efforts in making this possibility real and tangible. Multilateral diplomacy is critical. Peace between north and south is an important component of an overall political solution for the Sudan. At the end of the day, if we do not stop the killing in Darfur--which is independent in many ways from the north-south issue--if we do not stop the genocide, then we fail. Members will hear me say repeatedly words are important; deeds are a reality. Lives are at stake. What greater moral imperative can we have than to stop genocide? What greater moral failure can there be than allowing genocide to occur? The death toll is mounting in Darfur with all kinds of estimates--70,000, over 100,000, 125,000. The issue is stark: life or death. Deeds, not words, are what matters. History will judge us based on whether we actually stop this genocide--not whether we gave great speeches or passed great resolutions or made statements, but what have we done to stop it. The words have all been said. In July, this body unanimously passed a bipartisan resolution introduced by Senator Brownback and myself, declaring that the atrocities in Darfur were genocide. On the same day, the House passed a similar resolution. In September, Secretary Powell made the same declaration for the administration. We all welcomed the announcement. Since then, the situation has only deteriorated. The death toll may have already gone over, as I suggested, 100,000 human beings. Armed militias continue to rape women and girls with impunity. Civilians are being driven from their homes by the hundreds of thousands. Now the refugees are being driven from one camp to another camp, or even out of the camps altogether. The displaced population in Darfur is over 1.5 million. That is what is confirmed. In the last few weeks, Janjaweeds have attacked these IDP camps, the refugee camps, destroying shelters, beating civilians, and forcibly moving people from one location to another. The escalating violence preventing humanitarian organizations from reaching needy people is also occurring. Already, nearly one-quarter of the children under the age of five in Darfur are certifiably malnourished and close to half of the families do not have enough food. Recently, food convoys have been attacked and large areas of Darfur are now effectively closed to the humanitarian organizations that are distributing food, medicine, and other elements. Hundreds of thousands of needy refugees cannot be reached. Before this wave of violence--even before it--World Food Program reported that it served 175,000 fewer people in October than September. Get that: Statistics for our program serving the needy are going down, 175,000 fewer people in October than in September. When I visited Darfur in August, the conditions were grim. The one ray of hope was the pressure from the international community, including a threat of sanctions that forced the Government in Khartoum to allow access by humanitarian organizations. Humanitarian workers were overwhelmed by the number of refugees, but they were working hard and saving lives. As a result, estimates of the death toll, which could have gone as high as a million, were scaled back after that. With the violence intensifying and humanitarian organizations again restricted in their movements, we sadly revisit our gravest fears. The other recent development is the disintegration of order in the region. Anger and resentment are on the rise among the displaced, and civil war between Khartoum and the rebels is escalating. All the conditions are in place for a complete collapse, for long-term instability and an indefinite humanitarian crisis. As Jan Pronk, the U.N. Special Representative for Sudan, warned on November 4: Darfur may easily enter a state of anarchy; a total collapse of law and order. Permitting such a thing to happen is not only immoral, it is antithetical to our national security interests. Remember, Sudan is the country that once harbored Osama bin Laden. The prospects of becoming a terrorist breeding ground are real. This is something that needs to be addressed now. This has not happened since the administration declared genocide was taking place. Whatever the message that declaration sent, it was clearly not enough and may even have sent the wrong message that the United States may declare that genocide is existing and then not act to stop it. Words without deeds violates the moral and legal obligation we have under the genocide convention but, more importantly, violates our sense of right and wrong and the standards we have as human beings about looking to care for one another. Words without deeds is an affront to the principle that guides our Nation and makes a mockery of the values we as public servants claim to love. The American people know this, which is why people of faith, of all religions and denominations and civic groups throughout the country, call for concerted, resolute, effective action. Details matter. What will it actually take to stop this genocide? In September, this body passed by voice vote an amendment offered by myself and Senator DeWine to provide $75 million for an expanded African Union force in Darfur. The funding is now being negotiated with the House of Representatives in the