Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to take this opportunity to acknowledge the outstanding contributions of John and Helen Pannullo in strengthening the New Jersey State Society. This valuable organization has played a major role in the professional and social lives of so many present and former New Jersey residents who live and work in the National Capital area. Unfortunately, their colleagues and many friends must bid them a fond farewell as they finally retire and move from this area. John is a former association executive who has represented a number of associations in New Jersey and Washington, DC. Helen is retiring after 31 years of Federal Government service during which she held a variety of management positions in the information technology field and served on the board of Executive Women in Government. In 1997 John assumed the Presidency of the New Jersey State Society, and Helen became its secretary. Under their expert leadership, the NJSS had a period of unprecedented growth and activity. They created an annual membership directory and quarterly newsletter. They also initiated the participation of the NJSS in 10 to 12 high-profile events each year, including New Jersey Day at the National Cathedral, the Battle of the Beltway to raise funds for the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and the National Book Fest on the Mall. One of the highlights of this period was the 2001 New Jersey inaugural gala attended by more than one thousand NJSS members and their guests. During their tenure the income of the society has increased ten fold, and the membership has gone from fewer than 100 to nearly 900. I am sincerely grateful for John and Helen's dedication to the New Jersey State Society and their noteworthy accomplishments on behalf of the citizens, businesses, labor organizations and educational institutions in our State. While we will miss them, I wish them every success and much happiness in this new chapter of their very successful and productive lives.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Santorum in introducing the ASPIRE Act of 2004, 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 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. 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 fun 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 have been working on this legislation for many months, 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. I recognize that given the lateness of the session, it is unlikely that this legislation will see action in the 108th Congress. However, Senator Santorum and I are hopeful that those with an interest in the proposal will review the language of the bill and give us feedback in the coming months. We are open to suggestions for improvements and expect to introduce a revised version of the legislation in the next Congress. 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. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Santorum in introducing the ASPIRE Act of 2004, 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 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. 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 fun 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 have been working on this legislation for many months, 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. I recognize that given the lateness of the session, it is unlikely that this legislation will see action in the 108th Congress. However, Senator Santorum and I are hopeful that those with an interest in the proposal will review the language of the bill and give us feedback in the coming months. We are open to suggestions for improvements and expect to introduce a revised version of the legislation in the next Congress. 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. CORZINE. Mr. President, today the Senate is taking historic action, stating clearly that the atrocities occurring in Darfur are genocide, reminding the world of its obligations under the Genocide Convention, and calling on the administration to lead an international effort to stop the genocide. This resolution, which I introduced with my colleague, Sam Brownback, has broad, bipartisan support, and its unanimous approval by the U.S. Senate sends a powerful message--that this body will not remain silent as genocide occurs. The situation remains, as U.N. officials have called it, ``the world's worst humanitarian catastrophe.'' At least 30,000 have been killed. Mr. President, 1.2 million have been violently displaced from their villages, of whom 200,000 have fled to Chad. The potential death toll is horrifying. Andrew Natsios, Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, has predicted that 300,000 will die this year, even in an ``optimistic'' scenario in which humanitarian assistance is provided, and that up to one million are at risk. This disaster is the result of the deliberate policies of the Government of Sudan and the ``janjaweed'' militias under its control. Earlier this week, Human Rights Watch reported how Sudanese government documents themselves prove Khartoum's complicity. Those documents describe, in plain terms, the government's military support for the militias--its, quote ``loyalist tribes''--and its policy of tolerating the abuse of civilians by the militias. What has been the result? Janjaweed militias, along with Sudanese forces, have engaged in systematic attacks against civilians in Darfur. As recently confirmed by U.S. Government satellite photographs, villages have been burnt to the ground. Livestock and food stock have been destroyed, and water sources poisoned. Humanitarian assistance has been denied. Militias have murdered civilians and abducted children. Just this week, on Monday, Amnesty International issued a report describing how rape has been used as a weapon of war in Darfur. Amnesty described how women and girls as young as 8 have been raped and abducted, often with the involvement or acquiescence of Sudanese authorities. Janjaweed militia have raped women in public, in front of their families, with the intent of adding humiliation to the violence. Amnesty reports gang rapes, rapes of pregnant women, and torture and killings in the context of sexual violence. Darfurian women, who are often reluctant to talk about these experiences, nonetheless described how they were abducted and held captive during the day, when militia members were looting villages, so that they could be raped at night. Amnesty reported how rapes have occurred during attacks on villages, during the flight of civilians, and in the camps, all with total impunity. Not a single member of the janjaweed or the Sudanese armed forces have been charged with committing rape or abducting civilians. In addition to stopping this violence, we must act now to prevent death from starvation and disease. Hundreds of thousands of civilians are currently crowded into camps, where conditions are simply stated, horrendous. Humanitarian organizations now estimate that nearly half of the internationally displaced civilians in Darfur have inadequate food and shelter, that 61 percent lack sufficient water, and that 87 percent lack adequate sanitation. Many of the camps are off limits to international relief workers, and much of the countryside is inaccessible as well. The rains are adding to the obstacles presented to the humanitarian organizations. So, too, is the lack of security created by the militias and Sudanese forces. The result may be a complete break in the food pipeline, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands. As U.N. Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egelan said last week, ``We are now in this moment of truth, which will last for some weeks.'' Along with my colleague, Senator Brownback, I have introduced a resolution declaring the situation in Darfur to be genocide. Why is this so? To begin with, it is undisputed that the murders, rapes, abductions of children, displacements and denial of humanitarian assistance have been directed at particular ethnic groups, specifically the ethnically African groups--the Fur, Zagahwa, and Massalit. Both the U.S. and the U.N. have stated that ``ethnic cleansing'' is occurring. The U.S. Ambassador for War Crimes, Pierre-Richard Prosper, has said that there are ``indicators of genocide.'' What does the Genocide Convention of 1948 state? It defines genocide as killing, causing serious bodily harm, and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction-- all of which have occurred in Darfur--committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnical, racial or religious group. The Convention does not require that a certain number have died before it is genocide, only that the acts are occurring. This declaration is important because of our obligation--and that of the world--to stop genocide before it is too late. After all, the full name of the Genocide Convention is the ``Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.'' Article I of the Convention states that the contracting parties ``undertake to prevent and punish'' genocide. The United States and every other permanent member of the U.N. Security Council is a party to the Genocide Convention. The Genocide Convention arose out of the horror of the Holocaust, in a moment of history in which the world vowed never again to permit this evil. But the world has spoken much more recently. In late January 2004, 55 governments participated in the Stockholm International Forum, ``Preventing Genocide; Threats and Responsibilities.'' Those governments, which included the U.S., the U.K., France and Russia, declared, quote: The Holocaust . . . challenged the foundations of human civilization . . . We are committed to shouldering our responsibility to protect groups identified as potential victims of genocide, mass murder or ethnic cleansing, drawing upon the range of tools at our disposal to prevent such atrocities in accordance with international law and fully upholding the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This was this January. What do these words mean without action? More words, mere condemnations are not sufficient. Nor is humanitarian assistance possible without real intervention. The lack of food, water and sanitation have reached critical levels. But the problem is caused, and compounded, by the lack of security. As Jan Egelan said last week, quote ``The number one problem now is lack of security. Our trucks are looted, our humanitarian workers are threatened and attacked.'' We must find ways to stop this catastrophe. This resolution calls on the President to lead an international effort to stop this genocide. In my view, to be effective, we must take whatever actions are necessary, including armed intervention, to save the hundreds of thousands of lives that are at stake. I have called for a U.N.