Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I also want to note the House of Representatives included a similar measure in its version of the Transportation bill. It was a bipartisan amendment sponsored by New Jersey colleagues, Frank LoBiondo, a Republican, and Bill Pascrell, a Democrat. This was passed unanimously, the same language, by the House. In my view, this is an imperative step to allow States to have better control and more transparency and honesty in their contracting processes. I think it will move to save money for our States and put in place a greater sense of credibility for the public when it deals with its oversight of public contracting. I think we owe the taxpayers this, and I urge my colleagues to support the Corzine-Lautenberg amendment. We should join the House, in my view, in instituting this ability for States to control their own contracting process. I yield the floor. I understand my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, along with our other colleagues who left the Senate at the time of the recess, will be returning to speak to this amendment. I will yield the floor, but I would appreciate it if we could reserve the right of Senator Lautenberg, upon his arrival, to come back and be next on the queue to speak.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments. I can understand the point of view if the bipartisan legislation from the State of New Jersey would in any way interfere with low-bid, sealed contracts on Federal projects. I would not be in favor of this, either. No-bid contracts should not be an accepted way of doing business in government. At least from the legal advice and understanding that I have of the New Jersey legislation, it does the opposite. It requires that it would conform both to Federal regulations and adds the additional element that there be restrictions on those participating who have contributed more than $300 in a contract that is over $17,500. Practically speaking, the reality is that the Department of Transportation, and Republican and Democratic administrations in New Jersey--and I suspect this can very well be the case in other places-- sets specifications. Those who both lobby and contribute often arrange those specifications, so there are situations where those who have the ability to participate in the bidding contracts are limited and those specifications are written in a way that gives a bias to the contracting exercise. All this legislation that the State of New Jersey is asking for, its States rights ability to impose, are supplemental to the rules and regulations that the Department of Transportation is taking, and I believe it will protect the public and enhance the confidence for the State of New Jersey. It is not an imposition on any other State. They do not impose these pay-to-play rules. It has no impact on another State. We are only asking for the ability of the State of New Jersey to put down the rules that the State legislature, on a bipartisan basis, believes will lead to lower costs and greater transparency to the bidding process. I understand there is a difference of view, but I feel strongly about it and ask my colleagues to consider the fact that this is a supplemental and in no way undermines Federal regulations, does not impose this standard on any other State, and does go a long way toward dealing with concerns that people on both sides of the aisle in my State believe are undermining public trust and raising the cost to the Federal Government and the State government in doing business in our State.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I believe 10 minutes, maybe a little bit less.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I also believe we must defend the independence of the judiciary, and I think the comments of both the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from New York regarding this subject are ones that need to be understood and need to be brought forward on the floor as we consider the potential for what I believe is changing the basic nature of how our courts are put together and their independence.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, this morning I rise to speak about the tragedy and human crisis--yes, the genocide--in Darfur, Sudan, and the failure of our Nation to do everything we can do to stop the killing and save the lives of the well over 2 million people who are displaced in Darfur. Just a few weeks ago on the Senate floor, we passed the Darfur Accountability Act offered by Senator Brownback and myself, an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill which we will be voting on, and I will be supporting today, or in the next several days as it comes out of conference. The Darfur Accountability Act provided the tools and sets out the policies needed to confront this grave humanitarian crisis that exists in the Sudan. It also had broad bipartisan support and 30 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. It passed by unanimous consent on the floor of the Senate. Yet, inexplicably, the amendment was stripped from the bill in conference-- all of it, including support for African Union forces, the call for a military no-fly zone, the extension of the arms embargo to the Government of Sudan, and the authority to freeze the assets and deny visas to those responsible for genocide and crimes against humanity. Even the Senate's statement that the atrocities in Sudan are genocide was removed. Mr. President, I find it hard to comprehend how these policies, which hold the possibility of saving thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of lives, could be opposed by the House, the administration, or whoever. Sadly, the people of Darfur will be paying for the indifference and, in turn, we will be ignoring the values of the American people who hold us accountable for calling genocide what it is and pushing to stop it. The contrast between our words and deeds seems to grow almost by the hour. Just today, in Georgia, President Bush stated: We are living in historic times when freedom is advancing, from the Black Sea to the Caspian, and to the Persian Gulf and beyond. I guess that is not happening in the Sudan. At the same time we are challenging autocrats around the world, it seems we are seeking accommodation with what I consider a barbarous government in Sudan. At the same time we are saying we are standing with those who stand for freedom, we are turning our backs on the human rights of the people of Darfur. It is not enough to say that because the Sudanese Government shows some signs of cooperation on some fronts, this justifies our turning our backs on that Government's criminal attacks on their own people. It sounds almost like a speech I heard over the weekend. How can we ignore our own values when it comes to Africa? Is not every human life of equal worth? One of this generation's great moral voices, Elie Wiesel, understood that our values are universal. Speaking on Darfur last year, he asked: How can a citizen of a free country not pay attention? How can anyone, anywhere, not feel outraged? How can a person, whether religious or secular, not be moved by compassion? And above all, how can anyone who remembers remain silent? Mr. President, I just returned from the region. Unfortunately, the Government of Sudan denied me the visa that I needed to visit the camps inside Sudan. Instead, I went to Chad, where there are about 200,000 displaced refugees from Darfur. What do the Sudanese have to hide? Why would they prevent a U.S. Senator from visiting. In the camp I visited in Chad, I received reports of continued attacks on civilians, as well as a growing fear of an imminent humanitarian crisis afflicting the 2 million displaced Darfurians. But it is when monitors are denied access, when there are no reports, that the atrocities are always the most grave and can continue. We need transparency. This is not about one Senator. The Sudanese have obstructed access by African Union monitors. Human rights advocates and journalists have been denied entry. Humanitarian organizations have been harassed and, when they actually get there, some have actually been killed. We need to shine a light on this problem. I visited some of the victims last week in eastern Chad. Here is a picture of some of the folks in one of the camps. Hundreds of these men and women desperately want to go home. They were in Chad because of the brutal violence in their own country, brought on by the Sudanese Government. They were chased from their villages. None of them felt safe to return. None of them would return. This sentiment matches what we hear in Darfur, where we were last fall. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were in these IDP camps, approaching 2 million. Meanwhile, the Darfur refugees in Chad are barely getting by. I can tell you that the conditions are difficult. U.N. agencies and humanitarian organizations are doing everything they can, a heroic job of getting assistance to these camps. But I have to tell you, there is a serious shortfall between a quality of life that is just sustainable and reality. The terrain in eastern Chad is dry, infertile and, frankly, the environment is bleak. It barely supports the Chadians who live in the area. There is not enough water and certainly limited amounts of food. It needs to change. That is why we need to speak out and we have to be forceful. That is why one of the provisions in the Darfur Accountability Act I think is most important, and that is the appointment of a special envoy. Mr. President, stopping genocide is a moral challenge that requires courage and resources. But it also requires attention every day--real diplomatic engagement to make sure we are moving the ball forward in this process. In Chad, I met with President Deby and also with members of the joint commission--Chadians engaged in diplomatic negotiations between the Government of Sudan and the Darfur rebels. We met with the rebels themselves. People want peace. We met with people in the African Union in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Bringing these players together--not to mention the parties in the north-south agreement in Sudan, the EU, NATO, and U.N. Security Council members--is a full time job. It needs the attention of an individual to make sure that those negotiations don't go adrift. We need that attention now. It is critical. The Darfur Accountability Act asked for this, encouraged this, and it is not happening. It is not sufficient enough to have a one-time trip by the Deputy Secretary of State to Sudan to think that we are paying enough attention or putting on enough pressure. In fact, we don't have an ambassador in the Sudan. We don't have an official representative to the African Union. We need to be paying attention. That is why Senator Brownback and myself offered the amendment to the supplemental. That is why we have asked for additional funding, some of which was included in the supplemental, and I am grateful for the fact that Senators DeWine and Brownback, Durbin, Leahy, and Obama were able to provide $50 million more for the African Union. But some of the humanitarian assistance was pulled back for reasons allocated to other difficult places that also demand need. It is essential if we are going to stop this killing, stop the genocide, that we react now, that we pay attention, that we do the things that will allow the African Union's deployment to be successful--only 2,200 people in an area the size of France. We need to have a minimum of 6,000, maybe as many as 10,000. That mission needs to be financed. The supplemental was where we could do much of this. Some of that we stepped back from. Our values as a nation and our national security require us to speak up and confront these problems.

Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Presiding Officer. I hope my colleagues will consider this legislation when we bring it back to the floor. It needs to be fought for. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a very important piece of legislation, the Safe Healthcare Reporting (SHARE) Act, which Senator Lautenberg and I introduced last Congress to add nurses and other licensed health care professionals to the National Practitioner Databank. In 1986, Congress passed legislation that established a national databank, the National Practitioner Databank (NPDB), to track licensing, disciplinary, and medical malpractice actions taken against U.S. physicians. While the NPDB has served as an important source of information on physicians, it fails to incorporate critical information on millions of non-physician licensed health care professionals, including nurses. In late 2003, it came to light that Charles Cullen, a nurse who had practiced for more than a decade in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, had murdered as many as 40 of the patients he cared for during this time. As of today, Mr. Cullen has pleaded guilty to intentionally giving lethal doses of drugs to 24 patients. This case has highlighted the need for a national reporting system on nurses and other licensed health professionals. As the health care workforce becomes increasingly mobile, such a system would be an invaluable resource to health care employers seeking information on potential employees. The SHARE Act will help break the chain of silence currently plaguing our health care system. This chain of silence prevented critical employment history on Cullen--including five firings and at least one suspension--from ever reaching his future employers. While Charles Cullen kept killing people, hospitals kept hiring him. They didn't know his history. They didn't understand the risk he posed to patients. This is because hospitals and other employers are reluctant to share employee information because they are afraid of being sued. The goal of our legislation is to make sure that hospitals know--to make sure that employers have access to critical information on health care practitioners. It will ensure that adverse employment actions, licensing and disciplinary actions, and criminal background information are available to all health care employers. The SHARE Act mandates that hospitals and other health care entities report adverse employment actions taken against employees who violate professional standards of conduct. This would include things like drug diversion and falsification of documents. Importantly, the legislation protects health care employers from suit when they, in good faith, report information that they believe is truthful. Any employer who reports false information in an effort to smear a nurse's record would receive no protection under our bill. In fact, anyone who abused the information reported to the databank would be fined by the Federal Government. Health care employers, such as hospitals and nursing homes, would be required to report to the National Practitioner Databank, which currently provides such information on physicians. They would also be required to report to the appropriate state licensing board. In turn the state licensing board would report the results of its investigations and licensing or disciplinary actions to the databank. The legislation also encourages nurses and other health care professionals to report suspected activities to state boards by providing whistleblower protections to those individuals. The SHARE Act also ensures that a practitioner who is subject to reporting is informed of the report, offered a hearing on the issue, and allowed to comment on the report. I believe that this legislation is a critical first step toward improving access to important information on our health care workforce. Since 1986, the Federal Government has required hospitals to report employment information on physicians. It's time we include nurses and other health care professionals that provide direct patient care. In fact, the average nurse spends more time at a patient's bedside than the patient's physician. We simply must ensure that the person at the bedside is competent and professional. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move this bill through Congress and get it to the President's desk. We must and we can improve patient safety and the integrity of our health care system. This bill takes an important step toward that goal. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today on Workers Memorial Day to reintroduce the ``Workplace Wrongful Death Accountability Act,'' legislation that would, among other things, increase the maximum criminal penalty for those who willfully violate workplace safety laws and cause the death of an employee. Unbelievably, under existing law, that crime is a misdemeanor, and carries a maximum prison sentence of just 6 months. This legislation would increase the penalty for this most egregious workplace crime to 10 years--making it a felony. The bill also would increase the penalty associated with lying to an OSHA inspector from 6 months to 1 year, and would increase the penalty for illegally giving advance warning of an upcoming inspection from 6 months to 2 years. In recent years, the Senators from both sides of the aisle have joined together to focus on a shocking succession of corporate scandals: Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, to name a few. These revelations of corporate abuse raised the ire and indignation of the American people. But corporate abuses can sometimes go further than squandering employee pension funds and costing shareholder value. Sometimes, corporate abuses can cost lives. My legislation is based on the simple premise that going to work should not carry a death sentence. Annually, more than 6,000 Americans are killed on the job, and some 50,000 more die from work-related illnesses. Many of those deaths--deaths that leave wives without husbands, brothers without sisters, and children without parents--are completely preventable. In 2003, the New York Times published an eye-opening, multi-part series that documented the failure of the Federal government to prosecute violators of workplace safety laws. The articles were deeply disturbing to anyone concerned about the health and well being of workers in America, detailing one company's pattern of recklessly disregarding basic safety rules. The authors linked at least nine employee deaths in five States--New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Alabama, and Texas--over a 7-year period with the failure of a single company, McWane Foundry, to follow established workplace safety regulations. Three of those deaths were judged to have been caused by deliberate and willful violations of Federal safety rules. As a result of that article and a subsequent criminal investigation, McWane has begun to clean up its act. But no one should be deluded. McWane is not the only company with a record of putting employees at risk. Others--although still the clear minority--continue to flout workplace safety rules and jeopardize the health and well being of workers. During the last Congress, the Bush administration recognized that there was a problem and announced its ``enhanced enforcement policy,'' a small step in the right direction. But this new enforcement policy does not do enough, and my legislation would ensure that employers are deterred from placing their employees at risk by willfully violating safety law. And if they do willfully violate the law, they will pay a price. While many factors contribute to the unsafe working environment that exists at certain jobsites, one easily remedied factor is an ineffective regime of criminal penalties. The criminal statutes associated with OSHA have been on the books since the 1970s, but--over time--the deterrence