Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the 30th anniversary of the New Jersey Alliance for Action, an organization that has worked tirelessly to improve the quality of life for all New Jerseyans. The New Jersey Alliance for Action is a nonprofit, nonpartisan consortium of business, labor, government and academic leaders dedicated to creating jobs, improving the economy and protecting the environment. These goals are achieved by modernizing our State's infrastructure to meet the needs of a growing New Jersey. Since its creation in 1974, the New Jersey Alliance for Action has worked to obtain funding and secure permits for road, rail, and aviation improvements, water projects, school construction, shore preservation, business expansion and other key infrastructure initiatives. Today, it boasts more than 600 dedicated members and has developed a solid track record of working closely with state and local governments. The Board of Trustees of the New Jersey Alliance for Action is composed of some of New Jersey's most prominent business, labor, professional and educational leaders. Through creative partnerships between the public and private sectors, the foundation addresses many of the pressing issues that affect the great State of New Jersey. While this organization is exemplary, two men must be singled out for their vision and hard work: Richard M. Hale and Ellis S. Vieser. They were responsible for creating an organization that crossed the boundaries, establishing an environment where the interests of New Jersey's citizens are top priority. We owe a deep debt of gratitude for their lifetime of dedication and remarkable leadership. They embodied a can-do attitude together with a sense of community. It is not difficult to see how the alliance has made such giant strides in such a relatively short period of time. I thank the members of the New Jersey Alliance for Action for continuing the work of Richard M. Hale and Ellis S. Vieser. It is their commitment to the work of the alliance's founders that allows New Jersey to shine so brightly. Congratulations on this very special milestone.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. I call up amendment No. 3671 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORZINE. Absolutely.

Mr. CORZINE. Fifteen minutes or less.

Mr. CORZINE. I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors: Senators Biden, Durbin, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Landrieu, Feingold, and Leahy.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, this amendment simply adds $75 million in support of an expanded African union mission in Darfur, Sudan, moneys critically needed to stop the genocide that we all agree, voted on on this floor, is occurring. Hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake. We have heard estimates north of 300,000 to as many as a million. Actually, the life of the whole country is at stake. The facts on the ground are well known. There have been 1.2 million people violently displaced. So-called Janjaweed or the militia supported by the government of Sudan have deliberately and systematically destroyed villages, foodstocks, poisoned water supplies, murdered and raped civilians, and an estimated 50,000 civilians have died. There is no dispute in this country about what is happening. We heard a declaration a week ago from Secretary Powell that the rightful term with regard to what is going on in Darfur is ``genocide.'' The question now is, what do we do about it? Are we responsible to give voice and meaning and money to do something to stop it? It is terrific and it is very positive how the United States has reacted with regard to humanitarian assistance. It is critical if we hope to save lives, and it has made a huge difference. I know the majority leader, Senator Brownback, myself, and others have visited. The humanitarian aid is making a difference. Is that enough? The real challenge is to make sure we stop the genocide, not just feed the hungry. We need to do everything we can to bring security to the people of Darfur. During my 3-day visit, I spoke with an incredible number of displaced people from all over that area of Darfur, which is roughly the size of France, who described rape, murder, starvation, hundreds of thousands of people displaced, families broken up. It is time to act. Even after people have been able to move into camps, they have described how the Janjaweed will come in after dark and continue harassing, hurting, and challenging the actual viability of the people in the camps. The camps keep growing. There are more displaced people all the time who are attacked and forced from their homes. International humanitarian organizations are struggling to assist these folks. Our humanitarian aid has made a difference, as a number of us have seen, but it goes on and on. It is estimated that from illnesses, starvation, and other means, somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 people die a month. There is fear that it could accelerate if an epidemic were to take hold in one of these camps or in a number of them. There is also a security problem. Poor humanitarian conditions within those camps are creating anger among the displaced people, which might be quite obvious to anyone. If my colleagues could have seen one of these places, people are living in hovels and without any kind of quality water considerations, even if they have rations and food. This anger that is building in the camps is fueling this revolution that is going on between the Government of Sudan and the Darfur rebels. It is inciting even more of it. Given the complete lack of security and stability in the region, a seemingly endless crisis involving displaced people which will go on for years if there is not something done about both the security situation and the political situation, we are going to end up spending $500 million for as far as the eye can see to maintain people staying and living in these camps. That does not make sense. Remember, if we build up the anger in those camps, what have we created? We have created a breeding ground for further violence and also the fomenting of terrorism. Remember, Sudan 8 years ago was the home to Osama bin Laden and the terrorist groups--al- Qaida. We can help stop the genocide, bring security to Darfur, start to stabilize the region, and create the conditions for peace. What is more, there is at this brief critical moment a real consensus. You hear it in the Foreign Relations Committee. You read it in the newspapers. You see it from the people who are sponsoring the efforts on genocide. This is something we can deal with today if we are prepared to allow in this bill the resources that will allow the United States to help the African Union fund the kinds of peacekeeping troops on the ground that will make a difference. Right now there are currently 125 African Union monitors in Darfur and an additional 305 monitors, watchers, protective forces for the monitors who are looking at this area that is the size of France. It is kind of ridiculous on the surface of it, as a peacekeeping force. There is an opportunity. The African Union wants to provide the troops. It doesn't have the money. It doesn't have the logistical support. But it has the ability to put the troops on the ground. We should not send American troops. Nobody is asking to send American troops. What we are trying to do is get the resources so we can stop this genocide by putting a legitimate peacekeeping force on the ground. It is an incredible tradeoff. Are we going to continue to spend $500 million a year on humanitarian aid to keep people in camps or are we going to try to create a secure situation where people can go back to the villages, start their lives, and maintain some safety in their world? To me, this is an easy expenditure. It is a cost-benefit analysis that we should be able to understand. It brings an opportunity for people to have security in the villages, in and around the camps, and change the terms and conditions of security which is the precondition to get on with a political settlement between the Darfurian rebels and the central government--which, by the way, was also locked with the whole issue of how the southern Sudanese rebels and the central government were working together, which we as a nation have put so much effort to bring about. But this is standing in the way of that moving forward. I do not understand why we would not want to make an investment that will work on the security, that will lay the pathway to have us get to a