Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I express my gratitude, and I understand the differences of opinion we have regarding this issue. I think we now have an opportunity to have a good discussion on this issue in conference committee. In that vein, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the amendment I would have proposed.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, before I discuss the provisions of this amendment, let me make something clear. I am very sensitive--painfully and personally so--of the human tragedy and national emergency created by the cowardly attacks of the terrorists on our nation on September 11. Just as much as my colleagues, I stand united with our President, our military personnel, and the people of America in accepting, as President Bush put it, our ``mission and moment'' to end this scourge of terrorism. But just as so many of America's leaders have implored the nation to be measured and thoughtful in our actions in the wake of this tragedy, and just as President Bush has asked that Americans go on about their lives, so too should the workings of America's democracy. That's why I believe it would be a a mistake to approve the amendment by the Senator from Oklahoma, which represents a significant change in direction from the policies formulated by both Presidents Bush and Clinton, while frankly undermining the President's authority as commander in chief. Why should the Chief of Naval Operations, and the commandant of the Marine Corps, be given the authority to make decisions that go well beyond military considerations? In my view, full access given the extended public debate and deep concerns, surrounding this Vieques facility this decision rightfully rests, as it did before September 11, with the President of the United States. Mr. President, I believe, in the long run, we should respect the views of the people of Puerto Rico and Vieques. Their voice has been clear on this issue, certainly before the current circumstances. Just a few months ago, more than 70 percent of those living in Vieques voted to suspend operations and there was a broad element of support for that view throughout Puerto Rico's leadership and public. At the same time, I understand and am sympathetic to the concerns of many of my colleagues about the need for combined Navy and Marine amphibious training in this time of national emergency. But, as Presidents Clinton and Bush both have said, in the long-term, we should respect the will of the people. And, in my view, while there is justification for changing the timing of implementation of current policies given the current circumstances, we should return to agreed upon policy as soon as practical. Any exceptions to the agreed upon policy should be at the judgment of the president of the United States- our commander in chief. And that, Mr. President, is exactly what this amendment does. It would provide for the termination of operations on Vieques by May 1, 2003, subject to the national security judgment of the President. In fact, my amendment would codify the policy already established by President Bush. However, in an effort to give the President necessary flexibility in these extraordinary times, the amendment would allow the President to continue operations on Vieques for one-year periods in times of national emergency beyond the May 1, 2003 deadline, if the President determines, in light of the emergency, that the termination of operations would be inconsistent with national security interests. I also would note, that my amendment eliminates the requirement for a second referendum required by last year's DOD authorization. Finally Mr. President this is a compromise endorsed by the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, Congressman Anibal Acevedo Vila and supported by the National Puerto Rican coalition. After all, there already has been a referendum with the results showing that 70 percent of Vieques residents favor closure. Mr. President, I think that's a reasonable compromise that makes commonsense. And I hope it can win the support of my colleagues. Mr. President, I've heard some people say that the Navy bombings in Vieques are merely a political issue. But to the 9,000 residents of Vieques who live immediately adjacent to the field of fire and have suffered with constant and severe noise, and whose environment and health have been threatened by related pollutants, the bombing of Vieques is a humanitarian issue. And to all the people of Puerto Rico, it's an issue about respect and democracy. I have personally visited Vieques and seen the disastrous impact that constant bombing has had on the island's natural resources and environment, on its resident's health and on its economy. The people of Puerto Rico are Americans. They raise our flag. They have fought valiantly in our wars. Many hundreds--maybe as many as 800--died on September 11th in the World Trade Center tragedy. Puerto Ricans deserve to be treated justly. Both President Clinton and President Bush have recognized this reality in formulating their responses to this difficult issue. Mr. President, like all Americans, I believe that the people of Puerto Rico have shown throughout history that they are willing to make sacrifices if asked to protect America. But we shouldn't use the current circumstances to justify continued bombing over some indeterminate period. We should and must find an alternative training site and more on as soon as possible. So, in summary, Mr. President, this amendment recognizes our current military needs and provides the President flexibility to deal with America's war on terrorism. But, over time, this action would respect the will of the people of Puerto Rico, and end the Vieques debate on the bombings. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Senator from Illinois for helping clarify this, and making clear what the administration has said about this aspect of the bill. Having said that, Madam President, let me emphasize that I rise very much in support of the efforts to reinforce our aviation industry. This industry is in dire straits. And it is an industry that plays a critical role in our economy. It also plays an important role for our military. Senator Torricelli and I visited McGuire Air Force Base with senior officers on Monday, and they told us that about 40 percent of the transportation that our military folks will need in a full war might be provided by our private aviation industry. The strength of that industry clearly is important for our national security. Madam President, I live in a State where about 12,000 Continental employees work at Newark Airport. It is the largest employer in Newark. I very much understand the needs and desires of having a healthy and ongoing industry which is under stress. But, in my view, unless we have some discipline in this process--which very clearly has been outlined in the bill as it relates to loan guarantees--we would be writing a blank check for some companies that are very strong. This would be unnecessary and could dissipate resources that could be better spent on other important priorities, including workers who are losing their jobs and other struggling companies that are not in the airline industry. In my view, it would be a mistake to provide direct support without discipline. So I hope the Administration will do what it said it will do, and ensure that, as with the loan guarantees, the grants that we are offering companies--beyond those needed to compensate them for losses directly associated with the stop order--are accompanied by warrants, or options held by the Federal government. This will help ensure discipline and accountability, just as would be required in the private sector.

Mr. CORZINE. I wonder if I might ask a question of the Senator from Illinois with regard to his premise that would not be subtracted from my time?

Mr. CORZINE. Will the Senator yield for a question before he yields the floor?

Mr. CORZINE. The Senator from Illinois spoke about the need to ensure some accountability by giving the Government a stake in airlines that are provided grants beyond the funding necessary to compensate them for the shutdown period. I agree with him on that. Has the Senator had conversations with anyone on this question? Has he been led to believe that equity participation--warrants, options, calls--also will be extended to grants that go beyond compensation for losses associated with the shutdown?