value of these important workplace safety laws has eroded substantially. With the maximum jail sentence a paltry 6 months, Federal prosecutors have only a minimal incentive to spend time and resources prosecuting renegade employers. According to a recent analysis, since the Occupational Safety and Health Act was enacted, only 11 employers who caused the death of a worker on the job were incarcerated. The logic behind this legislation is simple. The bill will increase the incentive for prosecutors to hold renegade employers accountable for endangering the lives of their workers and, thereby, help ensure that OSHA criminal penalties cannot be safely ignored. This will provide the OSHA criminal statute with sufficient teeth to deter the small percentage of bad actors who knowingly and willfully place their employees at risk. I am proud to be joined by Senators Kennedy, Lautenberg, and Durbin in reintroducing the Workplace Wrongful Death Accountability Act and I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am disappointed by the budget resolution before us here today. I am disappointed, but I can't say I am surprised, given the track record of this President and the Republican leadership in Congress. The process of developing a budget each year provides an opportunity to take stock of our priorities as a Nation. The President outlines his priorities through his budget, but it is the Congress, with its control of the purse strings, that is ultimately charged with the responsibility of fashioning and enacting legislation. Regrettably, the priorities reflected in this budget resolution-- which mirror those in the administration's budget proposal--are wrong for America and certainly wrong for the people of New Jersey. In New Jersey, we are particularly sensitive to the choices made by this administration and its allies in Congress, since we provide the greatest contribution of taxes paid relative to what we get back from the Federal Government. Our return on the Federal dollar has fallen from 70 cents to a meager 57 cents under the Bush administration. This budget will only further increase the strain on New Jersey's citizens, especially our most vulnerable: our children, our disabled, and our seniors. Put plainly, this budget is not about lowering the deficit or making shared sacrifices or addressing the needs we have as a society. It's about making room for more tax breaks for the most fortunate--and it's not even successful at doing that. How do we, as legislators, look hard-working Americans in the eye and tell them honestly that we can't afford $10 billion for Medicaid, but we can afford $204 billion in tax breaks for the most well-off over the next 5 years? That's how much the president's tax cuts, under this budget, would provide for those with incomes greater than $1 million. How do I tell parents in New Jersey that the President and the leaders of his party in Congress don't believe we can afford $4.8 billion for education next year, but they do believe we can afford more than 6 times that amount in tax breaks for those making more than $1 million? What parent thinks education needs a cut? Or first responders? Or community development? Or veterans? How do I tell the 82,000 commuters who ride New Jersey Transit trains every day or the commuters who ride SEPTA or the millions who rely on Amtrak that the Federal Government would rather pay for tax cuts for the most fortunate than for the infrastructure that literally takes our Nation to work in the morning and brings them home to their families at night? This choice simply does not reflect our Nation's fundamental values. I don't think it reflects the values of even those benefiting most from it. Nor does it address the real needs of working families in New Jersey and across America. That reality includes rising health care costs that are driving families into bankruptcy as never before and preventing businesses from creating jobs. It includes growing wage disparity and a labor market that's stayed weaker for longer coming out of a recession than any other time on record. According to the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, more than 70 percent of the benefits of the President's tax breaks enacted in 2001 and 2003 go to the 20 percent of taxpayers with the highest incomes. More than 25 percent of the tax-cut benefits go to the top 1 percent. The tradeoff being proposed could not be clearer. The programs this budget proposes to cut are merely a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the tax cuts. No amount of spin can obscure the numbers. Let's remember the context. Since President Bush took office, the Federal budget deficit has deteriorated every year. This year, we are expected to be $427 billion in the hole. In all, the Bush administration has reduced Federal revenues to their lowest level as a share of the economy since the 1950's. As a consequence, we no longer have the resources to deal with the Nation's priorities. In light of this record, President Bush and his Congressional allies' recent claims of fiscal responsibility simply are not credible. This budget makes those claims even less credible by achieving much of its purported ``cost savings'' by passing the buck to State and local governments. Lowering the numbers here in Washington is not the same thing as fiscal discipline if this is simply an exercise in shifting cost burdens to States and communities. That is hardly a plus for the American people--and certainly not for New Jersey. Our States are already stretched too thin. In New Jersey, we have a budget shortfall of $4 billion to $5 billion and annual property tax increases of 7 percent. Much of the reality for States in budget and tax policy has been the result of cost burdens and unfunded mandates passed down from this administration and its allies in Congress. We have heard claims from the other side that their tax cuts for the most fortunate are somehow responsible for providing a boost to our economy. But as any serious-minded economist not on the Republican payroll will tell you, the real story of our modest growth has been the longest sustained monetary expansion on record by the Federal Reserve. Claims that the tax cuts are responsible for significant economic growth are reminiscent of a rooster taking credit for the sun coming up. The more noticeable result of the tax cuts has been an explosion in our Nation's debt, starting with the $1.8 trillion cost over 10 years of making the cuts permanent. If we continue along the path set by this administration, by 2015, each family's share of the national debt will be $73,563. This is simply unacceptable. I hope that we take a long, hard look at the priorities our Nation has followed under this President because, in my view, those priorities need major changes. As I said earlier, I am disappointed that the majority party in Congress has chosen to embrace these priorities. That is why I cannot support their budget.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today on Workers Memorial Day to reintroduce the ``Workplace Wrongful Death Accountability Act,'' legislation that would, among other things, increase the maximum criminal penalty for those who willfully violate workplace safety laws and cause the death of an employee. Unbelievably, under existing law, that crime is a misdemeanor, and carries a maximum prison sentence of just 6 months. This legislation would increase the penalty for this most egregious workplace crime to 10 years--making it a felony. The bill also would increase the penalty associated with lying to an OSHA inspector from 6 months to 1 year, and would increase the penalty for illegally giving advance warning of an upcoming inspection from 6 months to 2 years. In recent years, the Senators from both sides of the aisle have joined together to focus on a shocking succession of corporate scandals: Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, to name a few. These revelations of corporate abuse raised the ire and indignation of the American people. But corporate abuses can sometimes go further than squandering employee pension funds and costing shareholder value. Sometimes, corporate abuses can cost lives. My legislation is based on the simple premise that going to work should not carry a death sentence. Annually, more than 6,000 Americans are killed on the job, and some 50,000 more die from work-related illnesses. Many of those deaths--deaths that leave wives without husbands, brothers without sisters, and children without parents--are completely preventable. In 2003, the New York Times published an eye-opening, multi-part series that documented the failure of the Federal government to prosecute violators of workplace safety laws. The articles were deeply disturbing to anyone concerned about the health and well being of workers in America, detailing one company's pattern of recklessly disregarding basic safety rules. The authors linked at least nine employee deaths in five States--New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Alabama, and Texas--over a 7-year period with the failure of a single company, McWane Foundry, to follow established workplace safety regulations. Three of those deaths were judged to have been caused by deliberate and willful violations of Federal safety rules. As a result of that article and a subsequent criminal investigation, McWane has begun to clean up its act. But no one should be deluded. McWane is not the only company with a record of putting employees at risk. Others--although still the clear minority--continue to flout workplace safety rules and jeopardize the health and well being of workers. During the last Congress, the Bush administration recognized that there was a problem and announced its ``enhanced enforcement policy,'' a small step in the right direction. But this new enforcement policy does not do