political settlement that will make a difference and save incredible amounts. This is being supported, endorsed, and embraced by African leaders across the continent. They just don't have the resources to deal with it. It is being led by Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, who currently heads the AU. He has done everything he can to get the rebels and the central government to negotiate a political settlement, but as long as there is continuing violence and anger building up in these camps, we are not going to get to that answer. We are not going to get to it, and we need to make sure we invest in something that will bring change, bring security as well as the humanitarian aid so we can get on with that political settlement. There are very few times when you can say, if we invest $75 million now, over a longer period of time we will save having to bring all this humanitarian aid. People really care deeply about trying to prevent the kind of loss of life that is estimated by officials from all parts of the world. This is something that is clear and present and should be dealt with. This is where the United States ought to show the moral courage to stand up and act because there is something that is going to happen that is very clear in people's eyes if we do not. I encourage my colleagues to say this is $75 million; it is going to be above the budget resolution. If I am not mistaken, we just approved $146 billion worth of overage, over-budget resolutions, without any paying for it. Here we are talking about $75 million that can start us on the pathway to peace and protection of as many as 1.2 million individuals. I hope we will be reasonable, particularly in light of how we dealt with the budget resolution on tax cuts. We ought to think about the cost-benefit that will be very obvious. It will make a real difference in human life and it is something we can all be proud of because we are making a statement that we want to stand with humanity on straightening out a very serious problem. To reiterate, this amendment would add $75 million to support an expanded African Union mission in Darfur, Sudan. This money is critically needed to stop the genocide that we all agree is occurring there. Hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake, as is the future of an entire country. The facts on the ground are now well known. There are 1.2 million people who have been violently displaced. The Janjaweed militia, supported by the Government of Sudan, have deliberately and systematically destroyed villages and food stocks, poisoned water supplies, murdered and raped civilians. An estimated 50,000 civilians have died. There now is no dispute in this country about what is happening. On July 22, both houses of Congress spoke, calling the atrocities in Darfur by their rightful name: ``genocide.'' On September 9, Secretary of State Colin Powell made the same declaration. The question now is what do we do about it? Humanitarian assistance is critical if we hope to save lives, and I have and will continue to push for the maximum amount of U.S. and international aid. The crisis in Darfur requires more than a half a billion dollars this year, and we are still hundreds of million of dollars short. But we also must do everything we can to begin to bring security to Darfur. During my recent trip, I spoke with internally displaced people who described for me the attacks that forced them from their villages. I asked one man when he expected to return. He told me, ``maybe 30 years.'' Other displaced people told me how they can't venture outside the camps and how women are at constant risk of rape. They even described how the Janjaweed ride through the camps at night, terrorizing those who recently fled their attacks. Meanwhile the camps are growing, as more and more displaced people are attacked and forced from their homes. As a result, the international humanitarian organizations are struggling to assist the new displaced people. When I was in Krinding camp, in Geneina, I saw newly arrived displaced people without shelter, huddling under makeshift lean-tos of sticks and pieces of burlap and other materials they had found. These conditions persist in the midst of the rainy season and are fueling the current death toll, which is estimated at between 6,000 and 10,000 a month. The security problems and the poor humanitarian conditions in the camps are creating increasing anger among the displaced people. This rage risks spinning out of control and fueling the civil war currently being waged between the Government of Sudan and the rebels. Given the complete lack of security and stability in Darfur and the seemingly endless crisis involving displaced people, we can anticipate years of crisis--costing the international community half a billion dollars a year, eliminating any possibility of stability or economic growth in Sudan, and possibly leading to the kind of failed state that breeds chronic violence and terrorism. We can help stop the genocide, bring security to Darfur, start to stabilize the region and create the conditions for peace. What's more, there is--at this brief and critical moment--real consensus, here in America and among our allies about what to do. Our option--our only option at this time--is to support the mission of the African Union. There are currently 125 AU monitors in Darfur, sent following the cease fire signed between the Government of Sudan and the rebels on April 8 in Chad. There are also 305 Rwandan and Nigerian troops deployed as protection forces for the monitors. I visited the monitoring teams when I was in Darfur. Their efforts to investigate and document violations of the cease fire are critical to establishing accountability, and their presence and the presence of the troops are the only hope for deterring attacks by the warring parties and the Janjaweed. But the small AU contingent is, by all accounts, insufficient. Darfur is the size of France, and much of it is not easily accessible. To really address the security crisis in Darfur, we need more monitoring teams, deployed throughout the region. And we need thousands of troops with an expanded mission, to protect civilians and bring security to the region. The monitors and troops need meaningful support--air lift, vehicles, communications equipment, and other resources. This support is not insignificant--the United Nations has estimated that a 4,200- person force will cost $228 million per year. But, when we are considering an indefinite humanitarian crisis costing half a billion a year, how can we fail to spend less than half that amount for the only possibility of stabilizing Darfur and eventually resolving what is, in the end, a political and military crisis. As for the U.S. contribution, my amendment would make available $75 million for an expanded AU force, one third of the UN estimate. Clearly, we need to engage with the EU and our other allies, with Arab and Muslim countries, and with other member states of the UN so that support for the AU is truly an international endeavor. But we can provide real leadership by demonstrating America's commitment to ending this genocide, not just in words but in a real contribution to peace and security. This particular moment is made even more critical by the fact that the African Union has stepped up. The AU's leadership, whom I met in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, has demonstrated initiative and courage in standing up to the Government of Sudan and insisting on a real and effective mission in Darfur. Almost 2 months ago, on July 27, 2004, the AU Peace and Security Council called for a ``comprehensive plan'' to enhance the effectiveness of the mission, including, ``the possibility of turning the mission into a full-fledged peacekeeping mission, with the requisite mandate and size,'' a mission that would emphasize, ``the disarmament and neutralization of the Janjaweed militia, the protection of the civilian population and the facilitation of the delivery of the humanitarian assistance.'' Then, on August 4, the AU as a whole stated its interest in expanding its force in Darfur to several thousand troops. This vision has been pushed by visionary African leaders such as Nigerian President Obasanjo who currently heads the AU. President Obasanjo has not only supported an expanded role in Darfur, but pushed in his own country for more troops. This will not be easy. The AU is a new institution and, despite its strong leadership, does not have meaningful experience, as a bureaucracy, with peacekeeping. Darfur