-authorized multinational force, as well as the provision of assistance to the African Union's critically important, but thus far, inadequate mission. In the end, the only thing that will matter is whether we have saved these lives, whether we have done whatever it takes to stop this genocide. This resolution is a powerful statement. But it must also serve as an impetus to the administration and to the rest of the world to act. Morally and legally, we have no other option.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President. I wish to discuss, regrettably, the so- called Federal marriage amendment. Regret is a key word when it comes to this amendment, for several reasons. It is regrettable that, in this case, the United States Senate is debating an amendment that intends to turn a revered, sacred document into a political weapon. It is unfortunate that a misinformation campaign about the consequences of this amendment has been waged upon the American public by organizations that want to play politics at the expense of gay and lesbian Americans. Furthermore, it is regrettable that at a time of challenge and difficulty for our country--when soldiers are at risk abroad, we face threats to face our domestic security, and middle class families continue to get squeezed financially--the United States Senate is not discussing the issues that really affect American families. The American people are a diverse lot. As I have traveled around this country, I have come to notice the vast differences that mark our Union of States. I have always seen this diversity as one of our country's strongest points. The Constitution recognizes this as well. The political system in this country has survived for well over 200 years, because it appreciates diversity, and in fact celebrates the variety of cultures, ethnicities and lifestyles that make up America. Our Constitution guarantees the right to celebrate and vocalize those differences. It enumerates, protects and expands the inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he penned the Declaration of Independence. However, the spirit of the Constitution is threatened today by the amendment that is before the United States Senate. As you know, some people are portraying what is happening on this issue in Massachusetts as a crisis. This is a blatantly political tactic that is used to energize political bases. In an election year, we find such a tactic being used far too often. Unfortunately, when politics is at play--as it is in this case--good public policy often suffers. That is what we are witnessing today. Many are trying to set off the crisis alarm by falsely claiming that the entire country will have to recognize gay marriages conducted in Massachusetts. Let me be clear, this assertion is wholly untrue. The Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress in 1996, clearly affirms the individual states' rights to their particular definition of marriage. Unfortunately, many of my colleagues have come to the floor to ``predict'' that this law will be overturned on constitutional grounds. This is a hypothetical argument--and a disingenuous one at that-- because several of the individuals who are now claiming that DOMA will be found unconstitutional are some of the same people who actively supported the passage of DOMA, and endorsed its constitutionality, almost a decade ago. The exaggeration of the situation in Massachusetts and empty predictions about DOMA being overturned, are all part of a misinformation campaign being waged on behalf of this amendment. Another example of this misinformation campaign is the argument that this amendment does not threaten states' rights to recognize gay and lesbian couples through other legal mechanisms, such as civil unions and domestic partnerships. In reality, it is far from clear that this amendment will not restrict gay and lesbian couples' rights as its supporters claim. In fact, according to the National League of Cities, the plain language of this amendment will result in the elimination of several rights and benefits that are guaranteed by states and municipalities across the country. The second sentence of this amendment, as it sits in front of me, reads ``Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that the marital status or legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'' What, precisely, is a ``legal incident?'' It doesn't take a legal scholar to understand that this sentence threatens gays' and lesbians' rights to visit each other in the hospital, share health insurance, or inherit each other's property. To this amendment's drafters, ``legal incident'' may just be empty words. However, we know that every word in the Constitution has meaning. I am reminded of a couple from New Jersey, to whom a so-called ``legal incident'' is more than just empty words. This couple was together for 6\1/2\ devoted years. However, their partnership came to a tragic end 6 years ago when one woman, who was pregnant, was killed by a drunk driver. As their relationship was not legal, the hospital did not contact her partner. They instead contacted the injured woman's parents. However, the injured woman's parents did not approve of the relationship, so they did not call her partner to tell her that her companion was critically injured. It took a long time before anyone finally called to inform her of her partner's failing condition. She finally arrived at the hospital fifteen minutes before her partner passed away. Because her visitation rights were not protected by law, however, she had no right to see her partner. This woman was not allowed to see her partner before her untimely death. In fact, she was prevented from moving past the waiting area. In addition, the injured woman's parents did not inform the doctor that their daughter wanted to be an organ donor, something their daughter had shared with her partner. They also took all her belongings from the couple's house, some of which had been accumulated together by the couple. This couple had done all they could under current law to formalize their relationship. They had formalized health care proxies and powers of attorney, but the hospital chose instead to recognize the injured woman's parents and ignore the couple's long term partnership. These are ``legal incidents'' that are under threat: the right to see one's dying partner in the hospital, the right to make medical decisions for one another, the right to inherit property. I am proud to note that in my home State of New Jersey, the Governor signed a domestic partnership bill that went into effect this past weekend. The new law in New Jersey will make sure that such a situation never happens again. It will ensure that committed gay and lesbian couples will never be stopped from spending their last moments together. It will ensure that committed couples can make joint financial and health decisions. And committed couples will be able to own and inherit joint property. However, the constitutional amendment we are considering this week can and will take away the rights protected by New Jersey's domestic partnership laws. Any statements to the contrary represent a fundamental misunderstanding of the vote that members of this body will be making. If the Senate is to consider the legal status of gay and lesbian Americans, let's have that debate. This body should consider the unique challenges faced by gay and lesbian Americans, rather than toss them around like a political football. If we are going to talk about strengthening American families, let's have that debate as well. While I have heard a lot of posturing about how this amendment strengthens families, I don't understand how beating up on gay couples accomplishes that. I do know that families are stronger when our homeland is secure, health care is affordable and well-paying jobs are plentiful. New homeland security threats are becoming clearer by the day. Just last week, all Americans were reminded that we are still squarely in the crosshairs of a hidden enemy. A sobering statement from the Department of Homeland Security acknowledged that members of al-Qaida have the intention and capability to carry out a devastating attack within the borders of the United States. All the while, the homeland security appropriations bill sits and waits. A bill I drafted that would bolster security at chemical plants sits and waits. The assault weapons ban sits and waits. Health care and tuition costs are going through the roof, but we are not considering meaningful legislation to address these pressing needs for middle class families. These are the priorities of the American people. Unfortunately, they do not seem to be the priorities of the United States Senate. Why are we considering this amendment when we all know it is destined to fail? Why are America's economic and security priorities being shelved in favor of empty rhetoric on this amendment? I wish I had a better response. However, it seems the answer is rooted in the politics of an election year. This amendment undermines the Constitution, discriminates against gay and lesbian Americans, tramples States' rights, and is distracting this body from the important priorities that our country should be addressing. I encourage all my colleagues to join me in voting against this amendment so that we may put the United States Senate on the record as resoundingly opposed to using our Nation's constitution as a political weapon.