Mr. CORZINE. Is it the Senator's belief that the equity stake associated with those grants would operate in the same way that is explicitly outlined in the bill with respect to loan guarantees, with respect to which the Treasury clearly has the authority to access warrants, options, or calls?

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. I similarly appreciate Senator Byrd's statement clarifying this concern, as well as all his work.

Mr. CORZINE. I want to first associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from New Jersey and I would further appreciate the opportunity to clarify one additional point with my colleague from West Virginia. I understand that New Jersey was not listed because an attack did not physically occur there; however as my colleague, Senator Torricelli has stated, our State and communities have incurred significant human and financial costs in responding to this disaster. I would appreciate your acknowledgement that the State of New Jersey or its local communities who have incurred expenses in the relief effort, will be able to apply directly to the Federal Government for the assistance provided under this aid package.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I thank you for this opportunity to speak. I am awestruck by the passion I feel among all of the Senators in this Chamber. Today, America's people in the civilized world join hands and hearts to share our grief and our love and to steel our will. First for victims, we share our grief. We share our love with the ones who are the heroes of rescue, and we truly steel our will against the evil actors of terrorism. In my home State of New Jersey, there are unknown numbers of families heartbroken with the horror of yesterday's tragedy. The personal friendships and relationships affected in my own life are acutely painful. As do all of my colleagues, from the bottom of my heart I extend my deepest condolences to the families and friends of the victims and to the courageous men and women whose life's work has been to protect us, to rescue us in time of need. In this moment of grief, we must and we will stand together as families, as communities, as one Nation. Yesterday, America came under attack in a manner none of us thought imaginable. Our freedoms and liberties were challenged by cowardly, faceless fanatics who thought nothing of killing innocent people, women and children, hard-working men and women who dedicated their lives to believing in the American promise, the American dream, the values that we all cherish in a society. In response to those attacks and this challenge, we need to be united in purpose to move swiftly, surely, thoughtfully, to uncompromising justice. I know we all recoil with horror as we think of those who died in the destruction of the World Trade Center. It was a true symbol of America's financial and economic strength, just as certainly as the Pentagon represents our military strength. I worked for many years in that neighborhood I saw buried under the rubble yesterday. In fact, I commuted through that building for over 20 years, and I fear for the many whose paths I crossed there because of potentially unspeakable horrors. Equally shocking, it is just as difficult to imagine hijacked airliners being taken from Newark International Airport, where I have traveled literally thousands of times. But these shocks and circumstances which are not only personal to me but to everyone cannot allow us as a nation to weaken our resolve. I boil with anger at what has occurred and share with my country men and women the belief that we will leave no stone unturned tracking down those responsible for these acts. I, too, join in a chorus that says we must hold all accountable, including those who harbor these criminals and give them aid and comfort. They have no clean hands. Our Nation was born of strife and the horrors of war, but we built a country with the brick and mortar of freedom and democracy. That is what we have to defend. We have defended over the centuries the fundamental liberties that make us so strong and, as spoken about so eloquently, including the rule of law. We have become the world's lone superpower, the world's beacon of freedom because of those bricks and mortar that built the American dream. It is our responsibility at this moment in time to stand strong on those principles. It motivates us and moves us to be ever vigilant, protecting our security and freedoms. We fought too hard and, frankly, we care too much. Millions of men and women have sacrificed their lives over time to secure those freedoms. Yesterday, others joined in that sacrifice. We honor them, but we must not be deterred. Our resolve must be strengthened. I want to make sure we do everything we can to bring those who are responsible to justice, but we must be just as strong to make sure we rebuild and move forward in a sure and certain way. I know one aspect of that in the financial world, and I am clear in my own mind that we will not hesitate, that we will not step back and we will marshal every resource to make sure things will move forward, and they will. As we move forward from this tragedy, we must capture and hold those responsible, but the positive is where our hearts must be. But we will never forget. Yesterday, Lady Liberty stood in our harbor, the New York/ New Jersey Harbor, and watched unspeakable horrors unfold, but today she stands tall. And so shall we, Madam President. I thank you.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, let me begin by saying how honored I am to have a chance to rise while the distinguished Senator from Vermont is in the chair. I concur strongly with the majority of the arguments made by the Senator about the fairness of how our agricultural activities in our country are distributed. Sometimes our agricultural emergencies in the Northeast are lost sight of when we get around to supporting our family farmers and agricultural activities.