is, in every sense, a real test of the AU. But it is also a test for us. African leaders are taking bold initiatives to confront a crisis on the continent, and we have expressed our support. But they need real help to succeed. If we merely support the AU in theory, but don't put resources where our mouth is, the tragedy will be almost beyond comprehension. Even beyond the genocide in Darfur, we will have set up the AU for failure at precisely the moment when it could really succeed. We will have crippled the AU, when it stands ready to help bring peace to this and other parts of Africa. An expanded AU mission in Darfur has bipartisan support in Congress. The administration has also said, and begun to do, the right things. On September 9, Secretary Powell said: The most practical contribution we can make to the security of Darfur, in the short-term, is to do everything we can to increase the number of Union monitors. He also stated that the expansion of the AU force: Will be first priority for our efforts in the days ahead. We are currently providing $6.8 million to the tiny AU force now deployed in Darfur, and I was pleased that Secretary Powell came before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and identified another $20.5 million. But, as Secretary Powell acknowledged, the expansion of the African Union force will require money, assets, planes, logistics support and current funding levels are simply not enough. Finally, a word about the international support for an expanded AU mission. Last Saturday, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1564 which supported: The intention of the African Union to enhance and augment its monitoring mission in the Darfur region of Sudan. The Resolution also urged member states to support the AU by providing all: Equipment, logistical, financial, material, and other resources necessary to support the rapid expansion of the African Union Mission. This is precisely what this amendment would do--it would support the AU and send a powerful message to the rest of the world that America will provide real, tangible leadership on this issue. There is one sticking point, and that is the Government of Sudan, whose leadership has stated that it does not oppose the expansion of the AU force, but has hardly been welcoming. The Government of Sudan has also resisted any AU force with an explicit peacekeeping mandate. We must bring the full weight of the international community and use all available leverage, including the explicit threat of sanctions to get this expanded AU force on the ground. The Security Council resolution alluded to this threat, stating that if the Government of Sudan fails to cooperate fully with the expansion and extension of the AU mission, it would, quote, ``consider taking additional measures.'' While the resolution also made reference to Sudan's petroleum sector and measures against the Government of Sudan or individual members of the Government of Sudan, it could have been, and should have been much stronger and more specific. But, last week's Security Council action at least puts the international community on record. Now we need to treat this situation with the urgency it demands. We need to make it perfectly clear to the Government of Sudan that there will be multilateral sanctions if it does not cooperate with an expanded AU mission. This threat must be real. We cannot allow it to be watered down in the Security Council. Khartoum either allows the mission in, or it doesn't. The Council has said there will be consequences for not cooperating. Those consequences should be immediate; there should be no extensions. And we should signal our seriousness to the Government of Sudan, to our allies and to the AU by putting in place everything that an expanded AU mission in Darfur will need. We have the resources to do this. There are practical ways for us to stop this genocide. We can, if we have the will, do this now. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Mikulski and my friend from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, as well, as cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am not certain but I think Senator DeWine wanted to speak. I don't know how much time we have left.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, after much deliberation, I have decided to vote against the confirmation of Porter Goss to be Director of Central Intelligence. The conclusions of the 9/11 Commission, as well as the failures of our pre-war intelligence on Iraq, have demonstrated the enormous challenges we face in restructuring, reforming and improving our intelligence capabilities. At this critical moment, we should be focusing our efforts on enacting into law the recommendations of the commission, including the creation of the position of National Intelligence Director. The confirmation of a new Director of Central Intelligence, when the role of the DCI has yet to even be defined, does not advance the hard reform work yet to be done. Nor does the appointment of Porter Goss, whose objectivity, capacity to work across party lines, and openness to reform are subject to serious question. The National Intelligence Director envisioned by the 9/11 Commission will oversee our intelligence community, including the DCI. It is critical that we clarify, in law, the relationship between these two positions. Unfortunately, the administration, by prioritizing the nomination of the DCI over the restructuring of our intelligence community, seems to be signaling an attachment to the status quo. Congressman Goss's record, in which he has repeatedly rejected independent efforts to improve our intelligence whenever those efforts were perceived to be contrary to the interests of the Bush administration, is also cause for concern. He opposed the establishment of the 9/11 Commission, he attacked the integrity of Richard Clarke, the former coordinator for counter-terrorism at the National Security Council, he opposed an investigation into the disclosure of the identity of a CIA operative, and he referred to the bipartisan Senate investigation into the abuse of Iraqi detainees as a ``circus.'' Congressman Goss has also opposed investigations into intelligence on Iraq, in particular the use of intelligence by the administration. He dismissed Senators who called for an examination of the circumstances that led us to war as ``attack dogs'' and charged that they were expressing ``artificial outrage.'' He has also implied that open discussions of the challenges facing our intelligence damage the morale of our armed forces and aid our enemies. These are not the statements of someone who appears prepared to undertake the difficult work of reform, without regard to political considerations. This reform will require cooperation between the administration and the Congress and between Republicans and Democrats. Unfortunately, Congressman Goss has made repeated, incendiary charges, including allegations that the Democratic Party does not support the intelligence community and that Senator Kerry seeks to ``dismantle the nation's intelligence capabilities.'' These charges are not only flat wrong, they are completely counterproductive to the bipartisan effort that is urgently needed at this moment. Repairing our intelligence capabilities is critical to fighting the war on terrorism and is an urgent priority. We must enact into law the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. We must examine the failures of our intelligence related to Iraq. We must begin the work of restructuring our intelligence community so that it is more effective and less politicized. These challenges require the utmost objectivity, independence, and nonpartisanship from the Director of Central Intelligence. Any reluctance on the part of the DCI to fully engage in the reform process, for whatever reason, could set us back at a moment when we can least afford it.