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I support the Department of Defense, DoD, Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program. This program is a proven success and I support a $150 million earmark for the DoD Peer Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program for fiscal year 2005. This one-of-a-kind research program uses an innovative grants structure that brings scientists and consumers together to make key policy decisions about breast cancer research. Since its inception 12 years ago, this far-reaching, influential program has literally changed the way breast cancer research is done. It has become a model that other research programs have sought to replicate. The program has funded groundbreaking research, including the discovery of the drug Herceptin, which prolongs the lives of women with a particularly aggressive type of advanced breast cancer. This drug could not have been developed without research that was funded in part by the DoD Breast Cancer Research Program. Not only is this program on the cutting edge of breast cancer research, but also is extremely streamlined. Every penny spent by this program and the researchers who receive funding are accounted for at a public meeting every 2 years. Ninety percent of the funds go directly to research and only 10 percent are used for administrative costs. This kind of efficiency and prudence in spending is unheard of in other federally funding research programs. An overwhelming, bipartisan majority in the Senate supports this program every year. This year, 66 Senators signed the letter addressed to appropriators urging the continuation of the DoD Breast Cancer Peer Review Research Program earmark with level funding of $150 million for fiscal year 2005. Unfortunately, the language in the Senate Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005 threatens the funding and unique structure of the Breast Cancer Peer Reviewed Research Program. The Senate bill combines all of the congressionally Directed Cancer Research Programs into one account and reduces the total funding available to all. Because the Senate version lumps all the cancer programs into one pot, rather than maintaining separate earmarks, the proposal will have multiple, negative outcomes. As written, the Senate bill seriously threatens the integrity of the DoD breast cancer research program and will dismantle its one-of-a-kind peer review process involving patients and consumers that makes the program so successful and unique. The proposal will force cancer groups to compete with one another for reduced funding. And, a particularly dangerous component of the proposal is that it transfers funding to other cancer projects that are not recommended by a scientific peer reviewed process. We should ensure that all of the DoD's cancer research programs are fully funded. These programs play a critical role in the development of treatments and potential cures for cancer. As the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005 goes to conference, I urge my colleagues to support the language passed in the House and preserve this critical program for breast cancer research.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3303 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Murray from Washington be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple, but very important for those who serve us so well and so ably across the globe. It is an amendment that will lower the retirement age for National Guard and Reserve troops from 60 to 55. During this critical time when so many members of the Guard and Reserve are serving bravely in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, I think this is the least we can do. We are moving the retirement age to match up with the civilian retirement age in the country. The current retirement age was established 50 years ago at a time when it neared civil service retirement age. In the intermediate time, we have lowered civil service retirement age to 55, but we left Guard and Reserves at 60. It does not make sense that we are treating civilian Federal employees differently than we are treating reservists, particularly, I will point out, in a changed security situation. Because the world has changed so dramatically since the cold war, our Guard and Reserves have a very different role today than they did during that time period. I have a chart that shows in stark terms what has actually happened with deployment of our Guard and Reserve members. This is the number of major contingencies and operations with Reserve participation. From 1953 to 1990, there were 11 callups. From 1991 to 2001, there were 50. I think all of us know how seriously our Guard and Reserve are involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. They truly have become an integral part and contributor of our Nation's defense on the front lines. Not coming into the Reserve training centers once a month, 2 weeks on a summer's day, but they are on the front lines defending America day in and day out, and I think it is time we recognize that and made some adjustments to 50-year-old policies. Considering the demands we are placing on our ready Reserve right now, not only do they make up 46 percent of our uniformed Armed Forces personnel, they are especially important in areas of expertise most pertinent to the stabilization and nation-building missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Guard and Reserves count for 97 percent of military civil affairs units--think of what we are using them for in Afghanistan--and 70 percent of engineering units. Think of what we are trying to do with regard to reconstruction in both Afghanistan and Iraq. And 66 percent of our military police. As a matter of fact, they just called up a National Guard unit in my home State of New Jersey. They sent out about 100 folks to Guantanamo. It is incredible how we are using over and over our Guard and reservists for the very functions we need in the new world we are facing. As we all know, mobilization is up dramatically. More than 160,000 Reserve personnel are now on active duty. Last year, the number of Reserves was more than 400 percent what it had been 4 years earlier--a 400-percent increase in the number of reservists on duty relative to 4 years ago. Again, the number of deployments is exploding, whether it is in Haiti, Afghanistan, Bosnia, or Kosovo. Name it, that is where we are using these folks day in and day out. Reservists are serving longer durations as well. Last year the average duration was 319 days for the reservists and guardsmen. That, by the way, only included those who completed their assignments. That is looking at the folks who had been sent back home. That does not take into account the extended time many of those on call are serving. With some 140,000 troops currently serving in Iraq and 40 percent of Guard and Reserves, it is clear we are relying more and more on these brave Americans, more than at any time in the recent past. The next chart I have demonstrates one component of our Reserve forces, the Army National Guard. By the way, in New Jersey, we have about 7,000 of the 9,000 National Guard folks on call, just as a backdrop--7,000 out of the 9,000. Until the end of 2002, the number of mobilized personnel was relatively stable at 20,000, which is what we see on this chart. After that, it exploded upward. It was about 70,000 when I last brought up this proposal when we were discussing the Iraq supplemental last year, and it is up 20,000 which, by the way, was in the October period, and now it has gone up another 24,000, to almost 95,000 National Guard personnel mobilized in the service of the Nation. It is clear our Reserve forces are no longer a part-time force. This is not sideline work. We have entered a new era where a larger number of troops will be deployed for long periods of time, and our policies need to change. We have a 50-year-old policy, one that does not even match up with our civilian retirement age. I think our National Guard and Reserve units have made an unbelievably important contribution, and we need to reflect that in our policies as we go forward. That is what this amendment is about. I know the problems facing the Guard and Reserve because I have talked with a lot of these folks myself. There are 303 Guard and Reserve members from my State of New Jersey who are over the age of 55, fifty-five of whom have already been deployed. Additionally, there is a large swath of folks in that 45-to- 55 age bracket. These people would like to have responses. To make this a little more personal, 2 weeks ago Saturday, we lost Guard folks in Iraq. One was 51, and one was 46. These were people who had made long-term commitments to serve our Nation. They were wonderful people with great life stories about how they participated in the community. I went out to Walter Reed, and there were seven of New Jersey Guard folks who were injured in the same firefight. You do not meet braver people, and they are performing and sacrificing the same way our other troops are. They have a contingent risk, and they have all kinds of interference in their lives. Why are we not addressing some of the fundamental needs these individuals have that are at least the same as our civilian employees? I feel passionately that we need to respond to what has changed in how we operate our military forces as we go forward. I understand the budgetary considerations. I know there are reasons that push this back, but we need to put faces to these individuals and understand it. By the way, there are good personnel management policies and if there are these earlier retirements people are not staying around longer than they would otherwise so that they could get the benefits they want to have and there could be a greater flow and help recruiting; lots of good reasons that are independent of the change in policy in activation and use of our Reserve Forces. It is something I have a hard time understanding. I have some other things in here. We can talk about stop-loss orders and how that has impacted the lives of so many of the military folks who are extending their terms of duty. I think there are about 16,000 reservists who are under this new policy because of our needs as a nation, and those are perfectly reasonable. We are not arguing about whether that was the right or wrong thing to do. It needed to be done. It had to be done. It was an exigency that needed to be done, but we ought to reflect that in our policies. We need to change policies when circumstances have changed. Finally, this is one of those things that the people who represent our military men and women in the Reserves and Guard are absolutely almost 100 percent behind. The military coalition, including the Reserve Officers Association, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Air Force Sergeants Association, the Air Force Association, Retired Enlistment Association, Fleet Reserve, Naval Reserve Association, National Guard Association, all of these people feel strongly that this is one of their top priorities. There are others. We can talk about health care, the demonstrations of it and a number of issues. But why are we staying with a 50-year-old policy that is not even as reflective of retirement needs of people who are risking their lives to protect Americans as we are with our civilian employees? I am not criticizing what our policy is for our civilian employees in the Federal Government. We ought to reflect the fact that we are using these folks on a regular basis. The deployments are up. The numbers are up and they are serving at great risk for us. I think this is one of those things we can do to actually change the lives of their families and reflect those sacrifices they are making for us, and that is why I am asking for the support of the Senate with regard to changing the retirement age.