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

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a recent report by the Treasury Department that has received very little attention in Washington, but it is sending a very significant signal, message, about the recently approved tax bill to the financial analysts around the world and market participants around the globe. On July 30, the Treasury Department announced that it expects to borrow from the public $51 billion during the quarter ending in September. This was a whopping reversal from an estimate in a similar Treasury report issued just 3 months earlier. Back in April, Treasury said that it expected to pay down a total of $57 billion in debt in this very quarter--a negative cashflow swing of an incredible $108 billion. Let me repeat that. For this quarter, we have gone from an estimate showing that we would reduce our debt by $57 billion, to an estimate that we will increase our debt by $51 billion--again, a $108 billion swing in just 3 months. I used to serve on the Treasury Department's Debt Advisory Committee as a private citizen, so perhaps this report by the Treasury struck me as a little more troubling than it did many of my colleagues. It is a serious reversal and worthy of a few minutes to discuss its implications because it is a precursor of things to come. The first and perhaps most important point to make is this: We are financing the tax rebates that are so much ballyhooed by borrowing, something about which the American people would be more troubled if they knew it were happening. We are going into debt in order to finance these tax cuts. That is not a function of any accounting tricks. It has nothing to do with trust fund accounting. My comments are not political. It is a simple undeniable statement of fact--a fact that is a precursor of things to come, the end result of this flawed and overreaching tax cut program. The tax rebates will cost $40 billion this fiscal year. But we don't have $40 billion lying around, as many advocates expected. As a result, the Treasury Department says it will now have to borrow every dollar that will then be sent out in a check from the Treasury. In addition, we will have to pay out $500 million in additional interest this year just to finance these tax rebates. It may be the right thing to do for stimulating the economy, but it comes at a real cost. And that is before we unfold all the other elements of this tax cut over the years. To be fair, it is true that in the previous quarter the Government ran a surplus. If you consider the fiscal year as a whole, there is still a chance we will see an on-budget surplus. But it is undeniable that in this quarter we will be in deficit, not just an on-budget deficit but a unified deficit, meaning we enter Medicare trust fund moneys and maybe even potentially Social Security trust funds. Thus, every tax cut check that goes out is being financed by borrowing, with its accompanying interest costs. That is not what we told the American people when we passed this tax cut. We said we were just giving back their money; that is, excess revenues. We didn't say we would go out and borrow to finance that tax cut. We did not say we would increase our debt to finance the tax cut. We said we had the money. Now the truth is out. We don't. That is one truth that was conveniently left out when the administration sent out its $34 million notice taking credit for the tax cut. Beyond the need to finance the tax rebates, Treasury was also forced to build up its cash balance because of a gimmick--one of many gimmicks--that was built into this recently enacted tax bill. This is one that really bothers me, actually more than the rebates, as you could make an argument that we need that as a slowing economy occurs. That legislation shifted the due date for corporate taxes from September 17 of this year to October 1. This was nothing more than accounting magic to allow us to spend more money next year without showing a raid on the Medicare surplus. But this particular gimmick has come at a real cost. By delaying the receipt of those revenues, the Treasury will pay, at a minimum, an additional $40 million in interest. That is actually $40 million that comes out of the Treasury's pocket and goes into individual corporations that benefit from the delay in payment of their taxes. Think about that. To finance an accounting gimmick to provide political cover in fiscal year 2002, taxpayers are going to pay an extra $40 million. I guess in our budget that sounds like not too much. Where I come from, it is a lot. And seeing some of the things we argue for, whether it is our apple growers or other folks who are in need of emergency aid, it is a lot of money--$40 million that could have been used to improve education, protect our environment, strengthen our national defense. In my view, that is just plain wrong. Unfortunately, it is only the beginning of a number of the magic tricks we have going on with regard to this tax cut. Unfortunately, this $40 million gimmick was one but maybe the smallest. Some of the tax cuts don't become effective for several years. Others phase out before a 10-year timeframe, as we talked about. A number of extenders, which we know are going to be there, are left out. The AMT is ignored. And in what has to be the most egregious gimmick in the history of tax policy, the whole tax cut will expire after 9 years. I am new to government. I am new to politics. But I find this gimmickry outrageous. It is intellectually dishonest, and it would never have been tolerated in most of the financial transactions in which I participated in my private life. In fact, if I ever tried to use such gimmickry when I was back on the street, I would have been called to task by the SEC or the U.S. attorney, and for good reason. Having said all this, I recognize that despite my personal concerns about the premises of the tax bill and its many gimmicks, we don't have the votes to fix the problem now. It is inevitable that we will have to fix it eventually if we want to address the needs of America, to invest in America the way we talked about with regard to education, with regard to agriculture, with regard to the health care system and our military. Otherwise, we will just find ourselves further in debt and without the resources to fix Social Security and Medicare, to provide a meaningful prescription drug benefit, or these things that we need to do in our national defense. For those who continue to insist that there is plenty of money for the tax cut, just read the latest statement from the Treasury Department. I suspect it is only the beginning. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Treasury Department statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I will be shorter than 3 minutes. Supporting Senator Boxer's amendment, on our side, is a statement to common sense. In the world I come from, people look at the facts; they analyze them; and then they try to take actions consistent with them. In science, if the people who provide water to us, as indicated by the Senator from California and the Administrator of EPA, who comes from my home State, fought for a 10 parts per billion standard, one has a hard time understanding why we don't think this is something in the best safety interest and the stewardship interest which we are responsible to represent in the Senate. This is one of those issues where I cannot understand why we cannot get together and make sure we have 100-percent support because we are really protecting women and children and future generations of our society. This is as clear an issue, on a commonsense basis, as I have seen since coming to the Senate. I am happy to rise in support of this amendment.