so-called Omnibus bill but has had little if any support from the administration and some in the Senate. Senator DeWine and myself offered the amendment after the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution calling for assistance to the AU and after Secretary Powell testified the current United States contribution of $20 million would not be enough. Get that, $20 million--not billions, trillions, which we normally are talking about. An expanded African Union force of 3,000 will cost roughly $220 million. The European Union recently pledged half that amount would be forthcoming. We can afford to pay for the rest. We cannot afford to walk away from our moral obligation. Madam President, $75 million is less than half of what the administration sought for waste disposal in Iraq. It is insignificant compared to the costs of the wars that are waging around the globe. What we cannot afford is to provide anything less. Shortchanging AU troops or delivering only incremental assistance may be worse than doing nothing. They do need helicopters, vehicles, communication equipment, and housing to patrol Darfur. We are moving forces into Darfur, but we do not give them the tools they need to be able to do what they are there for and we are setting them up for failure. We risk undermining the very credibility of a burgeoning ability to deal with some of these crises that happen all across Africa, and not just in Darfur. It is precisely now when we need to give them the resources to be able to succeed. We should not kid ourselves about the effectiveness of the AU force. They are responsible for monitoring the April cease-fire. There was an agreement reached November 9 that includes a no-fly zone that the AU force must enforce. To quote the current AU chair, Nigerian President Obsanjo, these agreements ``won't be worth the paper they're written on if they are not scrupulously implemented on the ground.'' His words are right. Words without deeds, without resources, is meaningless. The potential for the situation to overwhelm the AU force is real. The region is enormous and every day as the violence gets worse, the challenge grows. The answer is not to dismiss the AU force but to do whatever it takes to make it effective. If 3,000 troops is not enough, we should consider others and more. If $220 million is not enough, we should, along with our allies, push to have additional resources. Hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake. If the AU cannot set up command-and-control communications or intelligence right away, we should help them do it. In the end, the only test is whether we stop the killing. The same test applies to sanctions. This week's efforts to reach a north-south agreement are important, but we must not weaken in any way the pressure on Khartoum with regard to Darfur. Only consistent, strong, credible international pressure has ever changed Khartoum's behavior. I heard one senior administration official say that when their lips are moving, they are lying. This means we need to apply pressure. This means an embargo, seizing assets, restricting travel of government officials and, yes, going after Sudanese oil and gas companies that deal in the finances that allow this tragedy to continue to unfold. We should be working with our allies to put in place effective sanctions. If members of the U.N. Security Council are not amenable, we should work with the EU. We also have leverage through our own capital markets. The test is whether we are prepared to stop genocide, something we have all declared exists, something the administration has declared. How can we be discussing these options? We should be acting. There is no more critical moment than now. The pieces are in place. Today, the U.N. Security Council is meeting in Nairobi preparing to issue another resolution on Sudan, although I hear the discussion is very limited with regard to actions they will take with regard to Khartoum. The United States has rightfully called this genocide. The U.N. Security Council has agreed on paper that sanctions should be imposed if Sudan does not stop the violence. That violence has not stopped. The Security Council has called on member states to support an expanded AU force, and the African Union, 2 years old, has stepped up. Its leadership is committed to preventing another genocide if we will help. We are the world's only superpower. Genocide is happening and we must act. President Bush campaigned on a platform of acting wherever necessary to protect our interests overseas regardless of world opinion. With all that has happened in the last few years, how can we claim to be constrained in this situation with this action taking place against the human race? We are the world's superpower. If we do everything that we should do, history will judge that we acted. But they will judge us harshly if we do not step up to save these lives that will be lost in the years and the months and the days ahead. If we hesitate now, if we make excuses, most of us think we will have a hard time forgiving ourselves for what we did not do. Rwanda is burned in our memory. We should not allow hundreds of thousands of people to die. We will have doomed the AU to ineffectual operations on the ground, and