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Daschle, Senator Baucus and Senator Durbin, I am submitting a resolution that calls on the Congress to reject Social Security privatization plans, including those that require deep cuts in guaranteed benefits, such as the proposals by President Bush's Social Security Commission. For nearly 70 years, Social Security has reflected the best of America's values. Social Security promises Americans that if you work hard, pay your taxes, and play by the rules, you will be able to retire and live in dignity. Social Security benefits are far from lavish. The average retiree receives only about $900 a month. That doesn't go far in many parts of the country--certainly not in New Jersey. Unfortunately, even the benefits promised under current law are now at risk. President Bush says he wants to move toward privatization. But what he does not say is that shifting funds from the Social Security Trust Fund into privatized accounts almost inevitably leads to deep cuts in guaranteed benefits. To appreciate the depth of the cuts that flow from privatization, one need only consider the privatization plans developed by President Bush's own Social Security Commission. That commission included only proponents of privatization selected by President Bush, and it developed privatization plans that call for deep benefits cuts. According to the nonpartisan actuaries at the Social Security Administration, those cuts would exceed 25 percent for some current workers. In the future, seniors could face a 45 percent cut in benefits. The President likes to argue that privatization is about choice. But there would be no choice about these cuts--they would harm every senior. In fact, those who chose to participate in privatized accounts would see their benefits cut even deeper. That is why, in response to the Bush Commission's report, 50 members of the Senate wrote to President Bush, urging him to reject the Commission's proposed cuts in benefits. Unfortunately, we have yet to receive a response. Privatization advocates try to justify cuts in Social Security by pointing to future projected shortfalls in the Trust Fund. But diverting payroll taxes from the Trust Fund only makes matters worse, and would substantially accelerate the date by which the Fund would become insolvent. That is why privatization almost inevitably leads to deep cuts in benefits. It is critical that this issue be fully discussed now--before the election. So I will be looking for an opportunity to bring this resolution before the Senate before the end of the year. I hope we can kill this radical idea before it has a chance to get off the ground. We must never accept any plan that takes the security out of Social Security.

Mr. CORZINE

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

Mr. CORZINE. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to modify amendment No. 3619 at the desk. The change is to allow for funding of the offset of the proposed amendment, regarding chemical security plants.

Mr. CORZINE. Yes.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I send the modified amendment to the desk.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, this amendment addresses one of the most serious security threats facing our Nation: the threat of terrorist attacks on chemical facilities. It is a subject I have worked on with a number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle over the last 3 years. It addresses an issue where there are literally thousands of chemical facilities across the country where a chemical release could expose tens of thousands of Americans to highly toxic gases. I have tried to stress that there are 123 of these where more than a million people could be exposed. About eight of those are in New Jersey, so this is an intensely important subject matter for the community I represent. We need to change this. While we are working today on the Department of Homeland Security appropriations, there is authorizing legislation working through the Environment and Public Works Committee that would deal with this problem. I want to be a constructive element in bringing that to a conclusion. We have a security problem now with our chemical plants. My modified amendment would provide $70 million to State and local governments in order to enhance the security of those chemical plants. Also, it includes that offset I mentioned, which is changed from the original version of the amendment. This amendment only takes a modest first step by appropriating that money to these State and local efforts. Funds could be used, for example, to strengthen law enforcement's presence around chemical plants. When we go to Code Orange, the Department of Homeland Security requests that our local law enforcement provide additional security for these plants. It is not like they are not doing this already. That is overtime for additional individuals. Also, this money would go to train and prepare officials to respond to a terrorist attack. The release of a chemical toxic cloud is not like fighting a fire; it takes different kinds of actions. This amendment would provide some of that support. It would also provide guidance and assistance to plant managers. It would have the proper interface with State and local officials on how to respond and maybe even prevent attacks on chemical security plants. As I said, the funds will be offset by eliminating funds for a new Department of Homeland Security performance pay system, and we will provide the resources that I think--at least looking at a tradeoff of how I see it in New Jersey, and I think it is the case across the country, since 123 plants expose more than a million people, it is a good tradeoff. It may be an important issue to get on with pay systems, but I don't understand how we trade that off versus the security of the individuals who surround the plants. Remember, these plants were built in a different era, at a different time. They are very prominently located in densely populated areas in the country. We ought to do what we can to protect them. One of the ways is to provide these funds. That is what this amendment is about. I spoke about it at length the other day on the Senate floor. I believe very strongly that there are real reasons for us to pay attention to chemical plant security in this country. Every time the Department of Homeland Security raises the code level, they mention chemical plant security. It is in the Hart-Rudman report. It is in studies of the vulnerabilities of the critical infrastructure in this country. We ought to take special steps to make sure there is security at these plants. We would not tolerate the kind of security arrangement we have in chemical plants if they were nuclear powerplants, and there are as many people exposed to these toxic exposures, if there were to be a terrorist attack, as there would be in many, if not most, nuclear powerplants, which are located in many different areas. I hope my colleagues will realize this is an important consideration, a modest first step. It is paid for, and I believe we can make the American people a little bit more secure by adjusting where we are spending $70 million to provide for chemical plant security. I appreciate it, and I hope that it will be favorably considered by my colleagues. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, this amendment addresses one of the most serious security threats we have in the Nation, the threat of terrorist attack on our chemical plants. There are literally thousands--not 230 but literally thousands--of plants that are exposed to more than 10,000 folks in the country; 123 plants expose a million people or more. My amendment provides $70 million to State and local governments, particularly to focus on this issue of security of chemical plants. It includes an offset, as I mentioned a few minutes ago. The facts speak loudly: We need to address chemical plants. Time and time again, there are reports where people can walk on to plants without there being any kind of protection and actually following through on a lot of the security plans that were talked about before. There is a whole further authorization bill working its way through the Environment and Public Works Committee right now, which is a very bipartisan effort to try to get at this issue, but we need to do something now. There are, as I said, literally thousands of plants across this country. We need to provide the support to State and local officials to be able to provide the security, the overtime, needed at these plants, and particularly when we raise our code levels. The lack of security at our chemical plants has been cited as one of the greatest threats to our infrastructure. We need to provide for training. We need to provide funds for guidance and assistance to plant managers and for other steps that State and local officials can take to prevent and respond to attacks on chemical plants. I hope my colleagues will recognize we have a problem. We ought to be doing everything we can to support and protect the American people.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendments so I can propose an amendment to the current Homeland Security appropriations bill.