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Strategic Arms Flexibility Act of 2001, that would restore the President's authority to manage the size of our Nation's nuclear stockpile by repealing an obsolete law that now prevents him from reducing the number of nuclear weapons. The Strategic Arms Flexibility Act of 2001 would reduce the risk of a catastrophic accident or terrorist incident, reduce tensions throughout the world, and save substantial taxpayer dollars. We have far more nuclear weapons than would ever be necessary to win a war. Based on START counting rules, we have 7,300 strategic nuclear weapons. Yet, as Secretary of State Colin Powell has said, we could eliminate more than half of these weapons and still, ``have the capability to deter any actor.'' Furthermore, the U.S. nuclear arsenal is equipped with sophisticated guidance and information systems that make our nuclear weapons much more accurate and effective than those of our adversaries. This is one reason why we should not be overly influenced by calls for maintaining strict numerical parity. While the huge number of nuclear arms in our arsenal is not necessary to fight a war, maintaining these weapons actually presents significant risks to national security. First, it increases the risk of a catastrophic accident. The more weapons that exist, the greater chance that a sensor failure or other mechanical problem, or an error in judgment, will lead to the detonation of a nuclear weapon. In fact, there have been many times when inaccurate sensor readings or other technical problems have forced national leaders to decide within minutes whether to launch nuclear weapons. In one incident, a Russian commander deviated from standard procedures by refusing to launch, even though an early detection system was reporting an incoming nuclear attack, a report that was inaccurate. The second reason why maintaining excessive numbers of nuclear weapons poses national security risks is that it encourages other nations to maintain large stockpiles, as well. The more weapons held by other countries, the greater the risk that a rogue faction in one such country could gain access to nuclear weapons and either threaten to use them, actually use them, or transfer them to others. Such a faction could obtain weapons through force. For example, there are many poorly guarded intercontinental ballistic missiles that are easy targets for terrorists. Senator Bob Kerrey, who introduced this legislation in the last Congress, speculated that a relatively small, well-trained group could overtake the few personnel who guard some of the smaller installations in Russia. Alternatively, a hostile group might be able simply to purchase ballistic missiles on the black market. This risk may be especially relevant in Russia, where many military personnel are poorly paid and a few may feel financial pressure to collaborate with those hostile to the United States. In addition, some have speculated that the high cost of maintaining a large nuclear stockpile could encourage some nuclear powers themselves to sell weapon technologies as a mean of financing their nuclear infrastructure. By reducing our own stockpile, we can encourage Russia to reduce its stockpile and discourage other nuclear states from expanding theirs. In particular, Russia is faced with the exorbitant annual cost of maintaining thousands of unnecessary ICBMs. The present state of Russia's economy leaves it ill-equipped to handle these costs, a fact readily admitted by Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev. Russia has expressed an interest in reducing its stockpile dramatically, from about 6,000 weapons to fewer than 1,000. However, Russia is unlikely to make such reductions without a commensurate reduction by the United States. If the United States takes the first step, it would provide Russia with a face-saving way to do the same, without waiting for START II, which now appears unlikely to be ratified in the short term. Beyond the benefits to national security of reducing our nuclear stockpile, such a reduction also would save taxpayers significant amounts of money. According to the Center for Defense Information, in FY 01, the United States spent $26.7 billion on operations, maintenance, and development related the United States' nuclear program. Of that $26.7 billion, $12.4 billion, just under half, goes to build, maintain, and operate our arsenal of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. Although a precise cost estimate is not available, it seems clear that reducing the stockpile of nuclear weapons would provide major cost savings. While a reduction in the nuclear stockpile would improve national security and reduce costs, the 1998 defense authorization act now prevents the President from reducing such weapons until the Russian Duma approves the START II treaty. The Bush Administration has made it clear that it wants this law repealed, and would like the authority to unilaterally reduce the nuclear stockpile. In hearings before various Senate Committees, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, have expressed the Administration's desire to retire immediately 50 unnecessary MX peacekeeper missiles with some 500 warheads. The Administration is still conducting a more comprehensive review and may well propose additional reductions. However, as Secretary Wolfowitz has testified, ``we will need the support of the Congress to remove the current restrictions that prohibit us from getting rid of a nuclear system that we no longer need.'' Some might question whether it is appropriate to reduce the United States stockpile without a direct assurance that other nations would reduce theirs by the same amount. However, this is flawed Cold War thinking. As Secretary Powell has stated, we have far more weapons than necessary to devastate any opponent, real or imagined, many times over. Clearly, we can reduce our stockpile without in any way reducing our nuclear deterrent, or our national security. Having said this, reducing the stockpile is not enough. We also need to encourage and assist others in doing so. In particular, it is important that we help Russia by providing aid for dismantling weapons and by offering other economic assistance. We also need to continue to negotiate arms reductions and non-proliferation agreements with other countries, including, but not limited to Russia. Unilateral action can provide many benefits, but we need multilateral agreements to more fully reduce the nuclear threat, and prevent the spread of nuclear technology. Ultimately, the nuclear threat is a threat to all of humanity, and all nations need to be part of a coordinated effort to reduce that threat. In recent months, we have renewed a long-standing debate about whether to deploy a national missile defense. Proponents of such a system argue that it would reduce the threat posed by nuclear weapons by giving us the capacity to deflect incoming nuclear weapons. However, many have raised serious concerns about this approach, and the risk that it actually could reduce our national security by creating a new arms race and heightening international tensions. The bill I am introducing today offers a proven way to reduce the nuclear threat that can be accomplished quickly and without the controversy associated with a national missile defense system. There are few issues more important than reducing the risks posed by nuclear weapons. For the past half century, the world has lived with these weapons, and it is easy to underestimate the huge threat they represent. Yet it is critical that we remain vigilant and do everything in our power to reduce that threat. The fate of the world, quite literally, is at stake. I urge my colleagues to support this simple but powerful measure.