we will have damaged its credibility and its underlying ability to respond to crises in the future. I hope we will act. I hope we will not turn the pages of this omnibus financing without giving the resources to act. Words are not good enough; deeds are required. I hope we will not have failed our people and our values we hold dear. I thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, yesterday I voted against legislation that will authorize a massive increase in the Federal debt. This bill highlights the gross irresponsibility of our Nation's current fiscal policies. And I hope that, in casting a negative vote along with many of my colleagues, we have helped send a message to the White House that it is long past time to change course. When President Bush came to office, we were expecting to run a surplus over the next ten years of $5.6 trillion. Instead, we now project a deficit of $3.5 trillion. That is a reversal of more than $9 trillion. President Bush promised that he would not raid the Social Security trust fund. But, instead, under the Bush budget, we will spend every last penny of Social Security surpluses over the next 10 years, all $2.4 trillion. These surpluses won't be saved. They won't be used to help us keep our promise to working Americans. They will be diverted for tax breaks and other spending programs. This is not what the President promised. It is the opposite. In effect, the administration's policies are using payroll taxes paid by working Americans, and using them to finance tax breaks for the most fortunate among us. I think that is wrong. The past few years have been marked by unprecedented fiscal recklessness. The 2004 deficit, even including the Social Security surplus, is $413 billion. That is a record. Last year, the deficit was $377 billion. That was another record. The budget is spinning out of control, and few in the administration seem to care. Unfortunately, as bad as things have been in recent years, the outlook for the long term is even worse. The baby boomers are about to retire. And by 2050, 81 million Americans will be on Social Security-- about double the current level. We need to prepare for that. We need to save for it. Instead, we are doing the reverse. We are putting ourselves deeper and deeper in debt. In 2001, gross Federal debt stood at $5.8 trillion. By 2014, that debt will have skyrocketed to almost $15 trillion. With more debt, of course, comes higher interest costs. The 10-year cost of Federal interest payments has gone up from $622 billion in 2001, to $2.4 trillion. All this debt, and all these interest payments, have consequences. They reduce the capital available for productive investment. They increase interest rates. They slow economic growth. And they lower the standard of living for American families. Another consequence of all this debt is that our Nation is slowly losing its economic independence. Foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury debt has increased 83 percent under this administration. Today, the U.S. owes China more than $170 billion. We owe Japan more than $700 billion. Increasingly, our Nation is dependent on these countries to bolster our economy and to maintain the value of the dollar. But if those countries and other foreign investors pull out in the face of rising fiscal imbalances, as has happened elsewhere, the consequences for our economy could be very serious. In my view, the current course of fiscal policy is not only unwise and dangerous, it is ultimately unsustainable. We can't go on like this. Either our leaders here in Washington will face reality and reverse course, or the markets will punish us until we do. Either the dollar will collapse, or interest rates will rise substantially, or inflation will rise, or all these problems will hit at once. When that might happen is anybody's guess. But you can't reverse the basic laws of economics. Sooner or later, the piper gets paid. So, I think we have made a mistake by increasing the debt limit so substantially. Needless to say, we must protect the full faith and credit of the United States. But we do not need a debt limit extension of this magnitude. And we should not have approved it yesterday. Instead, we should have passed a much smaller increase, in order to put real pressure on the Congress next year to finally get serious about the need for fiscal discipline. Next year we will begin perhaps the most important domestic policy debate in a generation when we take up President Bush's call to privatize Social Security. At that point, Congress will have to make a decision. Either we will keep our promise to American workers, or we will break that promise and cut earned benefits. I think we should keep our promise and protect benefits. But we can only afford to do that if we quickly reestablish some measure of fiscal discipline. Increasing our debt by $800 billion is not the way to do that and, in my view, is a serious mistake. So for all these reasons, I cast my vote no yesterday. For the sake of our economy, for the sake of our future, and for the sake of our values as a Nation, we must restore fiscal discipline. And we must do it soon.