Mr. CORZINE. Yes.

Mr. CORZINE. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE. I will yield back my time, but pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of the act for purposes of the pending amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time I have?

Mr. CORZINE. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, before I begin, let me compliment the Senator from Iowa for addressing a topic on which I also want to speak. I think ``hammered'' probably is the right term for what is happening to the middle class as opposed to ``squeezing.'' That would be more reflective of the real desperation that many families feel. Twenty-five years ago, generally, one member of a family was working. Now it takes two just to get by. Real wages are not growing in this economy. I think the Senator from Iowa points out very clearly how that is so painful in the lives of middle-class Americans. Particularly apt is his reference to this overtime pay, which absolutely goes to the heart of the middle class. The idea that we are trying to squeeze down or hammer down the ability to generate real earnings for working Americans is just inconceivable. I think the efforts of the Senator from Iowa are absolutely remarkable. We need to make sure America understands what is going on with regard to putting pressure on the earnings of the middle- class. That is what makes America great. It always has. It built America. As one can see from this chart, average weekly earnings are up 1 percent during the time the President has been in office. Those are the lost jobs about which the Senator spoke. In the last 4 months, real wages for working Americans have gone down. We saw another statistic yesterday that indicated they are declining. In that context, as the Senator from Iowa pointed out, college tuition costs are up. He said 35 percent. The numbers depend on how one calculates it. We have near 30 percent. Family health care premiums are up 36 percent. Gas prices are up 28 percent. At least in New Jersey, there have been property tax increases of 7 percent-plus every year under this administration's leadership. All we are doing is transferring tax breaks to those who are already doing well, the 13- percent increase in millionaires who got the tax cuts, while the property tax on middle-class folks has gone up. That is why people don't feel comfortable. That is why polls tell people the economy is not working, even though we have seen some statistics in the last 3 to 5 months that indicate it is working. It is not happening for the breadth of America. People don't focus on averages; they focus on what happens in their lives. By the way, speaking of averages, if we put together the 500 times earnings that CEOs make versus the low-wage earner in a company, we will come out with a nice average. But what happens to the bulk of the people working at the company? They are not seeing wage growth. They are not seeing their income going up with these kinds of numbers. It translates into a ``hammering.'' The Senator from Iowa picked the right term. My effort today is to focus on dependent children and elderly family members because that is another part of where the squeeze is actually happening. It is real. Under this President, we have seen increases in childcare for a two-child family go up $2,050 over the last 3\1/2\ years. For each individual child, it is about $6,000 a year to maintain childcare. Today, 65 percent of all mothers who are in the labor force have children under the age of 6. We have two partners working in a family to try to make ends meet, and childcare costs are going off the charts. That is the squeeze. That is money that comes out of their ability to have a positive quality of life. There is a lot to be done. We had a bipartisan bill, the Snowe-Dodd proposal, to increase the welfare proposal by $6 billion worth of additional funding for childcare. Instead, we are getting proposals from the administration to cut 300,000 kids from childcare. It makes no sense. This is a fundamental area. When talking about family values and the importance of helping out communities, lifting them up and making ends meet, childcare is fundamental. We have one group of folks who want to actually invest in it so that we can make the quality of life for Americans better, and we have another group that wants to take away that ability and has cut 300,000 children from receiving childcare. That makes no sense. Only 1 in 10 children who are eligible to receive Federal assistance today are actually receiving it because they don't have the resources to match against the demand. That doesn't fit with this picture where we are seeing real earnings not going up and the cost of living for the middle class going up and childcare costs going up and we are not doing anything but cutting what we do here. Then is the issue of taking care of the elderly, making sure you have family care, a sick spouse, taking care of a senior, mothers and fathers who are retired. It is an incredible burden on all families, particularly if both partners in the family are working. Estimates are that there are about $250 billion worth of services provided by families to their own families that have no recognition in our national accounts, no recognition by our Federal Government in providing support for it. And 80 percent of home care services are provided by family caregivers. That is good. That is a real family value. But what are we doing to support them, and how does that fit into this whole process of a middle-class squeeze? It is an important topic that is completely underdescribed. Let me tell you a story about a lady in Monmouth County, NJ. Her name is Bernadette Discon. She starts her 20-hour day at 3 in the morning. She works from 3 to 7 a.m. doing medical transcription in her home. She wakes her husband who has advanced dementia, and drives him to daycare. It costs $55 a day for her to do that--no support, no help at all. She also has the responsibility of taking care of her 85- and 87-year-old mother and father. Neither drives. Neither is able to take care of themselves completely. One must use a walker. Bernadette works all day after she drops off her husband. She returns home at 6 o'clock, goes back to transcription work from 7 to 11 at night, trying to make ends meet. This is the kind of story that is actually happening. Her wages are going up 1 percent on average across this country. And she is having to deal with the kinds of family care problems we talked about that actually happen with childcare. It is not right that America is not addressing some of these social needs while we are seeing these kinds of costs go up. That is why we on this side of the aisle--as well as Senator John Kerry--are talking about a middle-class squeeze because it is real in people's lives. It is not the same as what is happening to the GDP or whether you are seeing disposable income which takes in dividends and capital gains at the high end and mushes them together and comes out with an average result. What we need to do is look at what is actually happening in the lives of working men and women. Bernadette Discon's story is real. It shows how the pressure impacts on an individual's life. If she had kids, college tuition is going up 28 percent. She is paying 30 percent more for gas. That puts real pressure on a family. It is time to recognize that economics is more than just statistics that are announced on Friday morning at 8:30 to say whether employment is up or down. It is the quality of life that goes with those statistics. A lot of people are feeling squeezed. As the Senator from Iowa said, a lot of families are feeling hammered. It is time for a change, and it is time to recognize the reality of what is happening in the lives of middle-class Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to increase the VA home loan guaranty so that veterans participating in the program may secure a mortgage comparable to what they could obtain in the conventional mortgage market. The VA home loan guaranty program, which Congress created in 1944, has assisted millions of veterans--many of whom missed the opportunity to accumulate savings or build credit during their time of service-- purchase a home. Under the program, an eligible veteran may purchase a home through a private lender and the VA guarantees to pay the lender a portion of the losses if the veteran defaults on the loan. Unfortunately, the VA currently only guarantees a maximum of $60,000 on a loan. This means, effectively, that a lender will only loan four times the amount of the guaranty, or $240,000, to a veteran seeking a home loan. While a loan of this size is sufficient to assist many veterans in purchasing a home, it is insufficient for many other veterans, particularly those living in high cost areas, like my state of New Jersey. In most places in my State, the cost of purchasing a home exceeds $240,000. For example, the median home sale price is Newark, New Jersey in 2003, was $331,200. In Middlesex, Hunterdon, and Somerset, the median sales price in 2003, was $314,000. Thus, unfortunately for many veterans living in these high cost areas, the VA home loan program is inaccessible because the guaranty is so low. My legislation would increase the VA guaranty to 25 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit, or $83,425. With such an increase, a participating veteran could borrow up to $333,700--which is the conventional loan limit--towards the purchase of a home. And, because Freddie Mac updates its conforming loan limit annually to account for changes in average housing prices, pegging the VA home loan guaranty to this index would ensure that the guaranty and available mortgage limits rise with housing inflation. My legislation, which the House Veterans Affairs Committee recently approved, would ensure that more veterans have a chance at the American Dream of owning a home. What is more, my legislation would not cost the U.S. Treasury a cent. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), it would raise approximately $42 million a year, through increased user fees associated with the VA home loan program. This legislation is simple, it's cost effective, and it would assist our veterans, who have traded years of traditional employment to serve our country, purchase a home. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting 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, on Saturday, June 5, 2004, President Ronald Wilson Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, passed away after a decade-long battle with Alzheimer's disease. I extend my deepest sympathies to the members of his family, who have suffered a terrible loss, and I want them to know that Americans throughout our Nation, regardless of their political party or ideology, share in their loss and mourn with them. Ronald Reagan was an exceptional national leader who loved this country and its people. He will long be remembered for his infectious optimism and his faith in America's future. To President Reagan, America was always a shining city on a hill--a beacon of hope for all mankind. He understood just what a great country America is, and always remained a committed advocate for the ideal of freedom that helps define us as Americans. President Reagan was known as the Great Communicator, and he richly deserved the accolade. Few politicians, if any, have had his ability not just to connect with the American people but to inspire them. His speeches didn't just make a point, they touched a chord. He talked to Americans in a powerful and personal way. As is widely understood, Ronald Reagan had strongly held views about public policy, from his support for lower taxes to his strong anticommunism. But as is less widely appreciated, President Reagan was not inflexible or dogmatic. He actually was a practical and pragmatic leader who was willing to adjust his approach, sometimes dramatically, when circumstances called for change. For example, after pushing through a large tax cut at the start of his Presidency, he reversed course and increased taxes when the deficit started to explode. Perhaps most importantly, after denouncing the Soviets as an ``evil empire,'' he was willing to work closely and cooperatively with Mikhail Gorbachev, helping not only to end the cold war but to liberate millions of people and change the course of world history. In doing so, he was not following his party. He was not following the polls. He was following his conscience. And the entire world community owes him a deep debt of gratitude for his vision and his leadership. There were many issues about which I strongly disagreed with President Reagan. But I always had great respect for him personally and for the way he conducted himself while in office. President Reagan knew how to disagree without being disagreeable. He knew that those in the other party were not enemies. He knew that, at the end of the day, we are all Americans and, though we may disagree about particular policies, we all share a love of our country and a commitment to its future. President Reagan's life was marked by his fundamental personal decency and his sense of dignity. That was never more evident than when he announced to the world his struggle with Alzheimer's disease in 1994. His and Nancy Reagan's courageous fight against this debilitating disease brought a new awareness to the devastation that accompanies this illness. I hope it also will bring a new commitment to do what it takes to find a cure for this horrible affliction. In conclusion, Americans throughout our Nation are saddened at the passing of President Reagan, and our hearts go out to his family. Ronald Reagan was an extraordinary man whose impact on our Nation, and our world, will be felt for generations to come. Today, we join together to honor his memory and to give thanks for his historic service on behalf of the country he loved so deeply.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Nevada. I very much appreciate him pointing out one of the great flaws in the discussion I am hearing on the floor. It seems we only want to focus on a very short period of time and a very limited measurement or metric on how well the economy is doing. I have been on the floor over the last 6 or 8 weeks trying to address issues on the budget, taxes, and growth in our economy. I feel very strongly that we need to have this debate. I am glad it is happening because the American people, I think, actually understand what is happening in their pocketbook and their own sense of where we are in the economy. It is a lot different than this tsunami of good news that is being quoted and cited. People like to talk about statistics. We need to deal with what is actually going on in people's lives. That is why a whole series of us have come down and asked that question Ronald Reagan asked in the 1980 Presidential campaign: Are you better off than you were 4 years ago? Remember, 4 years ago, we had come through a period of creating 22.5 million jobs. This is an administration that has overseen the loss of 1.8 million jobs. So we have had the loss of 1.8 million jobs, after creating 22.5 million jobs, when we saw real income growing every single year. Now we are asked to say: Wow, isn't it wonderful we have seen such a change in the last 2 or 3 or 4 months? And at what cost has that come? As the Senator from Nevada said, we have the largest deficits in the history of mankind. You can always spend yourself into economic growth. Maybe that is what we are doing, but it is coming at a huge cost to this generation and future generations. But that is not what I wanted to talk about today. I want to talk about who is better off than they were 4 years ago. There is a clear, commonsensical view among people, at least in the State of New Jersey, whom I live with every day, that things are not so well in their home, in their bank accounts, in their financial condition. I will go through some of the data. Are they better off? We have had flat wages for the last 3 and a half years. To be absolutely accurate, average weekly earnings have grown 1 percent over 4 years. College tuition costs, on the other hand, are up 28 percent at the same time; up 13 percent in New Jersey last year at State schools. Gas prices are over $2 a gallon, up 34 percent in a 4-year period. Family health care premiums are up 36 percent. These are expenses people have to pay every day out of their budgets. Some cite macrostatistics such as the GDP is growing. What is happening is, individual average weekly earnings are up 1 percent. Health care costs are up 36 percent. Gas prices are over $2 a gallon, and there has been a 28-percent increase in college tuition. It is off the charts. State and local taxes in almost every State in the country have gone up in the last 4 years. In New Jersey, the average property tax has gone up 7 percent each year because the Federal Government is not picking up its responsibilities, such as Leave No Child Behind, and with other mandates we have put on them for which we then don't provide the money. Now we are hearing we are going to be cutting back on some of that. There is a case for middle-class Americans to say things are not so great. Average weekly earnings are up 1 percent. We have everything else in our budget going off the charts. It is possible, though, when we look at this picture of middle-class America getting squeezed, that there are people who are actually doing well in this world. That is what I want to talk about because there are some people who are better off than they were 4 years ago. It comes from the concept that there is a ladder in America. People like to get on that ladder and climb up and have great opportunity. This is a country that has aspirations that are a part of people's lives. But we seemingly want to make sure the people at the top of the ladder are doing really well and we are squeezing the folks at the bottom. Average weekly earnings, as I said, had relatively flat growth. But HMO profits are up 50 percent. There is a correlation between