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Strategic Arms Flexibility Act of 2001, that would restore the President's authority to manage the size of our Nation's nuclear stockpile by repealing an obsolete law that now prevents him from reducing the number of nuclear weapons. The Strategic Arms Flexibility Act of 2001 would reduce the risk of a catastrophic accident or terrorist incident, reduce tensions throughout the world, and save substantial taxpayer dollars. We have far more nuclear weapons than would ever be necessary to win a war. Based on START counting rules, we have 7,300 strategic nuclear weapons. Yet, as Secretary of State Colin Powell has said, we could eliminate more than half of these weapons and still, ``have the capability to deter any actor.'' Furthermore, the U.S. nuclear arsenal is equipped with sophisticated guidance and information systems that make our nuclear weapons much more accurate and effective than those of our adversaries. This is one reason why we should not be overly influenced by calls for maintaining strict numerical parity. While the huge number of nuclear arms in our arsenal is not necessary to fight a war, maintaining these weapons actually presents significant risks to national security. First, it increases the risk of a catastrophic accident. The more weapons that exist, the greater chance that a sensor failure or other mechanical problem, or an error in judgment, will lead to the detonation of a nuclear weapon. In fact, there have been many times when inaccurate sensor readings or other technical problems have forced national leaders to decide within minutes whether to launch nuclear weapons. In one incident, a Russian commander deviated from standard procedures by refusing to launch, even though an early detection system was reporting an incoming nuclear attack, a report that was inaccurate. The second reason why maintaining excessive numbers of nuclear weapons poses national security risks is that it encourages other nations to maintain large stockpiles, as well. The more weapons held by other countries, the greater the risk that a rogue faction in one such country could gain access to nuclear weapons and either threaten to use them, actually use them, or transfer them to others. Such a faction could obtain weapons through force. For example, there are many poorly guarded intercontinental ballistic missiles that are easy targets for terrorists. Senator Bob Kerrey, who introduced this legislation in the last Congress, speculated that a relatively small, well-trained group could overtake the few personnel who guard some of the smaller installations in Russia. Alternatively, a hostile group might be able simply to purchase ballistic missiles on the black market. This risk may be especially relevant in Russia, where many military personnel are poorly paid and a few may feel financial pressure to collaborate with those hostile to the United States. In addition, some have speculated that the high cost of maintaining a large nuclear stockpile could encourage some nuclear powers themselves to sell weapon technologies as a mean of financing their nuclear infrastructure. By reducing our own stockpile, we can encourage Russia to reduce its stockpile and discourage other nuclear states from expanding theirs. In particular, Russia is faced with the exorbitant annual cost of maintaining thousands of unnecessary ICBMs. The present state of Russia's economy leaves it ill-equipped to handle these costs, a fact readily admitted by Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev. Russia has expressed an interest in reducing its stockpile dramatically, from about 6,000 weapons to fewer than 1,000. However, Russia is unlikely to make such reductions without a commensurate reduction by the United States. If the United States takes the first step, it would provide Russia with a face-saving way to do the same, without waiting for START II, which now appears unlikely to be ratified in the short term. Beyond the benefits to national security of reducing our nuclear stockpile, such a reduction also would save taxpayers significant amounts of money. According to the Center for Defense Information, in FY 01, the United States spent $26.7 billion on operations, maintenance, and development related the United States' nuclear program. Of that $26.7 billion, $12.4 billion, just under half, goes to build, maintain, and operate our arsenal of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. Although a precise cost estimate is not available, it seems clear that reducing the stockpile of nuclear weapons would provide major cost savings. While a reduction in the nuclear stockpile would improve national security and reduce costs, the 1998 defense authorization act now prevents the President from reducing such weapons until the Russian Duma approves the START II treaty. The Bush Administration has made it clear that it wants this law repealed, and would like the authority to unilaterally reduce the nuclear stockpile. In hearings before various Senate Committees, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, have expressed the Administration's desire to retire immediately 50 unnecessary MX peacekeeper missiles with some 500 warheads. The Administration is still conducting a more comprehensive review and may well propose additional reductions. However, as Secretary Wolfowitz has testified, ``we will need the support of the Congress to remove the current restrictions that prohibit us from getting rid of a nuclear system that we no longer need.'' Some might question whether it is appropriate to reduce the United States stockpile without a direct assurance that other nations would reduce theirs by the same amount. However, this is flawed Cold War thinking. As Secretary Powell has stated, we have far more weapons than necessary to devastate any opponent, real or imagined, many times over. Clearly, we can reduce our stockpile without in any way reducing our nuclear deterrent, or our national security. Having said this, reducing the stockpile is not enough. We also need to encourage and assist others in doing so. In particular, it is important that we help Russia by providing aid for dismantling weapons and by offering other economic assistance. We also need to continue to negotiate arms reductions and non-proliferation agreements with other countries, including, but not limited to Russia. Unilateral action can provide many benefits, but we need multilateral agreements to more fully reduce the nuclear threat, and prevent the spread of nuclear technology. Ultimately, the nuclear threat is a threat to all of humanity, and all nations need to be part of a coordinated effort to reduce that threat. In recent months, we have renewed a long-standing debate about whether to deploy a national missile defense. Proponents of such a system argue that it would reduce the threat posed by nuclear weapons by giving us the capacity to deflect incoming nuclear weapons. However, many have raised serious concerns about this approach, and the risk that it actually could reduce our national security by creating a new arms race and heightening international tensions. The bill I am introducing today offers a proven way to reduce the nuclear threat that can be accomplished quickly and without the controversy associated with a national missile defense system. There are few issues more important than reducing the risks posed by nuclear weapons. For the past half century, the world has lived with these weapons, and it is easy to underestimate the huge threat they represent. Yet it is critical that we remain vigilant and do everything in our power to reduce that threat. The fate of the world, quite literally, is at stake. I urge my colleagues to support this simple but powerful measure.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, New Jersey's 127 miles of beaches are wide and inviting, dotted with sand dunes and boardwalks offset by a rollicking blue surf and white, warm sand. From Sandy Hook to Cape May Point, one hundred and sixty million people visit New Jersey beaches per year. These visitors generate the bulk of the tourism industry in New Jersey, which is the backbone of my State's economy. Spending by tourists totaled $26.1 billion in New Jersey in 1998, a 2 percent increase from $25.6 billion in 1997. Clearly, our beaches are our lifeblood, and their health is paramount. This year, there are five new start beach replenishment projects that are in critical need for Federal funding. These projects: the Lower Cape May Meadows, the Brigantine Inlet to Great Delaware Bay Coastline--Oakwood Beach, the Delaware Bay Coastline--Villas and Vicinity, are vital to fighting beach erosion and protecting the tourist economy for South Jersey. My fear is that if Federal funds are not immediately directed to protect these beaches, they will literally disappear in the future.