enough, and my legislation would ensure that employers are deterred from placing their employees at risk by willfully violating safety law. And if they do willfully violate the law, they will pay a price. While many factors contribute to the unsafe working environment that exists at certain jobsites, one easily remedied factor is an ineffective regime of criminal penalties. The criminal statutes associated with OSHA have been on the books since the 1970s, but--over time--the deterrence value of these important workplace safety laws has eroded substantially. With the maximum jail sentence a paltry 6 months, Federal prosecutors have only a minimal incentive to spend time and resources prosecuting renegade employers. According to a recent analysis, since the Occupational Safety and Health Act was enacted, only 11 employers who caused the death of a worker on the job were incarcerated. The logic behind this legislation is simple. The bill will increase the incentive for prosecutors to hold renegade employers accountable for endangering the lives of their workers and, thereby, help ensure that OSHA criminal penalties cannot be safely ignored. This will provide the OSHA criminal statute with sufficient teeth to deter the small percentage of bad actors who knowingly and willfully place their employees at risk. I am proud to be joined by Senators Kennedy, Lautenberg, and Durbin in reintroducing the Workplace Wrongful Death Accountability Act and I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I express my support today for an important resolution, S. Res. 117, submitted by Senators Feinstein and Santorum along with Senator Santorum to designate the week of May 9th as National Hepatitis B Awareness Week. Hepatitis B is an extremely infectious virus that affects more than 12 million Americans, with 100,000 new cases expected this year. Unfortunately, many people don't even know they have this disease. And by the time they do learn about the disease it with Hepatitis B will develop cirrhosis of the liver or liver cancer. The good news is that we can beat this disease. Scientists have been working for years and have made great strides in the study and treatment of Hepatitis B. As kindergarteners through college students know, there are very effective vaccines available to slow the generational relay of the virus. And just last month the FDA approved a new treatment drug called Baraclude that seeks to alleviate symptoms for those already chronically infected with the virus. What I surprisingly discovered is that less than 10 percent of people suffering from chronic Hepatitis B infection are receiving treatment. During this week, I strongly urge people to talk to their doctors about Hepatitis B vaccination, testing, and treatment; to become educated about Hepatitis B, the symptoms, treatments and testing available; and to take steps to educate those around about Hepatitis B. I urge people to take part in the discussions about Hepatitis B during this week. I also wish to applaud those working to make sure that communities and families and individuals are aware of this disease, testing and treatments available. Thank you for all of your dedication and caring.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a very important piece of legislation, the Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act of 2005. Our Nation's Medicare beneficiaries--our elderly and disabled population--have limited access to mental health services. Medicare restricts the types of mental health services available to beneficiaries and the types of providers who are allowed to offer such care. It also charges higher copayments for mental health services than it does for all other health care. In order to receive mental health care, seniors and the disabled must pay 50 percent of the cost of a visit to their mental health specialist, as opposed to the 20 percent that they pay for other services. Medicare also limits the number of days a beneficiary can receive mental health care in a hospital setting to 190 days over an individual's lifetime. We must address this problem. The need is glaring. Almost 20 percent of Americans over age 65 have a serious mental disorder. They suffer from depression, Alzheimer's disease, dementia, anxiety, late-life schizophrenia and, all too often, substance abuse. These are serious illnesses that must be treated. Unfortunately, they are often unidentified by primary care physicians, or the appropriate services are simply out of reach. Americans age 65 and older have the highest rate of suicide of any other population in the United States. An alarming 70 percent of elderly suicide victims have visited their primary care doctor in the month prior to committing suicide. Medicare is also the primary source of health insurance for millions of nonelderly disabled. More than 20 percent of these individuals suffer from mental illness and/or addiction. This very needy population faces the same discrimination in their mental health coverage. As our population ages, the burden of mental illness on seniors, their families, and the health care system will only continue increase. Experts estimate that by the year 2030, 15 million people over 65 will have psychiatric disorders, with the number of individuals suffering from Alzheimer's disease doubling. If we do not reform the Medicare program to provide greater access to detection and treatment of mental illness, the cost of not treating these diseases will rapidly escalate. Without the appropriate outpatient mental health services, too many of our seniors are forced into nursing homes and hospitals. If We truly want to modernize Medicare and make it more efficient, we must provide access to these services. Not only will they likely reduce costs in the long term, but they will also increase Medicare beneficiaries' quality of life. The Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act takes critical steps to address these issues. First, the bill reduces the 50 percent copayment for mental health services to 20 percent. The proposed 20 percent copayment is the same as the copayment for all other outpatient services in Medicare. Second, the bill would provide access to intensive residential services for those who are suffering from severe mental illness. This will give people with Alzheimer's disease and other serious mental illness the opportunity to be cared for in their homes or in community-based settings. Third, the bill expands the number of qualified mental health professionals eligible to provide services through the Medicare program. This includes licensed professional mental health counselors, clinical social workers, and marriage and family therapists. This expansion of qualified providers is critical to ensuring that seniors throughout the nation, particularly those in rural areas, are able to receive the services they need. In closing, I urge all of my colleagues to step forward to support the Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act of 2005. It is time for the Medicare program to stop discriminating against seniors and the disabled who are suffering from mental illness.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the TANF Financial Education Promotion Act of 2005 in order to call attention to an important issue for low-income families financial literacy. I am proud to be reintroducing this bill during the month of April, which is Financial Literacy Month. One of the goals of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program is to help low-income families transition from welfare to work. However, there is more to leaving poverty than just finding a job. Welfare recipients must learn the skills that will help them build savings and establish good credit so that they can stay off welfare. Currently, TANF does not offer financial education to low-income individuals, leaving welfare recipients at risk of dependence upon public assistance. Furthermore, millions of low-income families, including families receiving TANF, are unbanked. These households tend to do their banking at check-cashing outlets that charge exorbitant fees for such services. A lack of basic consumer finance education, including lack of familiarity with how a checking or savings account works, has been cited as a major reason why millions of Americans do not set up such accounts. Not only are low-income people more likely to be unbanked than other individuals, but they are also the most vulnerable to abusive lending practices and hostile credit arrangements. Those with the fewest financial resources end up paying the most to obtain financing. Financial education that addresses predatory lending will help prevent low-income families from becoming victims of unaffordable loan payments, equity stripping, and foreclosure. Burdened by significant financial needs, welfare recipients need practical information on the fundamentals of saving, household budgeting, taxes, and credit. With this knowledge, individuals will be better equipped to move toward self-sufficiency and maintain financial independence. The TANF Financial Education Promotion Act makes strides in financial literacy for welfare recipients by requiring states to use TANF funds to collaborate with community-based organizations, banks, and community colleges to create financial education programs for low-income families receiving welfare and for those transitioning from welfare to work. I am not alone in advocating financial literacy for TANF recipients. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has said, ``Educational and training programs may be the most critical service offered by community-based organizations to enhance the ability of lower-income households to accumulate assets.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in helping the most vulnerable families in the United States get access to the tools they will need to successfully make the transition from welfare to work. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Youth Financial Education Act. I am pleased to introduce this bill during the month of April--Financial Literacy Month. It is hard to underestimate the importance of financial literacy for our youth. As credit, banking, and financial systems in this country become more and more complex, it is time to make sure that our education system teaches our children the fundamental principles of earning, spending, saving and investing, so that they can be successful citizens. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said himself that ``Improving basic financial education at the elementary and secondary school levels is essential to providing a foundation for financial literacy that can help prevent younger people from making poor financial decisions.'' It is crucial not only for the well-being of our children, but for the future of our society as a whole that all citizens understand how to manage a checking account, use a credit card, and estimate their taxes. According to the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy's Survey of High School Seniors, which measures students' aptitude and ability to manage financial resources such as credit cards, insurance, retirement funds and savings accounts, only 52.3 percent of students answered the survey questions correctly. In less than a year, 54 percent of these students who go onto college will carry a credit card. These statistics make it evident that we must do more to arm our youth with the tools they need to make informed decisions about the fiscal realities they will face upon entering college or the workforce. In 2004, only 7 states required students to complete a course that includes personal finance before graduating from high school. In my home State of New Jersey, New Egypt High School is the only school that requires a course financial education. Several years ago I had the pleasure of teaching a class of these students, and came away impressed with their knowledge and competency in financial matters. While awareness of the importance of financial literacy is improving, it is still not being addressed appropriately in schools. Our schools must prepare our children to succeed in every way, including in their financial decisions. I am pleased that I successfully added a provision to the No Child Left Behind Act giving elementary and secondary schools access to funds that will allow them to include financial education as part of their basic educational curriculum. Although this was an important step in the right direction, Congress can and should do more to address this Issue. The legislation I am introducing today will provide grants to States to help them develop and implement financial education programs in elementary and secondary schools. These programs will offer professional development for teachers and prepare them to provide financial education. It would also establish a national clearinghouse for instructional materials and information regarding model financial education programs. Earlier this year, the Senate debated the Bankruptcy Reform Bill that seeks to change the rules governing bankruptcy. While I agree that bankruptcy reform should provide an incentive for capable individuals to honor their financial obligations, this legislation will make it that much more difficult for people who have fallen into debt to declare bankruptcy. With these reforms imminent, it will be all the more critical to take a proactive approach to the problem of personal debt in this country and make sure that the next generation learns how to better manage their money. I ask for my colleagues to join me in support of the Youth Financial Education Act, which will equip our nation's youth with skills to become responsible consumers and enjoy economic security as well as economic opportunity in their futures. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I would like to speak today about an issue that I believe should be a lifelong goal for all Americans-- financial literacy. More specifically, I want to highlight the necessity of financial literacy for men and women who are close to retirement. Senior citizens are too often the victims of predatory mortgage and lending abuses and other financial scams. AARP surveys show that over half of telemarketing fraud victims are age 50 or older. In fact, financial exploitation is the largest single category of abuse against older persons. It is clear that the vulnerability of this population stems from a lack of financial knowledge, so it is more important than ever that this Congress take steps to increase the availability of financial education for midlife and senior citizens. Not only does poor financial literacy leave older Americans vulnerable to financial fraud, but it also leads to poor retirement planning. In the next thirty years, the number of Americans over the age of 65 will double. For many of these Americans, Social Security alone will be insufficient to cover all their expenses, particularly as health care costs rise. Only about half of American workers are currently participating in any pension plan, leaving more than 75 million Americans without an employer-sponsored pension. Even worse is the fact that fifty million Americans have no retirement savings whatsoever. These statistics are frightening. As our population lives longer, we must focus on retirement education for mid-life and aging Americans as well as consumer education for seniors. My legislation, the Education for Retirement Security Act will address the need for financial literacy among seniors by creating a $100 million competitive grant program that would provide resources to State and area agencies on aging, and nonprofit community based organizations, to provide financial education to mid-life and older Americans. The goal of this education is to enhance these individuals' financial and retirement knowledge and reduce their vulnerability to financial abuse and fraud, including telemarketing, mortgage, and pension fraud. The bill also creates a national technical assistance program that will designate at least one national grantee to provide financial education materials and training to local grantees. I am proud to be reintroducing this legislation during the month of April, which is Financial Literacy Month. We must offer those individuals who are close to or in retirement the tools they will need to make sound financial decisions and prepare appropriately for their retirement. The Education for Retirement Security Act will help older Americans learn how to avoid scams and invest well. With savvy financial planning and smart consumer skills, senior citizens will be more empowered to protect themselves and ultimately be better able to enjoy a more secure retirement. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I would like to speak today about an issue that I believe should be a lifelong goal for all Americans-- financial literacy. More specifically, I want to highlight the necessity of financial literacy for men and women who are close to retirement. Senior citizens are too often the victims of predatory mortgage and lending abuses and other financial scams. AARP surveys show that over half of telemarketing fraud victims are age 50 or older. In fact, financial exploitation is the largest single category of abuse against older persons. It is clear that the vulnerability of this population stems from a lack of financial knowledge, so it is more important than ever that this Congress take steps to increase the availability of financial education for midlife and senior citizens. Not only does poor financial literacy leave older Americans vulnerable to financial fraud, but it also leads to poor retirement planning. In the next thirty years, the number of Americans over the age of 65 will double. For many of these Americans, Social Security alone will be insufficient to cover all their expenses, particularly as health care costs rise. Only about half of American workers are currently participating in any pension plan, leaving more than 75 million Americans without an employer-sponsored pension. Even worse is the fact that fifty million Americans have no retirement savings whatsoever. These statistics are frightening. As our population lives longer, we must focus on retirement education for mid-life and aging Americans as well as consumer education for seniors. My legislation, the Education for Retirement Security Act will address the need for financial literacy among seniors by creating a $100 million competitive grant program that would provide resources to State and area agencies on aging, and nonprofit community based organizations, to provide financial education to mid-life and older Americans. The goal of this education is to enhance these individuals' financial and retirement knowledge and reduce their vulnerability to financial abuse and fraud, including telemarketing, mortgage, and pension fraud. The bill also creates a national technical assistance program that will designate at least one national grantee to provide financial education materials and training to local grantees. I am proud to be reintroducing this legislation during the month of April, which is Financial Literacy Month. We must offer those individuals who are close to or in retirement the tools they will need to make sound financial decisions and prepare appropriately for their retirement. The Education for Retirement Security Act will help older Americans learn how to avoid scams and invest well. With savvy financial planning and smart consumer skills, senior citizens will be more empowered to protect themselves and ultimately be better able to enjoy a more secure retirement. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Youth Financial Education Act. I am pleased to introduce this bill during the month of April--Financial Literacy Month. It is hard to underestimate the importance of financial literacy for our youth. As credit, banking, and financial systems in this country become more and more complex, it is time to make sure that our education system teaches our children the fundamental principles of earning, spending, saving and investing, so that they can be successful citizens. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said himself that ``Improving basic financial education at the elementary and secondary school levels is essential to providing a foundation for financial literacy that can help prevent younger people from making poor financial decisions.'' It is crucial not only for the well-being of our children, but for the future of our society as a whole that all citizens understand how to manage a checking account, use a credit card, and estimate their taxes. According to the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy's Survey of High School Seniors, which measures students' aptitude and ability to manage financial resources such as credit cards, insurance, retirement funds and savings accounts, only 52.3 percent of students answered the survey questions correctly. In less than a year, 54 percent of these students who go onto college will carry a credit card. These statistics make it evident that we must do more to arm our youth with the tools they need to make informed decisions about the fiscal realities they will face upon entering college or the workforce. In 2004, only 7 states required students to complete a course that includes personal finance before graduating from high school. In my home State of New Jersey, New Egypt High School is the only school that requires a course financial education. Several years ago I had the pleasure of teaching a class of these students, and came away impressed with their knowledge and competency in financial matters. While awareness of the importance of financial literacy is improving, it is still not being addressed appropriately in schools. Our schools must prepare our children to succeed in every way, including in their financial decisions. I am pleased that I successfully added a provision to the No Child Left Behind Act giving elementary and secondary schools access to funds that will allow them to include financial education as part of their basic educational curriculum. Although this was an important step in the right direction, Congress can and should do more to address this Issue. The legislation I am introducing today will provide grants to States to help them develop and implement financial education programs in elementary and secondary schools. These programs will offer professional development for teachers and prepare them to provide financial education. It would also establish a national clearinghouse for instructional materials and information regarding model financial education programs. Earlier this year, the Senate debated the Bankruptcy Reform Bill that seeks to change the rules governing bankruptcy. While I agree that bankruptcy reform should provide an incentive for capable individuals to honor their financial obligations, this legislation will make it that much more difficult for people who have fallen into debt to declare bankruptcy. With these reforms imminent, it will be all the more critical to take a proactive approach to the problem of personal debt in this country and make sure that the next generation learns how to better manage their money. I ask for my colleagues to join me in support of the Youth Financial Education Act, which will equip our nation's youth with skills to become responsible consumers and enjoy economic security as well as economic opportunity in their futures. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a very important piece of legislation, the Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act of 2005. Our Nation's Medicare beneficiaries--our elderly and disabled population--have limited access to mental health services. Medicare restricts the types of mental health services available to beneficiaries and the types of providers who are allowed to offer such care. It also charges higher copayments for mental health services than it does for all other health care. In order to receive mental health care, seniors and the disabled must pay 50 percent of the cost of a visit to their mental health specialist, as opposed to the 20 percent that they pay for other services. Medicare also limits the number of days a beneficiary can receive mental health care in a hospital setting to 190 days over an individual's lifetime. We must address this problem. The need is glaring. Almost 20 percent of Americans over age 65 have a serious mental disorder. They suffer from depression, Alzheimer's disease, dementia, anxiety, late-life schizophrenia and, all too often, substance abuse. These are serious illnesses that must be treated. Unfortunately, they are often unidentified by primary care physicians, or the appropriate services are simply out of reach. Americans age 65 and older have the highest rate of suicide of any other population in the United States. An alarming 70 percent of elderly suicide victims have visited their primary care doctor in the month prior to committing suicide. Medicare is also the primary source of health insurance for millions of nonelderly disabled. More than 20 percent of these individuals suffer from mental illness and/or addiction. This very needy population faces the same discrimination in their mental health coverage. As our population ages, the burden of mental illness on seniors, their families, and the health care system will only continue increase. Experts estimate that by the year 2030, 15 million people over 65 will have psychiatric disorders, with the number of individuals suffering from Alzheimer's disease doubling. If we do not reform the Medicare program to provide greater access to detection and treatment of mental illness, the cost of not treating these diseases will rapidly escalate. Without the appropriate outpatient mental health services, too many of our seniors are forced into nursing homes and hospitals. If We truly want to modernize Medicare and make it more efficient, we must provide access to these services. Not only will they likely reduce costs in the long term, but they will also increase Medicare beneficiaries' quality of life. The Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act takes critical steps to address these issues. First, the bill reduces the 50 percent copayment for mental health services to 20 percent. The proposed 20 percent copayment is the same as the copayment for all other outpatient services in Medicare. Second, the bill would provide access to intensive residential services for those who are suffering from severe mental illness. This will give people with Alzheimer's disease and other serious mental illness the opportunity to be cared for in their homes or in community-based settings. Third, the bill expands the number of qualified mental health professionals eligible to provide services through the Medicare program. This includes licensed professional mental health counselors, clinical social workers, and marriage and family therapists. This expansion of qualified providers is critical to ensuring that seniors throughout the nation, particularly those in rural areas, are able to receive the services they need. In closing, I urge all of my colleagues to step forward to support the Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act of 2005. It is time for the Medicare program to stop discriminating against seniors and the disabled who are suffering from mental illness.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the TANF Financial Education Promotion Act of 2005 in order to call attention to an important issue for low-income families financial literacy. I am proud to be reintroducing this bill during the month of April, which is Financial Literacy Month. One of the goals of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program is to help low-income families transition from welfare to work. However, there is more to leaving poverty than just finding a job. Welfare recipients must learn the skills that will help them build savings and establish good credit so that they can stay off welfare. Currently, TANF does not offer financial education to low-income individuals, leaving welfare recipients at risk of dependence upon public assistance. Furthermore, millions of low-income families, including families receiving TANF, are unbanked. These households tend to do their banking at check-cashing outlets that charge exorbitant fees for such services. A lack of basic consumer finance education, including lack of familiarity with how a checking or savings account works, has been cited as a major reason why millions of Americans do not set up such accounts. Not only are low-income people more likely to be unbanked than other individuals, but they are also the most vulnerable to abusive lending practices and hostile credit arrangements. Those with the fewest financial resources end up paying the most to obtain financing. Financial education that addresses predatory lending will help prevent low-income families from becoming victims of unaffordable loan payments, equity stripping, and foreclosure. Burdened by significant financial needs, welfare recipients need practical information on the fundamentals of saving, household budgeting, taxes, and credit. With this knowledge, individuals will be better equipped to move toward self-sufficiency and maintain financial independence. The TANF Financial Education Promotion Act makes strides in financial literacy for welfare recipients by requiring states to use TANF funds to collaborate with community-based organizations, banks, and community colleges to create financial education programs for low-income families receiving welfare and for those transitioning from welfare to work. I am not alone in advocating financial literacy for TANF recipients. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has said, ``Educational and training programs may be the most critical service offered by community-based organizations to enhance the ability of lower-income households to accumulate assets.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in helping the most vulnerable families in the United States get access to the tools they will need to successfully make the transition from welfare to work. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Santorum, Schumer, and DeMint in introducing the ASPIRE Act of 2005, which would expand opportunities for young adults, encourage savings, and promote financial literacy, by establishing investment accounts, known as KIDS Accounts, for every child in America. ASPIRE is based largely on a similar initiative in the United Kingdom developed by Prime Minister Tony Blair. Yet despite its British roots, the proposal is based on the most basic of American values. By giving every young person resources with which to get a start in life, ASPIRE will help realize the American ideal of equal opportunity. And by making every young person an investor, the proposal would encourage self reliance, promote savings, and give every family a personal stake in America's economy. Under ASPIRE, an investment account would be established for every American child upon receiving a Social Security number. Each account would be funded initially with $500. Those with incomes less than the national median would receive an additional contribution of up to $500, and would receive a one-for-one government match for their first $500 of private contributions each year. Up to $1000 of after-tax private contributions would be allowed annually from any source. Funds would accumulate tax-free and could not be withdrawn for purposes other than higher education until the child reaches the age of 18. At that point, funds could be withdrawn, according to Roth IRA guidelines, either for higher education or for the purchase of a home. Funds left unspent would be saved for retirement under rules similar to those that apply to Roth IRAs or rolled over to a 529 plan for educational expenses. Once the account holder reaches the age of 30, the initial $500 government contribution would have to be repaid, though exceptions could be made to avoid undue hardship. Accounts initially would be held by a government entity that would be based on the successful Thrift Savings Plan, or TSP, which now manages retirement accounts for Federal employees with relatively low administrative costs. As with the TSP, investors would have a range of investment options, such as a Government securities fund, a fixed income investment fund, and a common stock fund. However, once an account holder reaches the age of 18, funds could be rolled over to a KIDS Account held at a private institution. It is difficult to understate the potential impact of giving every American child a funded investment account of their own. For the first time, every child will have a meaningful incentive to learn the basics of investing, because they will have real resources to invest. For the first time, even families with modest incomes will have a significant incentive to save, to earn the government match. And, perhaps most fundamentally, for the first time, every American child will grow up knowing that when they reach adulthood, they will have the ability to invest in themselves and in their own education. In short, every child will have hope for a real future. Considering its potentially significant social and individual benefits, the ASPIRE Act requires an investment that is relatively modest. It has been estimated that, when it becomes effective, the bill's cost would represent only about one tenth of one percent of the Federal budget. Yet the proposal differs from other proposals for new spending or tax cuts because, for the first 18 years, it would not reduce overall national savings at all. In that period, virtually every dollar of outlays would be saved, and would be available to expand long-term economic growth. In fact, the proposal would lead to an increase in national savings because of its incentives for families to save more. This would help create the economic growth we need to handle the added burdens associated with the impending retirement of the baby boomers. Senator Santorum and I are excited to be joined this year by Senators Schumer and DeMint as sponsors of ASPIRE, along with sponsors of identical legislation in the House, Congressmen Harold Ford, Patrick Kennedy, Thomas Petri and Phil English. In that process, we have been assisted by a broad range of experts and other interested parties, for which I am very grateful. However, I want to especially thank Ray Boshara and Reid Cramer of the New America Foundation, who have been extraordinarily helpful in the development of the legislation, and who have taken the lead in efforts to promote this and other asset building initiatives. Mr. President, the ASPIRE Act is a big new idea based on simple, old time American values. It already enjoys strong bipartisan support from conservatives and progressives, alike, in both houses of Congress. I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to secure its prompt enactment.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Lautenberg, I am introducing legislation, the Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism Anti- Drilling Act, or COAST Anti-Drilling Act, to ban oil and gas drilling off the Mid-Atlantic and Northern Atlantic coast. The people of New Jersey, and other residents of States along the Atlantic Coast, do not want oil or gas rigs anywhere near their treasured beaches and fishing grounds. Such drilling poses serious threats not only to our environment, but to our economy, which depends heavily on tourism along our shore. Coastal tourism is New Jersey's second-largest industry, and the New Jersey Shore is one of the fastest growing regions in the country. According to the New Jersey Department of Commerce, tourism in the Garden State generates more than $31 billion in spending, directly and indirectly supports more than 836,000 jobs, more than 20 percent of total State employment, generates more than $16.6 billion in wages, and brings in more than $5.5 billion in tax revenues to the State. Until the Bush administration came into office, there was no reason to suspect that drilling was even a remote possibility. Since 1982, a statutory moratorium on leasing activities in most Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, areas has been included annually in Interior appropriations acts. In addition, President George H.W. Bush declared a leasing moratorium on many OCS areas on June 26, 1990, under section 12 of the OCS Lands Act. On June 12, 1998, President Clinton used the same authority to issue a memorandum to the Secretary of the Interior that extended the moratorium through 2012 and included additional OCS areas. Given the longstanding consensus against drilling in these areas, I was deeply disturbed to discover that on May 31, 2001, the Minerals Management Service released a request for proposals, RFP, to conduct a study of the environmental impacts of drilling in the Mid- and North- Atlantic. The RFP noted that ``there are areas with some reservoir potential, for example off the coast of New Jersey.'' In addition, the RFP explained that the study would be conducted ``in anticipation of managing the exploitation of potential and proven reserves.'' I believed that the RFP was inappropriate and misguided, and I was pleased when at my urging and the urging of other coastal Senators, the administration rescinded it. After our strong bipartisan coalition fought off the Department of the Interior RFP, our coastal coalition came together again to fight off the Outer Continental Shelf inventory provisions of last year's energy bill. The bill directed the Department of the Interior to inventory all potential oil and natural gas resources in the entire Outer Continental Shelf, including areas off of the New Jersey coast. The bill would have allowed the use of seismic surveys, dart core sampling, and other exploration technologies, all of which would leave these areas vulnerable to oil spills, drilling discharges and damage to coastal wetlands. These provisions run directly counter to language that Congress has included annually in appropriations bills to prevent leasing, preleasing, and related activities in most areas of the Outer Continental Shelf, including areas off the New Jersey coast. Fortunately, this provision was dropped last year, but it is likely that it will resurface during debate on the Energy bill this year, and it is clear that we need to once and for all ban drilling off the coast of New Jersey and the rest of the Mid- and North-Atlantic. So considering the minimal benefit and significant downside of drilling off the coast of New Jersey, it is not worth threatening over 800,000 New Jersey jobs to recover what the MMS estimated in 2000 to be 196 million barrels of oil, only enough to last the country barely 10 days. I certainly don't think it is worth the risk, and it is time for Congress to act to resolve this question once and for all. That is why I am introducing the COAST Anti-Drilling Act. The Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism Anti-Drilling Act would permanently ban drilling for oil, gas and other minerals in the Mid- and North-Atlantic. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important legislation. Doing so would ensure the people of New Jersey and neighboring States that they need not fear the specter of oil rigs off their beaches. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, amendment No. 368, as modified, was accepted by both sides on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee last night before a unanimous consent agreement, not in time for inclusion in the managers' amendment. I therefore ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment so I may call up amendment No. 368, as modified, and ask unanimous consent this amendment be adopted. Senator Brownback, Senator DeWine, and others are on this amendment as well, which is funding for the Darfur peacekeeping operations as well as disaster assistance.