that 38-percent increase in family health premiums to HMO profits. I used to be a CEO so I can talk about this with some knowledge. Compensation for people who are leading corporations is up 61 percent during the same period--one percent or zero-percent average weekly earnings growth for middle-class Americans, while CEO compensation is up 61 percent. To give a little perspective, back in 1980 the average CEO made 31 times the lowest average worker in a corporation. Today it is over 500 times. It grew 61 percent last year. Somebody is better off, aren't they? It strikes me that the numbers are working. Somebody is getting it and somebody is not. As I said, it is most visible when you compare HMO profits versus what is going on with health care costs for average Americans. It is tough to argue that things are a lot better when we are seeing growth in HMO profits and growth in CEO compensation, and you wonder who is better off than they were 4 years ago. Another way to look at this is to focus on the oil companies. Are they better off or not? In New Jersey, we have the average cost of gasoline at $2.04 cents a gallon. We see over $40-a-barrel oil. We could think about supply and demand conditions and maybe tap into the Strategic Oil Reserve, but that is a story for another day. The fact is, middle-class Americans are paying the freight, $2.04 a gallon, and somebody is benefiting from that. Are the people paying the $2.04 better off or are the oil companies that have seen their profits soar as the price of a barrel of oil has gone up enormously right in front of our eyes? British Petroleum's earnings are up 165 percent, year over year; Chevron-Texaco, 294 percent; Conoco only got 44 percent; and Exxon is up 125 percent. Thirty-four percent was the increase in the cost of gasoline for Americans. That is middle-class folks going in, pulling up to the gas pump, putting it in, paying for it. That is coming out of their pocket. Remember, those are the people who are getting a 1-percent increase in weekly earnings. And Chevron-Texaco has a 294-percent increase in profitability. I am not against profitability. We want people to be profitable. But there needs to be some balance in how the economic pie is actually working for folks in America. It is very troubling that some are huge winners and other people are getting the scraps, with a zero-percent to 1-percent increase in real weekly earnings. There is another group besides HMOs and CEOs and oil companies. There is the issue of those who actually despoil our environment. It sort of goes at the oil company topic. Instead of debating how we are going to get the price of oil down, House Republicans are now insisting on giving oil companies immunity in cases where they have contaminated ground water with MTBE. In New Jersey, there is a serious problem because we have MTBE all over the State, and it is increasingly thought to cause all kinds of health problems. We are proposing to give a break to the oil companies--the ones making 294 percent higher profits this year than they did last year--a $29 billion break in damages in 43 States around the country. Who is better off today than they were 4 years ago? Is it the oil companies or the people potentially exposed to MTBE? By the way, I could go on to ``polluter pays'' taxes; who is paying, who is not paying, for clean air. You could go through a whole series of environmental applications and ask, who is winning, who is losing. This is not about class warfare. This is about who is winning and who is losing: a 294-percent profit increase, or are we actually going to deal with MTBE? Are we going to have the resources to clean it up? Or are we going to take the $29 billion in damages and lay it on the shoulders of working Americans? Are we going to pass it along? Let me talk about another issue. This gets at some of the tax discussion I hear so much about as being so beneficial to everyone in the world. You could talk about where the tax breaks go. Those making $1 million or more are getting $123,000. Those in the top 1 percent are getting about a $34,000 tax break, almost $35,000. If you do the analysis, the middle 20 percent of Americans is getting about $647. That is the average. Anybody can talk about statistics. They can pick it out different ways. They can mush all this together. They can put the 7 footer with the 5'4'' person and come with an average height that sounds as if you are 6'2''. But the fact is, so much of the tax break is actually going to the people who make $1 million or more, the top 1 percent, and very little is going to middle-class Americans. But that fits. We are only getting a 1-percent increase in mean weekly earnings to the middle class. We are creating tax breaks that primarily go to those who are already doing well. Again, the aspiration of Americans to try to work their way up the ladder is perfectly acceptable. That is the American dream. I know a little bit about it because I know how it happened in my life. But when you get the ladder down and you put it up, why roll it down? That is what we are doing here. We are giving tax breaks to people who could always use them. Everybody could always use a tax break. But how are we going to fund Leave No Child Behind? How are we going to deal with making sure special education is properly funded? When are we going to get it that we need to make sure we share the benefits in this society? This makes almost no sense. It is not an issue of class warfare. It is how do we make sure every American has an opportunity to have access to the American dream. It is incredible to hear some of the discussions that go on. By the way, I want to take this one step further. One of the reasons this number is so high and this is so low is so much of that income comes in the form of capital--capital gains, dividends--and people with capital gains and dividends are paying 15 percent. But if you are working and you are up in the $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 area, you are paying 28 percent; your marginal rate is significantly higher. We are charging more for working people's earnings than we are for capital. I don't think that is right. I don't think it is right that we turn around and allow situations where somebody pays a 15-percent marginal rate against some kind of income--i.e., capital income--and we charge much higher rates for the poor guy who has to go to work every day. Why are we advantaging capital over wages? It makes no sense and we end up with a distribution like this. Again, there is nothing wrong with getting good returns on capital or with people working their way up the ladder and being successful. But we have a lot of choices in this country, and we are making them so that these guys up here are ending up with most of the benefits--unless you are one of those oil companies that get an MTBE break and huge growth in profits. But the wages are not growing. The cost of living is going up, as is health care, college tuition, and State and local taxes, and there is so much need that I don't understand why we are turning around and skewing everything the way we have. That is why I think it is fair to ask who is better off in 2004 versus 2000. Is it the people who were at the top of that chart, the top of the ladder or is it the people in the middle of the ladder, who are aspiring to get up the ladder? Who is benefiting from this $400 billion or $450 billion budget deficit? I think it is a very hard case to make. As the chief economist from Merril Lynch said, ``We've had a redistribution of income [in this country] to the corporate sector.'' It is through this capital gains distribution of dividends and cutting of the marginal tax rates. It is very clear that somebody is winning, but somebody is getting a little less of that break. I think it is very hard to answer the question ``who is better off today'' without going back through those HMOs, CEOs, oil companies, and a lot of the folks who are gaining their income from capital as opposed to wages. I believe that is a tough way to argue to the American people that things are going really well in the economy. I think we have an answer to the question. We have seen someone do better, and it is those who have had that redistribution to them through the tax system. That is something we need to debate on the Senate floor, we need to debate it among the American people, and we need to come to a conclusion about who really deserves to have the fair benefits as we go forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE. The Senator from Nevada asks a particularly appropriate question. Anytime the Federal Government is competing for money in the capital markets, instead of us having that money go into the private sector, instead of being invested in the kinds of growth you see in Nevada or what we hope will happen in New Jersey, it undermines the economic health of the country, and we have fewer jobs, wages are less, and you get a negative cycle. It is absolutely dangerous to the longrun health of this country.