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to take this opportunity to recognize the 144 New Jersey students who were recently selected to receive this year's Comcast Leaders of Tomorrow Scholarship. The company awarded scholarships totaling $144,000 to college bound students from 96 high schools throughout New Jersey. Each scholar is receiving a grant in the amount of $1,000 to pursue further, post-secondary studies. To be considered for this scholarship, prospective candidates were required to demonstrate a positive attitude, outstanding academic achievement, exemplary leadership skills, and a serious commitment to community service. Therefore, it is with great pride that I bring the outstanding accomplishments of these individuals from the great State of New Jersey to your attention. Education has always been one of my top priorities. In an era of globalization and high technology, it is vital that each child has access to a world-class education that emphasizes the importance of both academics and social responsibility. The quality of our educational system will determine the future of our children, our nation, as well as the world. At a time in history where environmental hazards and civil conflicts have captured our interests, we must not abandon the ongoing battle to modernize schools and reform education. It is truly gratifying to learn how these individuals from New Jersey are challenging themselves to reach their highest potential. As these students quickly emerge as the future leaders in our society, I would ask that my colleagues join me in applauding this year's Comcast Leaders of Tomorrow Scholarship winners for their remarkable accomplishments and their sincere desire to make a difference.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I bring to the attention of my colleagues a great man in the State of New Jersey, Rev. Ron Christian. Reverend Christian is a man of integrity who is committed to the spiritual, mental, social, civil, and economic well-being of his congregation and of the residents of Essex County. I want to congratulate him on his installation as the pastor of the Christian Love Baptist Church. He is a dynamic gentleman who has turned his life around and has become a leader and role model in the community. Reverend Christian is a true American, who believes that all people should have access to America's Promise. He has the enviable gift of being able to bring people together to work for a common cause. Reverend Christian is an unselfish man whose motivation is not self- gratification. He possesses a higher calling. On July 8, Reverend Christian became the pastor of the Christian Love Baptist Church in Irvington, New Jersey. I am certain that under his guidance, Christian Love Baptist Church will experience enormous growth and will continue its tradition of being a warm congregation filled with joy and love. Reverend Christian's devotion to the community is very well known, and the State of New Jersey is a better place because of his leadership. Lastly, I am proud to call Reverend Christian a friend. It is an honor for me to bring him to your attention.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, last week I introduced a resolution that addresses the United States' use of Nazi war criminals after World War II. The resolution acknowledges the role of the United States in harboring Nazi fugitives, commends the Nazi War Criminal Interagency Working Group for serving the public interest by disclosing information about the Nazis, and calls on other governments to release information pertaining to the assistance these governments provided to Nazis in the postwar period. On July 14, 1934, the Reichstag declared the Nazi Party the only legitimate political party in Germany. In one fell swoop, political dissent in Germany was quashed and a tragic series of events was set into motion--a series of events that led to the genocide of six million Jews and five million Gypsies, Poles, Jehovah's Witnesses, political dissidents, physically and mentally disabled people, and homosexuals. After World War II, the international community attempted to come to terms with what, by any measure, was a horrific episode in world history. In October 1945, a tribunal was convened in Nuremberg, Germany, to exact justice against the most nefarious Nazi War Criminals, people who knowingly and methodically orchestrated the murder of countless innocent people. Some infamous Nazi war criminals were tried and convicted elsewhere, including the infamous Adolph Eichmann, who was found guilty by an Israeli court. Still, many of the perpetrators--war criminals who heeded the call of the Nazi juggernaut--escaped justice. Some of those who evaded capture did so with the help of various world governments, including the United States. It is natural to ask why the United States would help known Nazi war criminals avoid punishment. The United States had just spent four years fighting the Nazis at the cost of thousands of young, courageous American soldiers. We had just liberated the Nazi death camps, witnessing firsthand the carnage and degradation exacted by the Nazis on Jews and others. Despite it all, the United States felt compelled to hide the very Nazis they had defeated and grant them refuge in the United States and abroad. The sad fact is that although we had just finished fighting a war of enormous proportions, we were entering another war--a cold war that would last for some 50 years. In fighting this war, the United States enlisted Nazi fugitives to spy on the Soviet Union. The extent to which the United States used Nazi war criminals for intelligence purposes in the postwar years is still being studied. In January 1999, the President charged the Nazi War Criminal Records Interagency Working Group with the difficult task of locating, identifying, cataloguing, and recommending for declassification thousands of formerly classified documents pertaining to the United States' association with Nazi war criminals. In addition to an interim report completed October 1999, in late April 2001, the IWG announced the release of CIA name files referring to specific Nazi War Criminals. While there is still work to be done, one thing is clear from these documents: the United States knowingly utilized Nazi war criminals for intelligence purposes and, in some cases, helped them escape justice. The American people deserve a full accounting of the decisions that led to the acceptance of Nazi war criminals as employees of the United States government. It also is important that the United States work with other countries to expedite the release of information regarding the use of Nazi war criminals as intelligence operatives. We need to learn more about the Holocaust and its aftermath. The international community must learn the lessons of history, so that never again will we face this type of evil.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague, Senator Carper, in introducing legislation, the FHA Multifamily Housing Loan Limit Adjustment Act, that would improve access to affordable housing. Our Nation currently faces a critical housing shortage. A report released recently by the Center for Housing Policy, ``Housing America's Working Families,'' documented the overwhelming need for affordable housing. The report indicates that in 1997, nearly 14 million families had a critical housing need, meaning they either lived in substandard housing conditions or spent more than half their monthly income on the cost of housing. The FHA Multifamily Housing Loan Limit Adjustment Act would provide America's working families with increased access to affordable rental housing. The bill is simple, it increases by 25 percent the statutory limits for multifamily project loans that can be insured by the FHA. This increase reflects the increased costs associated with the production of multifamily units since 1992, when these limits were last revised. The bill also would index the loan limits for inflation and increases to the Annual Construction Cost Index, which is published by the Census Bureau. Rising construction costs have resulted in a shortage of moderately priced affordable rental units. Rent increases now exceed inflation in all regions of the country, and new affordable rental units have become increasingly harder to find. Because of the current dollar limits on loans, FHA insurance cannot be used to help finance construction in high-cost urban areas such as the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area, Philadelphia and San Francisco. By increasing the limits on loans for rental housing we will create more incentives for public/private investment in communities through America and spur the new production of cooperative housing projects, rental housing for the elderly, and new construction or substantial rehabilitation of apartments by for- and non-profit entities. Late last year, Congress sought, through a number of initiatives, to implement programs aimed at increasing the production of affordable housing for the millions of Americans who currently face