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the decade of economic development and social service leadership provided to my State by the New Jersey Community Development Corporation. NJCDC's success has been widely and deservedly acknowledged. And the foundation for that success is the complete commitment to its mission of revitalizing urban areas through job creation, affordable housing, educational initiatives and effective and pragmatic social support services. Established in Paterson, NJ, the city planned by Alexander Hamilton as this country's premier urban industrial center, NJCDC has built a corporate model for grassroots advocacy and activism based on Paterson's tradition of cultural diversity and industrial vitality. The agency is the linchpin of a collaborative network of community, educational and government organizations and agencies. The results of this partnership are notable: an AmeriCorps project enlisting volunteers as mentors to at-risk youth and support companions for the frail elderly; community economic development and restoration efforts including the refurbishing of Paterson's historic raceway system and its Great Falls Historic District; the establishment of a transportation opportunities center to provide job training and jobs for a disadvantaged population; building and operating housing for homeless youth and the homeless mentally ill population; community residences and day programs to help developmentally disabled adults lead independent lives; educational initiatives including an alternative academy high school for inner-city students and a YouthBuild program; and one of my own priorities, financial literacy programs leading to economic security for inner-city and senior populations. All of this in the relatively short span of 10 years. I am pleased to enter this tribute into the Congressional Record, with every expectation for NJCDC's continued achievements.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation along with Senators Boxer, Murray, Schumer, Lautenberg, and Leahy the Preservation of Federalism in Banking Act, to clarify the relationship between state consumer protection laws and national banks. This legislation responds to a sweeping new rule issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the agency that regulates national banks. The OCC's new rule gives the agency unprecedented authority to pre-empt State laws, thereby shielding national banks and their non- bank and State-chartered bank affiliates from many important consumer protections. It also potentially limits the ability of States to enforce many related laws. The most important immediate consequence of the OCC rule has been the preemption of State anti-predatory lending laws. I feel strongly about the need to address predatory lending, which can trap people in endless cycles of debt and escalating fees. Many States, such as my own state of New Jersey, have enacted tough laws to deal with the problem. Unfortunately, the OCC's ruling substantially undermines these laws by regulatory fiat. That will leave many consumers unprotected, and it shifts too many responsibilities to a single agency here in Washington that is not equipped to handle them. After all, according to its own website, the OCC ``does not have the mandate to engage in consumer advocacy''. Although the OCC has a long and successful record of regulating for safety and soundness, it has little experience dealing with abusive local practices, such as predatory lending. Believe it or not, the OCC actually is proposing to handle all consumer complaints through a single 22-person call center in Houston. This is totally unrealistic. Each year, State officials receive thousands of related complaints, which usually are very local in nature. These officials are at the forefront of the enforcement effort, identifying and combating new practices as they arise. The OCC's system simply could not fill this role without major changes. The OCC rule also raises concerns about regulatory charter competition, the viability of a broad range of state laws, and the ability of consumers and state officials to seek remedies in court. The OCC rule has provoked strong opposition from governors, attorneys general, banking supervisors, and many consumer advocacy groups, not to mention the public. The OCC received over 2,600 letters in response to its rules, and more than 90 percent opposed them. The Preservation of Federalism in Banking Act is a limited and reasonable response to the OCC rule. The bill will clarify the state consumer protection laws with which banks and their affiliates must comply. It also will protect financial institutions from overreaching state laws that seek to directly regulate the core activities of national banks. While the OCC has long had the statutory responsibility to regulate the activities of national banks, it has never denied the ability of states to protect their citizens. The OCC historically has used its authority under the National Bank Act in a reasonable way to shield national banks from state banking laws that intrude on the OCC's congressionally-granted powers. While we should continue to support the appropriate use of the agency's authority, it is important that we immediately intervene to reverse the OCC's regulatory overreach and prevent the agency from preempting all state consumer protection laws and state authority to enforce related laws. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation along with Senators Boxer, Murray, Schumer, Lautenberg, and Leahy the Preservation of Federalism in Banking Act, to clarify the relationship between state consumer protection laws and national banks. This legislation responds to a sweeping new rule issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the agency that regulates national banks. The OCC's new rule gives the agency unprecedented authority to pre-empt State laws, thereby shielding national banks and their non- bank and State-chartered bank affiliates from many important consumer protections. It also potentially limits the ability of States to enforce many related laws. The most important immediate consequence of the OCC rule has been the preemption of State anti-predatory lending laws. I feel strongly about the need to address predatory lending, which can trap people in endless cycles of debt and escalating fees. Many States, such as my own state of New Jersey, have enacted tough laws to deal with the problem. Unfortunately, the OCC's ruling substantially undermines these laws by regulatory fiat. That will leave many consumers unprotected, and it shifts too many responsibilities to a single agency here in Washington that is not equipped to handle them. After all, according to its own website, the OCC ``does not have the mandate to engage in consumer advocacy''. Although the OCC has a long and successful record of regulating for safety and soundness, it has little experience dealing with abusive local practices, such as predatory lending. Believe it or not, the OCC actually is proposing to handle all consumer complaints through a single 22-person call center in Houston. This is totally unrealistic. Each year, State officials receive thousands of related complaints, which usually are very local in nature. These officials are at the forefront of the enforcement effort, identifying and combating new practices as they arise. The OCC's system simply could not fill this role without major changes. The OCC rule also raises concerns about regulatory charter competition, the viability of a broad range of state laws, and the ability of consumers and state officials to seek remedies in court. The OCC rule has provoked strong opposition from governors, attorneys general, banking supervisors, and many consumer advocacy groups, not to mention the public. The OCC received over 2,600 letters in response to its rules, and more than 90 percent opposed them. The Preservation of Federalism in Banking Act is a limited and reasonable response to the OCC rule. The bill will clarify the state consumer protection laws with which banks and their affiliates must comply. It also will protect financial institutions from overreaching state laws that seek to directly regulate the core activities of national banks. While the OCC has long had the statutory responsibility to regulate the activities of national banks, it has never denied the ability of states to protect their citizens. The OCC historically has used its authority under the National Bank Act in a reasonable way to shield national banks from state banking laws that intrude on the OCC's congressionally-granted powers. While we should continue to support the appropriate use of the agency's authority, it is important that we immediately intervene to reverse the OCC's regulatory overreach and prevent the agency from preempting all state consumer protection laws and state authority to enforce related laws. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Lautenberg, to introduce legislation to help ensure that convicted felons are not permitted to legally possess dangerous weapons. The bill would eliminate a discredited program under which convicted felons can apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, ATF, to seek a waiver that allows them to possess firearms or explosives. Under Federal law, those convicted of felonies generally are prohibited from possessing firearms. However, ATF is authorized to grant a waiver from this prohibition if it believes that an individual is not likely to act in a manner that threatens public safety. Interestingly, this waiver authority was enacted not to permit common criminals to obtain guns, but to assist a company called Winchester, which manufactures firearms. Winchester's parent company, Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation, had been convicted of a felony involving a kickback scheme. As a result, Winchester was legally prohibited from shipping firearms in interstate commerce. The provision was approved to allow Winchester to stay in business. Because the provision was drafted broadly, however, the waiver provision applied to common criminals. Originally, waivers could not be granted to those convicted of firearms offenses. But in 1986, Congress expanded the law to allow even persons convicted of firearms offenses, and those involuntarily committed to a mental institution, to apply for a waiver. Between 1981 and 1991, ATF processed more than 13,000 applications. These applications required some of ATF's best agents to abandon their law enforcement responsibilities