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senators Lautenberg, Schumer, and Boxer, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORZINE. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, this amendment addresses one of the most serious security threats facing our Nation: the threat of a terrorist attack on a chemical facility. As in my State, the great State of North Carolina has had some accidents with regard to chemical plants recently, and many people believe it is one of the greatest vulnerabilities in our infrastructure. I have discussed this issue many times, as it is vital to my State, which has a heavy concentration of chemical plant facilities. There are thousands of these facilities across the Nation that can release and expose tens of thousands of Americans to highly toxic gases--some fatal, some leading to great illness. It should not be lost on the American public that we will be remembering the 20th anniversary of Bhopal this year where as many as 7,000 people have ultimately passed from a chemical plant explosion. It was tragic at the time. There are many other instances, and there is a great risk associated with these plants. The reality is that many of them were built at an earlier time in our economy where now there are surrounding densely populated areas. That is why this has been a great concern to people who think about homeland security right in our neighborhoods. It is the reason we need to make sure that what could be attractive targets for terrorists are properly addressed in the Homeland Security appropriations process. Unfortunately, there are currently no Federal standards for chemical facilities. The private sector has been left to do whatever it chooses completely on a voluntary basis. I believe there are many chemical facilities where people have done a good job. It is in their self- interest to protect their employees, themselves, their proprietary interests, and they have done a good job. But that does not mean that all facilities have. Quite frankly, since there are no standards and no accountability requirements, we don't know. We are vulnerable, at least according to all of the experts who review homeland security. We are putting at risk literally millions of Americans. It is an unacceptable risk, from my standpoint. According to EPA, there are 123 facilities in 24 States where a chemical release could expose more than 1 million people to highly toxic chemicals. We have a chart showing where about 100,000 Americans are at risk. But there are 123, 8 of which are in my State, where 1 million people could be exposed to toxic chemicals. There are about 750 facilities in 39 States where a chemical release could expose more than 100,000 people, and there are nearly 3,000 facilities spread across 49 States where a chemical release could expose more than 10,000 people to toxic chemicals. It is a broad problem around the Nation. It is acknowledged. I have discussed many times this issue in the Senate Chamber, on the Environment and Public Works Committee. It needs to be addressed. I don't think we ought to be discussing this after there is a problem; we ought to be talking about it and correcting the issue ahead of time. There are no standards. The numbers are pretty staggering. There are others who might define exposure somewhat differently. I noticed recently the Department of Homeland Security, instead of looking at a 360-degree circumference around a chemical plant, has tried to talk about the prevailing wind patterns in an area and lower the numbers. But we are still talking about literally millions of Americans being exposed to the possibility of toxic air masses coming out of one of these plants. It is time to act. It is not enough to just use words and talk about voluntary standards. Frankly, there is ongoing work in the EPW Committee to come up with a compromise proposal. I am supportive of the idea that we want to move forward. This security issue is real and present and needs to be dealt with. In fact, the Department of Justice, a year and a half before September 11, issued a report on April 16, 2000, about chemical plants. That was mentioned in the Hart-Rudman report. In almost every situation that someone speaks to homeland security, chemical plants show up in the discussion. But the Justice Department writes in the April 18, 2000, report: We have concluded the risk of terrorists attempting in the foreseeable future to cause an industrial chemical release is both real and credible . . . Increasingly, terrorists engineer their attacks to cause mass casualties to the populace and/or large-scale damage to property. Terrorists or other criminals are likely to view the potential of a chemical release from an industrial facility as a relatively attractive means of achieving these goals. It couldn't be stated more clearly. And that was before September 11. If we thought there were risks then, we have to believe there are risks now. That report should have awakened us. We have comments after September 11 from people who are importantly involved in our homeland security efforts. For example, in congressional testimony, Governor Ridge said: The fact is, we have a very diversified economy and our enemies look at some of our economic assets as targets. And clearly, the chemical facilities are one of them. We know that there have been reports validated about security deficiencies at dozens and dozens of [plants]. Let me tell you about some of the reports to which Governor Ridge may have been referring. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review conducted a major investigation about chemical plant security across the country-- Pennsylvania, Houston, Chicago, New Jersey, elsewhere. They found that intruders had unfettered access to some of the Nation's deadliest stockpiles of toxins and explosives. Security was so lax that in broad daylight a reporter could easily walk up to tanks, pipes, and control rooms. If there is any intellectual integrity in these reports, this is absolute proof that we have inconsistency, at best, with regard to implementation of security requirements or security arrangements at a lot of our chemical plants. I am not just relying on press reports. In fact, I have visited chemical facilities myself, seen lax security, some in my own State. The fact is, we have to move on this. I visited one plant in New Jersey that had gaping holes in the security fence. Along with a reporter from CBS 60 Minutes, I walked right onto a plant. This is one that was a member of the society that is espousing voluntary standards. While it was not all that much fun moving into one of these plants, it