critical housing needs. For example, we expanded the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, the one Federal program designed to produce new housing. We also increased the supply of housing vouchers. However, these programs were targeted largely at families with very low incomes. Currently, there are no programs designed specifically to provide access to affordable rental housing for America's working middle class, the people who serve as the engine of our nation's economy. Far too many of these individuals, including vital municipal workers like teachers, nurses and police officers, are struggling to gain access to affordable housing even remotely near where they work. Without this much-needed adjustment to the FHA multifamily loan limits, access to affordable housing for our working-citizens will continue to lag, thousands of more families will join the 14 million people who currently face severe housing needs and our nation's economy will suffer. This bill is modeled after bipartisan legislation introduced in the House by my colleague from New Jersey, Congresswoman Marge Roukema, and Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts. The bill is supported by housing and community advocates and has also been endorsed by the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Realtors, and the Mortgage Bankers Association. I hope my Senate colleagues will support the legislation and help us ensure that America's working families have access to affordable housing.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague, Senator Carper, in introducing legislation, the FHA Multifamily Housing Loan Limit Adjustment Act, that would improve access to affordable housing. Our Nation currently faces a critical housing shortage. A report released recently by the Center for Housing Policy, ``Housing America's Working Families,'' documented the overwhelming need for affordable housing. The report indicates that in 1997, nearly 14 million families had a critical housing need, meaning they either lived in substandard housing conditions or spent more than half their monthly income on the cost of housing. The FHA Multifamily Housing Loan Limit Adjustment Act would provide America's working families with increased access to affordable rental housing. The bill is simple, it increases by 25 percent the statutory limits for multifamily project loans that can be insured by the FHA. This increase reflects the increased costs associated with the production of multifamily units since 1992, when these limits were last revised. The bill also would index the loan limits for inflation and increases to the Annual Construction Cost Index, which is published by the Census Bureau. Rising construction costs have resulted in a shortage of moderately priced affordable rental units. Rent increases now exceed inflation in all regions of the country, and new affordable rental units have become increasingly harder to find. Because of the current dollar limits on loans, FHA insurance cannot be used to help finance construction in high-cost urban areas such as the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area, Philadelphia and San Francisco. By increasing the limits on loans for rental housing we will create more incentives for public/private investment in communities through America and spur the new production of cooperative housing projects, rental housing for the elderly, and new construction or substantial rehabilitation of apartments by for- and non-profit entities. Late last year, Congress sought, through a number of initiatives, to implement programs aimed at increasing the production of affordable housing for the millions of Americans who currently face critical housing needs. For example, we expanded the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, the one Federal program designed to produce new housing. We also increased the supply of housing vouchers. However, these programs were targeted largely at families with very low incomes. Currently, there are no programs designed specifically to provide access to affordable rental housing for America's working middle class, the people who serve as the engine of our nation's economy. Far too many of these individuals, including vital municipal workers like teachers, nurses and police officers, are struggling to gain access to affordable housing even remotely near where they work. Without this much-needed adjustment to the FHA multifamily loan limits, access to affordable housing for our working-citizens will continue to lag, thousands of more families will join the 14 million people who currently face severe housing needs and our nation's economy will suffer. This bill is modeled after bipartisan legislation introduced in the House by my colleague from New Jersey, Congresswoman Marge Roukema, and Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts. The bill is supported by housing and community advocates and has also been endorsed by the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Realtors, and the Mortgage Bankers Association. I hope my Senate colleagues will support the legislation and help us ensure that America's working families have access to affordable housing.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to talk specifically about how important the Patients' Bill of Rights is to improving the mental health care Americans receive. For far too long, mental health consumers have been discriminated against in the health care system--subjected to discriminatory cost- sharing, limited access to specialists, and other barriers to needed services. This is particularly true of the mental health care that children receive. More children suffer from psychiatric illness than from Leukemia, AIDS and diabetes combined. Yet, while we recognize the human costs of these physical illnesses, we often forget the cost of untreated psychiatric illness. For young people, these costs include lost occupational opportunities because of academic failure, increased substance abuse, more physical illness, and, unfortunately, increased likelihood of physical aggression to themselves or others. That is why I am so pleased that McCain-Edwards-Kennedy goes a long way towards addressing the inequities in mental health care and ensuring access to needed mental health care services. For example, the proposal ensures access to critical prescription drugs. We have made tremendous progress in developing medication to treat mental illnesses. Although medication is often only one component of effective treatment for mental illnesses, access to the newest and most effective of these medications is crucial to successful treatment and recovery. These new medications are more effective, have fewer side effects, and save money in the long run. Yet unfortunately, all too often managed care organizations prevent patients from accessing these life- saving drugs. How? They use restrictive formularies that restrict access to preferred drugs--often the newer and more effective ones. The HMO's are, in effect, undermining our own drug regulations and approval processes. Fortunately, the bipartisan McCain-Edwards-Kennedy Patients' Bill of Rights protects patients by providing exceptions from the formulary when medically indicated. So, when a doctor thinks a certain medication is the best treatment for a patient, that patient will get that medication. Also--and this is a critical difference with the Breaux-Frist alternative--our bill requires that non-formulatory medication be subject to same cost-sharing requirements. Breaux-Frist does not-- continuing the discriminatory treatment of mental health treatments. The McCain-Edwards-Kennedy proposal is also superior for mental health care because it ensures access to specialists. The bill allows standing referrals--so that primary care providers do not have to continue authorizing visits. It also requires plans to allow patient access to non-participating providers if the plan's network is insufficient. So that patients can see the provider who can best meet their needs. The Breaux-Frist plan--in another contrast--does not allow access to out-of-network specialists. In the end, this can result in more costly treatment. And for some illnesses, the longer the duration or the greater the number of significant episodes, the harder to treat and more intractable the disease