Mr. CORZINE. The Senator from Nevada is leading the witness because at that point in time we were in the process of creating 22.5 million jobs over that 4 years--10 million in the last sector. People would earn money and spend money, and it would multiply through the economic system. We were creating wealth in the greatest single period of time, when the Federal Government was running from the pulling down of capital and stayed out of the capital markets and put money where it was most efficient. What we are doing right now is setting up a dynamic that will reverse that. We are going to see less investment over a period of time because the Federal Government has taken up all the dough and it is going to show lower growth in jobs, lower creation of wealth, and nobody will argue that the longrun deficits at the level we are running them now make any sense for this country. I don't think anybody would argue that--with the kinds of policies we have now, our taxes are about 15.5 percent of GDP. They were about 18 percent when this administration came in. But we have grown spending under this administration and the Congress, led by the other side of the aisle, up to about 21 percent. President Clinton's administration cut that to about 18 percent--a little lower, because we were running surpluses. The track we are on is absolutely a potion for disaster.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and to remember an extraordinarily courageous young lady from New Jersey, Ms. Melissa Anne Centrella. It is with great sadness that I inform you that Melissa passed away 2 years ago. She was 25 years old when she died. In Melissa's short time here on Earth she displayed an uncommon grace and dignity which we all should emulate. As a child, Melissa was like every young girl--she was cheerful, she loved her parents, and she loved to dance. However, Melissa was diagnosed at an early age with the rare disorder called dystonia. Dystonia is a neurological disorder characterized by powerful and painful involuntary muscle spasms that cause twisting of the body, repetitive muscle movements, and sustained postural deformities. Melissa lived with the constant pain of dystonia for 18 years. As the years passed, Melissa's life became more and more constrained. She was eventually confined to a wheelchair and then bedridden. Melissa passed away from complications of this disorder. Melissa endured many painful medical procedures to assess and attempt to treat dystonia. She suffered through a series of spinal taps, intrathecal pump implantations, and the preparations for deep brain stimulation surgery. Melissa, on several occasions, was overdosed with her medication leading to seizures and once to a 3-day coma. Through all the pain, she accepted her suffering with dignity and never once complained. Melissa believed she was put on Earth for a reason, that God had a plan for her. That reason was to be a part of the mission to find a cure for dystonia, so that no one else would have to experience the torture that she experienced in her short life. Many in her position would have given up, but not Melissa. Melissa was relentless in pushing Claire, her mother, to establish the New Jersey Chapter of the Dystonia Medical Research Foundation, DMRF. The chapter today holds many events to raise funds for dystonia research and promotes awareness of dystonia. Whenever Claire became depressed or understandably overcome with distress, Melissa would gently prod her along and remind her of their mission together as a family. Melissa was the only child of Claire and August Centrella. I would like to salute Claire Centrella and her family for picking up the mantle and running with it in memory of Melissa. Melissa's body lost its battle; however, her soul battles on in her mother and the New Jersey Chapter to improve the quality of life for others with dystonia. Melissa Centrella's memory will live on in those of us she touched and in those who share her mission. Melissa will never be forgotten, and her mission will continue through her family's and friends' hard work and determination.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise this week to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the World War II Allied invasion of Normandy and to honor the courageous members of our Armed Forces, especially those from New Jersey, who participated in that decisive battle. In the waning days of 1943, the Allied Command, led by General Dwight David Eisenhower, developed a plan to cross the English Channel and gain a foothold on France's Normandy coast. This bold strategy breached Hitler's western defenses and began the liberation of France and the rest of Nazi-occupied Europe. The invasion known as Operation Overlord was to become the largest air, land and sea operation any military force had ever undertaken. After months of planning, training and preparation by the Allies, June 6, 1944 was selected as the invasion date, or D-Day. Moving and fighting under stormy skies, the invasion force, led by the United States, Great Britain and Canada, and including Free French and Free Polish units, consisted of over 1 million service personnel. The American contingent included tens of thousands of ground combat troops who assaulted over Omaha and Utah beaches, airborne units which landed behind enemy lines, U.S. Navy sailors, Army logisticians and other specialists, and Army Air Corps aviators and ground crews who supported the landings. The dangers were grave, and the stakes almost incalculable. Our troops' skill and determination won our Nation a world-changing success, a military victory which today remains a keystone of the liberties and security Americans and their partners still enjoy. The soldiers who fought their way ashore in Normandy and who there dropped into battle under heavy fire demonstrated unsurpassed tenacity and valor. Their superb performance and their sacrifices in the cause of freedom and democracy will always be remembered and appreciated by a grateful nation. May our D-Day veterans' memory and deeds be a constant reminder of Americans' courage, resolve and devotion to duty in World War II.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, on the night of Tuesday, May 25, 2004, New Jersey lost one of its most dedicated public servants, Jersey City Mayor and State Senator Glenn Cunningham. It was a terrible tragedy and terrible loss to the people of Jersey City and New Jersey. Mayor Cunningham was a compassionate public official who was deeply committed to his city, his State, and his country, serving 4 years in the U.S. Marine Corps before returning home and beginning a life-long career rooted in his pride in Jersey City and his caring for his fellow citizens. He was a police officer, Hudson County freeholder, Jersey City councilman, and U.S. marshal. He distinguished himself further as a fierce and aggressive fighter for Jersey City as the city's mayor and State senator. His voice was strong and his love for his city boundless. He worked every day to bring his diverse community together, to unite rather than divide. As the State's first African-American U.S. marshal and Jersey City's first African-American mayor, Glenn Cunningham plowed a path of excellence for others to follow. Sadly, his tenure as mayor was far too short, and he will be missed by those he served. As Annette McMillian of Jersey City told the Jersey Journal last week, ``He was fair and decent and honest.'' Terry Suarez of Union City added poignantly, ``A light has been darkened by the silence of death.'' I join those who will miss Mayor Cunninghams great energy, creativity, and perspectives on government and public service. On behalf of the people of New Jersey, I extend my deepest condolences to the mayor's widow, Sandra Bolden-Cunningham, and my prayers are with his family and his beloved community of Jersey City.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Benigno family of Clinton, 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 Benigno's 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 lecture 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, co-chaired 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 McGreevey 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 Benigno's 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.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I compliment the Senator from Wisconsin for his remarks. I will be giving a similar presentation, but I think there is not a more important domestic issue, one that is impacting the quality of life for middle-income and moderate-income Americans more than almost anything in their private financial affairs. Obviously, it is having a major impact on business and the quality of our economy. I don't think there is a more important issue for us to debate and to achieve those necessary elements that will change the terms and conditions so we can address the 44 million uninsured, but also provide the kind of underlying support for the quality of life for Americans we have come to expect. This is the priority domestic issue. I compliment the distinguished Senator for his remarks. I hope I can be as eloquent. I do want to make sure I speak out on this issue. I have been talking consistently about the state of our economy, particularly the squeeze middle-class Americans have. Health care costs are absolutely at the top of that list, but we see it in tuition costs at colleges and universities, property taxes, gasoline prices, and energy prices. There are a number of things that are impinging the ability of middle-income and moderate-income families to navigate the American economy. But none of those is more troubling than both the access and the affordability of health care. Today there are roughly 44 million Americans without health coverage. Those who do have health coverage are seeing increases in their costs. Particularly those who are part of group programs see that costs rise exponentially. We are seeing that carry through into the challenges in our budgetary policies in Washington with regard to Medicare and Medicaid. Costs are truly phenomenal. The average cost of a family health insurance policy today is roughly $10,000 a year. A study released this week by the Kerry campaign shows there has been a $2,700 increase in the average annual family premium per year over the last 3 years for those who have insurance, 4 times the rate at which family income has grown in the last 4 years. I have to say this is a particularly troubling issue for those folks in the State of New Jersey, because we have had the highest rate of premium increase of any State in the Nation. I am hearing a lot of complaints back home. This is unsustainable and needs to be addressed. For the Senate, representing the people of our States, to not have a serious debate about the uninsured, with all of the pressures on the middle class, is hard for me to understand. We used to take for granted that if you had a good job, guaranteed health