was easy to have accomplished. Had we been terrorists with just a small explosive device, we could have easily caused a tragic and truly catastrophic release of toxic chemicals. It is uncertain about what the loss of life would be, but it happened to be another plant in New Jersey that is located right under a freeway, with no guards or anything to keep somebody from pulling up, faking a flat tire, and tossing a hand grenade over the side wall of an overpass into a chemical plant facility. It is actually one of the largest exposures of the various plants in America. And, again, it was a plant that was a member of the Chemical Society, which talks about standards. This is something which I think we need to recognize, that it is not always the highest common denominator we have to work with. We have to worry about the exposures at the lowest common denominator. It is a real threat and problem. We need to address that. Let me add that I have not come down to bash the chemical industry, because I don't believe this is representative of everyone in the industry. Many are doing everything the standards ask and call for. We need to assure the American people we are doing that everywhere. We would not accept that we have OK security at one nuclear powerplant but not at another. We have standards and accountability applying to those situations because it is a risk to the people in and around those communities. We demand 100-percent attention to detail. These plants can be as deadly and as negative for the communities they are in as anywhere else. We need to make sure everyone is acting in good faith--not only the good actors but everyone. That is why I feel so strongly that we need to move the kind of legislation Chairman Inhofe is working on in the EPW Committee. We all need to get together and get away from purely voluntary standards and into something that is actually more important for all of us to do in order to make sure all facilities are addressed. That is why, 3 years ago, I first introduced the Chemical Security Act. My bill would have required chemical facilities to assess their vulnerabilities, establish priorities in the Nation, develop plans to improve security, and use inherently safer technologies. We have had to move away from that to get something done. But I think we still need those plans and we need accountability to make sure the plans are in place. I would like to see us work with safer technologies that are available. I think we can help some of the companies transition financially if that were necessary. But I do think we need to move forward. So far, we have not been able to get legislation passed and the exposure continues at least with some subset of the facilities around. I think it is time for us to move. I thought my approach was common sense, fairly simple, and it actually gave a lot of flexibility. It has been frustrating not to see this legislation dealt with. When it was first introduced, it got a 22-0 supporting vote in the EPW Committee, until the process of lobbying and other considerations came into play and a lot of folks backed away from it. I am hopeful people will wake up to the reality that there is real exposure in our communities. It is time to act. Hot air and lots of words by people doing television shows, ``60 Minutes,'' and writing newspaper articles is not enough. We need to have accountability and real standards to protect the American people. I know I feel that way about our folks in New Jersey, and I am going to feel as if I have not done my job if one of our plants is attacked and people lose lives because we have not done what we need to do to make sure they are safe. This is a place that recognizes the problem--by the way, every time we send out a Code Orange, we cite plant facilities as one of the areas that needs to be attended to by State and local law enforcement. That is where my amendment comes in today. I am not actually talking about this particular bill at this point in time. It actually hasn't come through another process. In this particular amendment, the appropriations bill, I think there is the opportunity to make a modest first step by appropriating money to support State and local efforts to enhance chemical plant security. As I said, when we raise the code levels, we are asking State and local folks to go out and provide extra security around these plants. By the way, you may wonder why the public is doing the work in providing the security; but since it is happening, I think we ought to provide resources to make that happen. The amendment I am introducing would provide $100 million for that purpose. Funds could be used, for example, to strengthen law enforcement's presence around chemical plants, prepare officials for responding to a terrorist attack in a chemical facility--a complicated issue, not exactly like fighting fire; it is somewhat different. It will provide assistance to plant managers and other steps State and local officials might take to protect their communities. This is a straightforward amendment. We need to put money and resources into this potentially deadly concern in our homeland security. Not unlike port and rail security, I think this is an area where there is general recognition that there is exposure and we need to move forward. As I have said, there are literally millions of people who have exposure. We have a legacy of these chemical plants being located in densely populated areas, not everywhere. We should prioritize. We ought to have a different standard for ammonia plants in South Dakota than when you are in Carney, NJ, in the midst of 12 million people in the metropolitan area of New Jersey and New York. There is a difference. But we need to make sure we have security plans that people are held accountable to, both industry and the local communities. So I am hopeful we will be able to positively consider this $100 million first step--a small step--and I will ask for a positive conclusion. Assuming that a point of order is raised against this amendment--I don't see anybody on the floor, but maybe the Chair will do it. It may not happen. I will leave that for another time. I hope we can have a positive consideration of this amendment to protect chemical plants. Madam President, I see the Senator from Massachusetts rising. I certainly don't want to stand in the way of his accessing the floor. I was going to speak as in morning business on the economy. I intended it to be for 10 to 15 minutes.

Mr. CORZINE. I appreciate that courtesy from the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for up to 15 minutes to speak as in morning business with respect to the economy.