and instead conduct extensive investigations on behalf of convicted felons. In the late 1980's, the cost of handling these petitions worked out to about $10,000 for each waiver granted--costs borne by ordinary taxpayers. The Violence Policy Center investigated 100 cases in which a convicted felon had been allowed to legally possess firearms. In 41 percent of those cases, the felon had been convicted of a crime of violence, or a drug or firearms offense. The crimes of violence included several homicides, sexual assaults and armed robberies. Between 1981 and 1991, 5600 waivers were granted. In many cases, those who regained their gun privileges later used their guns to commit serious crimes, such as attempted murder, rape, kidnapping, and child molestation. This program makes no sense. It is not fair to taxpayers, who must foot the bill for ATF investigations. It is not fair to ATF agents, who have much more important things to do. And, most importantly, it is not fair to the public, whose safety is put at risk when convicted felons are allowed to carry guns. Fortunately, there has long been bipartisan support for blocking the program. Since 1992, Congress has prohibited the use of appropriated funds to implement it, and President Bush's budget proposes that the prohibition be retained. Yet funding bans in appropriations bills are stopgap measures that are effective for only a single fiscal year. It is time to eliminate the waiver program permanently. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to close a gaping loophole in the Medicaid law that allows pharmacies to double bill the Medicaid program for prescription drugs. As you may know, many States are now encouraging or requiring health care facilities to return unused prescription drugs for Medicaid patients to pharmacies for re-dispensing as a way to save money. These drugs go unused because a nursing home patient has died, the prescription was incorrect, or the patient no longer needs the drugs. Certainly, we should encourage states and pharmacies to re-dispense rather than simply discard these prescription drugs. However, while some States, including Connecticut, Missouri, and Texas, have laws that require pharmacies that re-stock drugs for re-dispensing to credit the State Medicaid program, many, including New Jersey, do not. This has resulted in pharmacy companies double charging Medicaid--for the sale and resale--of the restocked drugs. We have an obligation to close this loophole. At a time in which all 50 States are proposing cuts to their Medicaid programs because of skyrocketing costs and the burden of these costs on the Federal Government continues to grow, we must eliminate such wasteful spending. The absence of any Federal or State law or regulation prohibiting this practice has left our courts with no option but to allow this practice to continue. For example, a recent Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision found that a New Jersey pharmacy company, Omnicare, had indeed double charged the State's Medicaid program when it charged Medicaid twice for the sale and resale of restocked drugs. Because there was no State or Federal law prohibiting such double charges, however, the court could not assess penalties against the company. Writing for the court, Judge Jane Roth said, ``We are constrained by a lack of a regulation. We believe that Congress and/or the New Jersey legislature might serve Medicaid well if this lack of regulation were corrected.'' My legislation will close this loophole by prohibiting federal reimbursement for any prescription drugs that have been re-stocked. Recognizing that pharmacies that restock prescription drugs incur costs in verifying the integrity of the drugs and placing them back into the pharmacy's inventory, my legislation allows states to provide reasonable reimbursements to pharmacies for these costs. In closing, I want to state that I am open to working with the Administration to close this loophole. I think that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have the authority to close this loophole and I hope that they will take immediate action to address this problem. This practice of double billing is nothing short of fraud. Congress and the Administration have a duty to safeguard the Medicaid program from such fraud, waste, and abuse. I urge my colleagues to join me in the effort to do just that. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Lautenberg, to introduce legislation to help ensure that convicted felons are not permitted to legally possess dangerous weapons. The bill would eliminate a discredited program under which convicted felons can apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, ATF, to seek a waiver that allows them to possess firearms or explosives. Under Federal law, those convicted of felonies generally are prohibited from possessing firearms. However, ATF is authorized to grant a waiver from this prohibition if it believes that an individual is not likely to act in a manner that threatens public safety. Interestingly, this waiver authority was enacted not to permit common criminals to obtain guns, but to assist a company called Winchester, which manufactures firearms. Winchester's parent company, Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation, had been convicted of a felony involving a kickback scheme. As a result, Winchester was legally prohibited from shipping firearms in interstate commerce. The provision was approved to allow Winchester to stay in business. Because the provision was drafted broadly, however, the waiver provision applied to common criminals. Originally, waivers could not be granted to those convicted of firearms offenses. But in 1986, Congress expanded the law to allow even persons convicted of firearms offenses, and those involuntarily committed to a mental institution, to apply for a waiver. Between 1981 and 1991, ATF processed more than 13,000 applications. These applications required some of ATF's best agents to abandon their law enforcement responsibilities and instead conduct extensive investigations on behalf of convicted felons. In the late 1980's, the cost of handling these petitions worked out to about $10,000 for each waiver granted--costs borne by ordinary taxpayers. The Violence Policy Center investigated 100 cases in which a convicted felon had been allowed to legally possess firearms. In 41 percent of those cases, the felon had been convicted of a crime of violence, or a drug or firearms offense. The crimes of violence included several homicides, sexual assaults and armed robberies. Between 1981 and 1991, 5600 waivers were granted. In many cases, those who regained their gun privileges later used their guns to commit serious crimes, such as attempted murder, rape, kidnapping, and child molestation. This program makes no sense. It is not fair to taxpayers, who must foot the bill for ATF investigations. It is not fair to ATF agents, who have much more important things to do. And, most importantly, it is not fair to the public, whose safety is put at risk when convicted felons are allowed to carry guns. Fortunately, there has long been bipartisan support for blocking the program. Since 1992, Congress has prohibited the use of appropriated funds to implement it, and President Bush's budget proposes that the prohibition be retained. Yet funding bans in appropriations bills are stopgap measures that are effective for only a single fiscal year. It is time to eliminate the waiver program permanently. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to close a gaping loophole in the Medicaid law that allows pharmacies to double bill the Medicaid program for prescription drugs. As you may know, many States are now encouraging or requiring health care facilities to return unused prescription drugs for Medicaid patients to pharmacies for re-dispensing as a way to save money. These drugs go unused because a nursing home patient has died, the prescription was incorrect, or the patient no longer needs the drugs. Certainly, we should encourage states and pharmacies to re-dispense rather than simply discard these prescription drugs. However, while some States, including Connecticut, Missouri, and Texas, have laws that require pharmacies that re-stock drugs for re-dispensing to credit the State Medicaid program, many, including New Jersey, do not. This has resulted in pharmacy companies double charging Medicaid--for the sale and resale--of the restocked drugs. We have an obligation to close this loophole. At a time in which all 50 States are proposing cuts to their Medicaid programs because of skyrocketing costs and the burden of these costs on the Federal Government continues to grow, we must eliminate such wasteful spending. The absence of any Federal or State law or regulation prohibiting this practice has left our courts with no option but to allow this practice to continue. For example, a recent Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision found that a New Jersey pharmacy company, Omnicare, had indeed double charged the State's Medicaid program when it charged Medicaid twice for the sale and resale of restocked drugs. Because there was no State or Federal law prohibiting such double charges, however, the court could not assess penalties against the company. Writing for the court, Judge Jane Roth said, ``We are constrained by a lack of a regulation. We believe that Congress and/or the New Jersey legislature might serve Medicaid well if this lack of regulation were corrected.'' My legislation will close this loophole by prohibiting federal reimbursement for any prescription drugs that have been re-stocked. Recognizing that pharmacies that restock prescription drugs incur costs in verifying the integrity of the drugs and placing them back into the pharmacy's inventory, my legislation allows states to provide reasonable reimbursements to pharmacies for these costs. In closing, I want to state that I am open to working with the Administration to close this loophole. I think that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have the authority to close this loophole and I hope that they will take immediate action to address this problem. This practice of double billing is nothing short of fraud. Congress and the Administration have a duty to safeguard the Medicaid program from such fraud, waste, and abuse. I urge my colleagues to join me in the effort to do just that. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.