benefits came along with the job. This is not the way it is today. In fact, you would usually be able to count on those health insurance benefits through retirement. That is no longer a certainty. Employers, on the other hand, have seen their costs rising 10 or 15 percent. We have a chart that shows how, over the period of time from 1996 to 2003, we have seen a surge in health care costs. For the third year in a row we have had double-digit increases in the cost of premiums for health care insurance. When employers have seen their costs rise, they have taken an obvious strategic step and shifted the cost to their employees, eliminated coverage for retirees, or eliminated coverage altogether for employees, or had all kinds of cost- sharing arrangements. It is amazing how the burden has shifted increasingly to working families. Eighty-one percent of the uninsured, those 44 million, are actually people who are working. A lot of times you think it is folks who are unemployed or somehow are not connected to the economy. Eighty-one percent of the uninsured are in working families, people who have jobs. Competitive pressure among employers to drop coverage is growing because it is such an important cost element in their overall means of doing business. We have to take steps to address the health care coverage and affordability crisis. Fewer and fewer people can afford to maintain the coverage they have; fewer and fewer businesses can afford to. It is time we actually get on with it. To give you one example, the average annual premium for a standard plan for a healthy, nonsmoking 25-year-old in New Jersey is almost $5,000. That is the average--$5,000 for a single individual. Just to contrast that with some of the initiatives we see out of the administration, which I find remarkably unacceptable and limited to addressing this problem, President Bush has proposed giving a $1,000 to $3,000 tax credit to low to moderate income-tax paying individuals and families. A $1,000 tax credit for a single individual earning $15,000 a year would leave that single 25-year-old I just mentioned paying 30 percent of the gross income to purchase coverage. How does that work? What kind of help is that? A $5,000 premium, you get a $1,000 tax credit, and you make $10,000, $15,000, $20,000, and 30 percent of the income pays for coverage. This is the kind of problem with which individuals are dealing. You can do that across the income and age spectrum, and it is an enormous issue. The President's tax credit proposal simply falls far short of offering the whole health care coverage for 44 million Americans. In fact, an independent study by Ken Thorpe of Emory University finds that the President's proposal would provide coverage to only 2.1 million of that 44 million uninsured. That is over 10 years, by the way. So we are making no dent whatsoever. It would not even cover the 3.8 million who lost coverage since President Bush came into office. Furthermore, the CBO determined the President's associated health plan proposal would actually increase health care premiums for a majority of employees working in small firms and would cause about 10,000 individuals to lose their coverage. So the second element of the President's proposal, beyond the tax credit, is going to actually increase the uninsured and increase premiums. It is hard to see how that will be helpful in this overall health care crisis. We could begin to address these difficult issues by acting on health care in the way that a number of people put forward and, most particularly, Senator Kerry has put forward. His plan would reduce health care costs for those with health insurance and expand coverage to 27 million Americans who currently lack it. Senator Kerry's commonsense proposal builds on existing successful health care programs such as SCHIP, State Children's Health Insurance Program; mandates coverage for all children; and provides incentives to States to expand coverage to uninsured adults. The Kerry plan would not only expand access to health coverage, it would reduce premiums by about 10 percent for those with insurance. He does this by making the Federal Government a secondary insurer, whenever an individual's health care costs exceed $50,000 in a year. So it is a catastrophic backstop that the Federal Government takes up and covers 75 percent of those costs above that level. It would reduce costs by 10 percent for everybody who has insurance. It is a very simple but important concept to add to the expansion of coverage the Senator has talked about. We can provide coverage to more than half of those currently uninsured through these steps. I think we must take those programs and even expand them to make sure everybody has coverage. Expanding health coverage is not cheap, but the cost of refusing to expand access to health insurance is enormous as well, and it affects every one of us. We all pay more for health care because hospitals and other providers are forced to increase prices to compensate for those without coverage who use the services. They are mandated to do that at hospitals. We all pay higher State and local taxes to compensate providers who provide precare to those without coverage. We all know that. Emergency rooms, charity care--all of those places where we build up these costs. It is important that we understand the cost-benefit of actually having health insurance programs that work to take care of that and to eliminate some of those costs. According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, we spent $41 billion in this Nation last year for uncompensated care for the uninsured. We hear about it from our hospitals, local providers. They give out care, and the total is $41 billion, according to the Kaiser Commission. The annual cost, by the way, of that program I just talked about with the Kerry proposal is $35 billion. So you have a cost-benefit tradeoff. If you could take care of the uninsured, you could take a big bite out of that $41 billion of uncompensated care. We would have to spend the money. Some folks would say we don't have the budget room. We don't have the budget room to pay for the $41 billion that we have. I think we can make major inroads if we work on it. There are savings to be had if we are prepared to do it. I think making sure that we move on to preventive care, in conjunction with health care access, will make a huge difference in making sure that people deal with diabetes before it is chronic and critical, deal with hypertension before it is chronic and critical. All of these things will make a huge difference. People will deal with these in the normal course of preventive care as opposed to emergency or critical or chronic problems. Madam President, there is a lot to be dealt with on this topic of access to health care in this country. We need to have that debate. Senator Kerry has laid down an incredibly important proposal--one that is self-financed by the costs that it would defray from the unreimbursed costs going through the system. We need to address these 44 million Americans and address the pressure that middle-class, moderate Americans are feeling every day as they see this 13-percent increase in health care. I hope we can have a real debate on this floor so that we can move forward to take care of those 44 million uninsured and not have proposals that are dead on arrival, that have no real impact, maybe addressing 2 million of the 44 million and not even dealing with the numbers that are increasing. As we sit here and talk about it today, 3.8 million new Americans have gone on the uninsured rolls since this administration has been in office. We need to address that problem and the other 40 million that are without health insurance. There are proposals that make sense. It is time to address it. I hope we can have that debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today, along with Senators McCain, Feingold, Cornyn, Leahy, and Bingaman, I am submitting a resolution designed to make it easier for the American people to get information about Congress from the Internet. Almost 10 years ago, the Library of Congress started the THOMAS website, which was one of the first electronic references for the public to get up-to-date information about legislation. The Library did a tremendous job getting THOMAS ready, and I commend their hard work in maintaining it over the past 10 years. However, THOMAS recently has begun to show its age. Although there have been some improvements over time, the Library has been unable to devote the resources necessary to keep THOMAS up to the level the public expects for today's websites. One reason is that the Library has never been formally told by either Chamber of Congress that it has a responsibility to maintain a website for public access to legislative information. In contrast, the Congressional Research Service was given a mandate to maintain a legislative information website for Members of Congress and their staffs in the 1997 Legislative Branch Appropriations conference report. The Legislative Information System that Congress uses is vastly superior to THOMAS, both in terms of functionality and ease of use. For example, LIS users are able to search across multiple Congresses to find information about bills; THOMAS users must search each Congress individually. In LIS, links to committee reports, if available, are provided along with the basic information about a bill. In THOMAS, a user must make a separate search to find the report. In LIS, the names of bill sponsors can be clicked on to find other bills sponsored by that Member; that feature is not available in THOMAS. And anyone who has used both LIS and THOMAS has seen that the LIS site is much more attractive and usable, and has benefited from continual improvements that have not been matched on THOMAS. When it comes to obtaining the public legislative information of Congress, there should not be such a significant difference between what we use and what the public uses. Obviously, the American people have the right to see all the public documents of Congress. And, if we are to be true to our nation's democratic values, this information should be as easy to find as possible. It is not sufficient that those who are truly interested can make the extra effort necessary to find what they need; we should be encouraging people to become interested. Americans should be able to easily go to the Internet and get legislative information directly from Congress, instead of having to rely on what they see and hear from others. We can facilitate this by creating a visually appealing, helpful, useful, and accessible public portal to the United States Congress. Although THOMAS was a good start, it badly needs to be improved. This resolution will tell the Library of Congress that the Senate is paying attention, and that we will insist on that improvement. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and help ensure we have a public legislative information website we can be proud of.