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, over the summer, I came to the floor and gave a series of various discussions on something I care deeply about, at least from my background, and have some reason to have opinions about, and that is the state of our economy. It is absolutely vital for all of us in the Senate to try to get economic policies that put people to work and make sure the economy is growing in a way that everybody shares the benefits of America's bounty. I think there is a tremendous responsibility on all of our parts to be serious about examining policies that lead to long-term economic growth that can put us in a position where Americans are at work, they have access to health care, and they have access to a very constructive quality of life as we go forward. Quite obviously, I think we can do better. In fact, I am one who believes the 1990s was one of the greatest periods of economic well- being our Nation has seen throughout its history. We can go through the litany of 22 million new jobs, incredibly solid productivity growth, went from huge budget deficits to a balanced budget. As one who came from the private sector, I saw incredible entrepreneurial energy in the 1990s. It maybe got a little too energetic at the close of the decade, but the fact was that we were moving ahead. Real wages were moving ahead. We were reducing poverty. There were lots of good indicators going on. We were actually beginning to edge away a little bit at even the health insurance problem in this country. Things have changed in the last 3\1/2\ years, for lots of reasons. We have suffered a very severe set of economic setbacks, in my view. One does not have to be a rocket scientist or analyst to understand that we have lost jobs, on balance, over the 3\1/2\ years. It may be growing at the moment, but the composite picture is we have lost jobs. We have not gained 22\1/2\ million; we have lost jobs. We have outsourced a lot of our high-quality jobs. We have lost whole industries to the exporting of jobs overseas. A lot of our manufacturing jobs--in New Jersey, we are down to one auto manufacturing plant that is going to close in another 18 months. It used to be the heart and soul of our business. We had a great textile industry, just like I am sure was the case in North Carolina. It is gone. Many of those jobs have gone overseas. The quality of jobs that have replaced them has often been lacking, certainly, in economic well-being, absolute status of those jobs, and benefits that accompany them. While we have had a recovery of sorts with regard to our stock market, we are still way off the top of where stock values were in the 1990s, and certainly for the last year we have been bouncing along. There has been no direction and it is not one that I think anybody would say is a strong economic boon for those who are interested in equity values. Maybe more importantly, we have mortgaged our future. We have a budget deficit that exploded. We actually have another deficit, the trade deficit, the current account deficit, which are really long-run indicators of the eroding health of our economy. They may not bite us tomorrow or a month from now, but one cannot continue to have to borrow more money overseas to finance both personal debt and Federal Government debt--which is what we are doing right now with the kind of current account deficit--without having our dollar erode and the underlying values in America lost over a long period of time. It is coming. It is not whether, it is when. We have a zero savings rate in this country. That is not the way to build productive capacity as we go forward. There is a huge difference between the 1990s and where we are now. I think, though, when one puts all of this together, maybe the most significant problem facing our country gets down to the human level. It is the issue that is on the minds of individual Americans, and that is the continuing and dreadful squeeze that we see on the middle class. The vast majority of Americans who go to work every day, who drive this economy--two-thirds of our economy is driven by consumer expenditures, and that is the middle class. Those folks are suffering right now from what truly is a squeeze. Real income has declined. It is not debatable. It is real. The last 3\1/2\ years we have seen real income for the Americans who are in the lower 60 percent or the 60 percent from the bottom up diminish even more than the top. But every American on average has lost real income in the last 3\1/2\ years. They have been forced to pay higher prices that have outstripped income. By the way, for the most vital elements of a family's budget, it is worse, it really is. Even though the Consumer Price Index might register one way, when one is talking about things that are absolutely vital to a family's well-being: health care, access to higher education, college tuition costs, energy prices to fuel the car and heat the home and keep the air-conditioner running, or property taxes, we may have cut taxes in Washington, but what is going on at the State and local level--in New Jersey, they are up about 10 percent each year over the last 3 years cumulative, and we have seen the real cost of living for individuals, apart from these questions of CPI and PPI and all the indexes, the things that really bite at an individual, the middle class family's pocketbook, has gone up. I think there is a real problem. Between 2000 and 2003, family income fell by $1,535 or 3 percent. In fact, it has declined every year under the current administration, and the declines have been even steeper for those who are not lucky. I talked about the 60 percent of families, building up from the lowest level income in the country, and there it has declined by 4.6 percent. So it is a real deal. This is not something that can be denied. These are factual numbers. It is something that we seem to turn our backs on. Contrast that with the record in the 1990s and during President Clinton's tenure in office. The typical family income increased $7,200 compared to a $1,500 decline. I think that is a pretty decent standard to measure whether things are working for middle class Americans and for Americans in general. Let us look at what happened at the cost of living: gasoline prices up 19 percent over the last 3\1/2\ years, college tuition costs up 28 percent, family health care premiums up 45 percent. I did not put out the figures on property taxes but, as I said, they have gone up 10 percent each year in my home State. I know it is different in other places. Another cost that has gone up under President Bush, an indicator of the current state of our economy, is the cost of Medicare. Just 1 week ago today, mysteriously the Friday before Labor Day, we had an announcement that there has been a 17-percent increase in Medicare premium costs. It kind of gets lost in the shuffle, although I do not think this one is going to get lost because people are going to find out that they are paying a heck of a lot more for their Medicare premiums. We tried to slip through this 17-percent increase, which by the way is reflective of a 72-percent increase in Medicare premiums in the last 3\1/2\ years. By the way, from 1996 to 2000, it was 7 percent. Again, we are talking about the 1990s versus what we now see. Let us compare that with that little bit under 3-percent increase in Social Security benefits that has gone on over the same period of time. We are spending everything that comes out, or close to--actually it is about 60 percent of what we have had in increases in Social Security premiums right into Medicare premium increases that are being charged now. This is a problem. Given these dramatic price increases and the decline of family income, there is no wonder that families feel squeezed. They have to. We are moving in the wrong direction on way too many of these indicators, and I think it is time that we take a look at the policies that are leading to this. Under President Bush, moving on to another perspective, we have lost 1.6 million private sector jobs. Mysteriously we have actually created a lot of jobs in the Government sector. That reduces that job loss down to about a million. We are growing the Government, but we are not growing our private sector. I thought it was supposed to be the other way around. It is unprecedented in modern times that we are actually losing jobs. Remember, the population is growing and productivity is going