Mr. CORZINE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Lautenberg, I am introducing legislation, the Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism Anti- Drilling Act, or COAST Anti-Drilling Act, to ban oil and gas drilling off the Mid-Atlantic and Northern Atlantic coast. The people of New Jersey, and other residents of States along the Atlantic Coast, do not want oil or gas rigs anywhere near their treasured beaches and fishing grounds. Such drilling poses serious threats not only to our environment, but to our economy, which depends heavily on tourism along our shore. Coastal tourism is New Jersey's second-largest industry, and the New Jersey Shore is one of the fastest growing regions in the country. According to the New Jersey Department of Commerce, tourism in the Garden State generates more than $31 billion in spending, directly and indirectly supports more than 836,000 jobs, more than 20 percent of total State employment, generates more than $16.6 billion in wages, and brings in more than $5.5 billion in tax revenues to the State. Until the Bush administration came into office, there was no reason to suspect that drilling was even a remote possibility. Since 1982, a statutory moratorium on leasing activities in most Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, areas has been included annually in Interior appropriations acts. In addition, President George H.W. Bush declared a leasing moratorium on many OCS areas on June 26, 1990, under section 12 of the OCS Lands Act. On June 12, 1998, President Clinton used the same authority to issue a memorandum to the Secretary of the Interior that extended the moratorium through 2012 and included additional OCS areas. Given the longstanding consensus against drilling in these areas, I was deeply disturbed to discover that on May 31, 2001, the Minerals Management Service released a request for proposals, RFP, to conduct a study of the environmental impacts of drilling in the Mid- and North- Atlantic. The RFP noted that ``there are areas with some reservoir potential, for example off the coast of New Jersey.'' In addition, the RFP explained that the study would be conducted ``in anticipation of managing the exploitation of potential and proven reserves.'' I believed that the RFP was inappropriate and misguided, and I was pleased when at my urging and the urging of other coastal Senators, the administration rescinded it. After our strong bipartisan coalition fought off the Department of the Interior RFP, our coastal coalition came together again to fight off the Outer Continental Shelf inventory provisions of last year's energy bill. The bill directed the Department of the Interior to inventory all potential oil and natural gas resources in the entire Outer Continental Shelf, including areas off of the New Jersey coast. The bill would have allowed the use of seismic surveys, dart core sampling, and other exploration technologies, all of which would leave these areas vulnerable to oil spills, drilling discharges and damage to coastal wetlands. These provisions run directly counter to language that Congress has included annually in appropriations bills to prevent leasing, preleasing, and related activities in most areas of the Outer Continental Shelf, including areas off the New Jersey coast. Fortunately, this provision was dropped last year, but it is likely that it will resurface during debate on the Energy bill this year, and it is clear that we need to once and for all ban drilling off the coast of New Jersey and the rest of the Mid- and North-Atlantic. So considering the minimal benefit and significant downside of drilling off the coast of New Jersey, it is not worth threatening over 800,000 New Jersey jobs to recover what the MMS estimated in 2000 to be 196 million barrels of oil, only enough to last the country barely 10 days. I certainly don't think it is worth the risk, and it is time for Congress to act to resolve this question once and for all. That is why I am introducing the COAST Anti-Drilling Act. The Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism Anti-Drilling Act would permanently ban drilling for oil, gas and other minerals in the Mid- and North-Atlantic. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important legislation. Doing so would ensure the people of New Jersey and neighboring States that they need not fear the specter of oil rigs off their beaches. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Santorum, Schumer, and DeMint in introducing the ASPIRE Act of 2005, which would expand opportunities for young adults, encourage savings, and promote financial literacy, by establishing investment accounts, known as KIDS Accounts, for every child in America. ASPIRE is based largely on a similar initiative in the United Kingdom developed by Prime Minister Tony Blair. Yet despite its British roots, the proposal is based on the most basic of American values. By giving every young person resources with which to get a start in life, ASPIRE will help realize the American ideal of equal opportunity. And by making every young person an investor, the proposal would encourage self reliance, promote savings, and give every family a personal stake in America's economy. Under ASPIRE, an investment account would be established for every American child upon receiving a Social Security number. Each account would be funded initially with $500. Those with incomes less than the national median would receive an additional contribution of up to $500, and would receive a one-for-one government match for their first $500 of private contributions each year. Up to $1000 of after-tax private contributions would be allowed annually from any source. Funds would accumulate tax-free and could not be withdrawn for purposes other than higher education until the child reaches the age of 18. At that point, funds could be withdrawn, according to Roth IRA guidelines, either for higher education or for the purchase of a home. Funds left unspent would be saved for retirement under rules similar to those that apply to Roth IRAs or rolled over to a 529 plan for educational expenses. Once the account holder reaches the age of 30, the initial $500 government contribution would have to be repaid, though exceptions could be made to avoid undue hardship. Accounts initially would be held by a government entity that would be based on the successful Thrift Savings Plan, or TSP, which now manages retirement accounts for Federal employees with relatively low administrative costs. As with the TSP, investors would have a range of investment options, such as a Government securities fund, a fixed income investment fund, and a common stock fund. However, once an account holder reaches the age of 18, funds could be rolled over to a KIDS Account held at a private institution. It is difficult to understate the potential impact of giving every American child a funded investment account of their own. For the first time, every child will have a meaningful incentive to learn the basics of investing, because they will have real resources to invest. For the first time, even families with modest incomes will have a significant incentive to save, to earn the government match. And, perhaps most fundamentally, for the first time, every American child will grow up knowing that when they reach adulthood, they will have the ability to invest in themselves and in their own education. In short, every child will have hope for a real future. Considering its potentially significant social and individual benefits, the ASPIRE Act requires an investment that is relatively modest. It has been estimated that, when it becomes effective, the bill's cost would represent only about one tenth of one percent of the Federal budget. Yet the proposal differs from other proposals for new spending or tax cuts because, for the first 18 years, it would not reduce overall national savings at all. In that period, virtually every dollar of outlays would be saved, and would be available to expand long-term economic growth. In fact, the proposal would lead to an increase in national savings because of its incentives for families to save more. This would help create the economic growth we need to handle the added burdens associated with the impending retirement of the baby boomers. Senator Santorum and I are excited to be joined this year by Senators Schumer and DeMint as sponsors of ASPIRE, along with sponsors of identical legislation in the House, Congressmen Harold Ford, Patrick Kennedy, Thomas Petri and Phil English. In that process, we have been assisted by a broad range of experts and other interested parties, for which I am very grateful. However, I want to especially thank Ray Boshara and Reid Cramer of the New America Foundation, who have been extraordinarily helpful in the development of the legislation, and who have taken the lead in efforts to promote this and other asset building initiatives. Mr. President, the ASPIRE Act is a big new idea based on simple, old time American values. It already enjoys strong bipartisan support from conservatives and progressives, alike, in both houses of Congress. I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to secure its prompt enactment.