becomes. Finally, the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy proposal, unlike Breaux-Frist, provides the right to a speedy and genuinely independent external review process when care is denied. Let me just tell the personal story of a constituent of mine to illustrate the importance of these protections. Earlier this year, a mother in Gloucester County, NJ wrote to me about problems she had encountered getting treatment for her daughter. Her teenage daughter had attempted suicide, and been hospitalized for 8 days. She was diagnosed with depression and borderline personality disorder, and both her physician and therapist recommended intensive outpatient therapy, called ``partial care'' therapy. But the managed behavioral care organization determined that this treatment was not ``medically necessary.'' Instead of the intensive five and a half hour, twice a week therapy program, the insurer wanted to send her for one hour a week of therapy. This, despite the recommendation of her physician and therapist. Like any loving parent would, the mother fought back, calling the company many times. She was told to wait--even though, to quote her letter, her daughter ``was self-mutilating and her behavior was becoming dangerous to herself and possibly others.'' The mother finally enlisted the help of several people at the treatment program, who also wrangled with the company, and she even wrote to my office, and I wrote to the company on their behalf. Eventually, the company relented, and her daughter is now doing well in that intensive eleven hour a week program. But it shouldn't have to be like that for families. Doctors, not insurers, should decide what treatment a patient receives. When a physician says that a certain therapy is necessary to help a suicidal teenager, an insurance company should cover it. As my constituent so poignantly wrote to me about her daughter, and I quote: ``This treatment is important and necessary [because] by learning the skills she needs to cope with her illness she can have a safe, normal, adolescence and adult life. If we address this illness now instead of waiting until the next time she hurts herself we have a better chance of her leading a happy and normal life.'' Unfortunately, a study by the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill found that less than half of surveyed managed behavioral health care companies define suicide attempt as a medical emergency. This year, 2,500 teenagers will commit suicide in the United States. Over 10 million children and adolescents have a diagnosable psychiatric illness that results in a academic failure, social isolation and increased difficulty functioning in adulthood. Only one out of five will get any care and even less will get the appropriate level of care they need and deserve. So unless we provide critical patient protections, including the right to a fair and independent appeals process for review of medical necessity decisions, more families like my constituent will have to wonder if an insurance company will cover critical care that a doctor has prescribed for a loved one. In sum, the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill will provide people access to the mental health care they need to lead healthy, productive lives. I am pleased to support it. harkin peer-review amendment

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an issue that has been touched upon by many people during this debate on the Patients' Bill of rights, the problem of the uninsured. Let me first say that I am very pleased that today we are passing a strong, enforceable Patients' Bill of Rights. I commend the bill's authors, Senators McCain, Edwards and Kennedy, for the tremendous job they have done in crafting a bipartisan bill that will provide strong patient protections and curb insurance company abuses. This legislation is an example of how, working together, we can improve the health care Americans receive. But it is just the first of many steps we should be taking to ensure that all Americans receive quality health care. During the debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights I have heard many Senators argue that this legislation will lead to more uninsured Americans. Indeed, some of my colleagues have faulted supporters of the bill for not doing anything to help the uninsured. As someone who have been talking about this issue for several years, I am thrilled to hear that my colleagues are concerned about the problem of the uninsured. It is a national disgrace that 42 million Americans do not have health insurance. Who are the uninsured? They are 17.5 percent of our nonelderly population. A shameful 25 percent are children. The majority--83 percent--are in working families. The consequences of our Nation's significant uninsured population are devastating. The uninsured are significantly more likely to delay or forego needed care. The uninsured are less likely to receive preventive care. Delaying or not receiving treatment can lead to more serious illness and avoidable health problems. This in turn results in unnecessary and costly hospitalizations. Indeed, my own state of New Jersey struggles to deal with the costs of charity care provided to the uninsured. In 1999, for the first time in a decade we saw a slight decrease in the uninsured. But we still have so far to go. I believe that health care is a fundamental right, and neither the Government nor the private sector is doing enough to secure that right for everyone. We ignore the issue of the uninsured at our peril and at a great cost to the quality of life--and to the very life--of our citizens. That is why I am developing legislation that will provide universal access to health care for all Americans. My legislation will have several main components: Large employers would be required to provide health coverage for all their workers. The private sector must do its part--a minimum wage in America should include with it minimum benefits, among them health insurance. But unfortunately, the current system puts the responsible employer who provides health insurance at a disadvantage relative to the employers who do not. Small businesses, the self-employed and unemployed would be able to buy coverage in the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program. If it is good enough for Senators, it is good enough for America. Those who are between the ages of 55 and 64 would be able to buy-in to the Medicare program. And we would provide help to small businesses and to low-income workers. But although I am passionate about universal access to health care, I realize we can't get there yet. Not because the popular will is not there, but because the political will isn't. So I support incremental changes, starting with the most vulnerable populations, and building on Medicaid and CHIP, success public programs. I am working on a proposal that would expand Medicaid to cover all persons up to 200 percent of the Federal poverty level--an efficient way to reach nearly two-thirds of the uninsured. I am also a strong supporter of the Family Care proposal, which would cover the parents of children already enrolled in the CHIP program. My own state of New Jersey is in fact leading the way on the issue of enrolling parents with their kids. Finally, I was pleased to be an original cosponsor of Senator Bingaman's bipartisan legislation, the Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act, which would expand coverage for children and pregnant women. It is based on the common sense principal that children deserve to start healthy and stay healthy. I often say that we are not a nation of equal outcomes, but we should be a nation of equal beginnings. Until we give all Americans access to health care, however, we cannot live up to that promise. But although we cannot get to universal access this year, I believe we can and should be doing all that we can to make incremental progress. In conclusion, I am heartened that in this debate on the Patient's Bill of Rights so many of my colleagues have expressed concern about the problem of the uninsured. Indeed, I am hopeful that we have turned a corner on this critical issue. As we move forward, I welcome the opportunity to work with any of my colleagues, on either side of the aisle, to find ways to significantly address the problem of the uninsured. There can be no greater purpose to our work in the Senate.