up. And we are losing jobs? We may have had a growth spurt of sorts--it has actually been pretty anemic by any historical standards because we need almost 200,000 jobs a month just to stay up with population growth. But the fact is, we have had the first administration since the 1930s--it is not that we have a Hoover-level economy, but it is the first President since Herbert Hoover that we have actually seen job losses in this economy. It is hard to believe. That is a pretty tough standard. Americans want to work. They want to build a better world for their kids and their grandkids. Creating jobs is how we do that, and that is not happening. It is certainly not happening with quality jobs. We have all heard when you lose a job and then you get a job, afterwards there is a big deterioration in the economic well-being associated with that job. On average it is $9,000 less. In those industries that are contracting versus where people are hired, going from $33,000 down to $24,000, that is not the way to drive a healthy economy, particularly one that is so consumer-driven. I believe people will spend a little less money if they were making $33,000 and now they are making $24,000. You can talk about it in terms of arithmetic or you can talk about it in terms of well-being of the family and ability to pay, this is a problem in terms of quality of jobs, numbers of jobs, and the ability of people to have real income. I believe it is reflective of the poor policies to truly stimulate job growth in this country. We are putting all our eggs in a very narrow segment of people who are already doing well, whether it is through tax cuts or the advantages we have in this society. This is not a complaint about people doing well. That is great. But we need to have the resources to invest in other things that will make a difference in people's lives. We need to have tax breaks that get our American companies to produce jobs here at home, not outsource them. We need to have the resources to help corporate America and small business do something about health care. We need to share that burden so they are not cutting jobs because the cost of benefits is too high. We need to do something about that now, and we need the resources to do it without blowing up the budget deficit way beyond where it is when we have an entitlement problem just around the corner on Social Security and other elements. We talked earlier about 19 percent fewer people have health care now. The reason is, it is so costly. A lot of individuals just avoid it because they can't stick with those costs. Companies are cutting their health care benefits because it has turned into the biggest expense they have, certainly the biggest growing expense. We need some policies that actually address that and are making an effort on that. We have not heard anything on that in the last 4 years. There is a real plan on the table, talking about catastrophic health insurance, making sure every child is insured, making sure we have tax credits for small business and offering Federal employees health benefits to small business so we have bigger pools. There are a lot of things to do. We are not doing it, and it is undermining the basic health and well-being of our economic society. And that is outside the context of realizing that 5 million people are without health insurance. There is a lot to be done here. There has been a lot lost. All of this is in the context of where we have gone from budget surpluses--a couple of hundred billion on an annual basis--to what was announced this week of a $422 billion deficit, the largest ever, and there is not much of a prospect we are going to get that under control in the next few years. This is from the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office. I think we are talking about $2.3 trillion over the next couple of years, with a whole bunch of things missing. It is a difficult, severe economic circumstance that I believe our current set of policies allowed to be. It is time for a change. I think our colleague Senator Kerry has great plans.

Mr. CORZINE. I ask for 1 additional minute.

Mr. CORZINE. There is so much to do--on health care, job creation, and job training. We need the resources to be able to do it. We need to have sound policies to be able to underwrite rational Medicare policy, health care policy. We have put ourselves into a position where we have no money to invest in that, not in a serious way. There is a lot of work to do. The American people understand there is a difference between the economic success we have had because we had the discipline and the foresight to do the things that make a difference, to create those 22 million jobs, to create real income growth, and what we have had in the last 3\1/2\ years, which has done just the opposite and particularly has been heavyhanded and harsh on middle-class America. I hope when we get to elections we will make the economic choices that will relieve that economic squeeze and make a difference in people's lives because it is truly important if we are going to have a longrun, sustained economic well-being for the Nation in the years and decades ahead.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Benigno family of Clifton, NJ, for their tireless efforts to advance the cause of brain injury research. Nearly 20 years ago, Dennis and Rosalind Benigno's 15-year-old son, Dennis John, was struck by a car while walking home from a football physical. Dennis John suffered severe, long-term brain injuries in the accident. Now 34, Dennis John cannot walk or talk. He communicates with his eyes and laughter, and seems to understand when his parents talk to him. Dennis and Rosalind have made a life of caring for their injured son. Their personal tragedy, however, is not the end of the story. Mr. Benigno has turned tragedy into action. He has been a passionate advocate on behalf of his son raising awareness and promoting research efforts that offer the prospect of a cure for traumatic brain injury. The Benignos founded the Coalition for Brain Injury Research, which has donated more than $125,000 in the past 2 years to the study of brain cell repair. They raise funds through walkathons and a lectures series, and Mr. Benigno has traveled throughout the country for research dollars. Mr. Benigno has also turned to his elected representatives in New Jersey and Washington, DC. His efforts have led to the creation of the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force, cochaired by my good friend Congressman Bill Pascrell. For the last 6 years, Mr. Benigno has also lobbied local, State, and Federal legislators to support legislation that would create a dedicated source of funding for medical research into traumatic brain injuries. His work has begun to pay off. On January 2 of this year, Governor McGeevy signed the Brain Injury Research Act into law. With this legislation, New Jersey becomes the first State in the Nation to create a funding stream for researchers devising treatments and cures for brain injuries. The act is expected to raise more than $3 million a year for brain injury research from a $1 surcharge on motor vehicle penalties. Dennis John is one of more than 5.3 million Americans who currently suffer disabilities from brain injury, according to the Centers for Disease Control, CDC. Every year, 200,000 people sustain brain injuries, a number that exceeds the incidence of HIV/AIDS and breast cancer. Right now, there is no cure. In fact, brain injuries are the only catastrophic illness for which scientists have yet to readily identify a cure as their research goal. The Brain Injury Research Act, finally, offers hope to the hundreds of thousands who suffer from brain injuries that an effective therapy may be in sight. While religious authorities, ethics scholars, and we here in the halls of government continue to debate the implications of stem and fetal cell research, the Benigno's remain focused on one thing-- supporting the research efforts that may find a cure for their son and others like him. As we make decisions that have the power to spark or extinguish the hopes of millions that the cures they pray for may be found, we should keep the Benignos in mind. One point is very clear--this new law and the hope it nurtures are a credit to Mr. Benigno's dedication, courage, and perseverance. He is an inspiration to all of us, and a testament to what one determined citizen can achieve in our democracy.