Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, like many of my colleagues I rise in strong support of the Harkin-Hagel amendment to require full funding of IDEA, providing these increases over 6 years on a mandatory basis. It is straightforward. I think it is absolutely necessary. As a number of my colleagues have said, there is nothing that strikes more at the heart of my dialog with my constituents and those who are involved in the educational system than getting to full funding on IDEA. It is absolutely essential. Before I go into some of the reasons, I also want to say how pleased I am with the work of the committee, for taking up this legislation, structuring it, and moving it forward, and with reform, but also for including some things I think were essential. There are provisions that were added at our request with regard to making funds available to improve programs for autism spectrum disorder, which is a very significantly growing, recognized disability many children are facing. We need to have funding in addressing it, particularly the early childhood elements. I am also pleased the committee was willing to work with us to clarify parents' rights to represent their children in due process hearings. I think it makes a huge difference as we go forward in making sure all of our children are represented. But my main point is it is not enough to say we all embrace dealing with special education. This program is drastically underfunded, and it is posing a significant burden on the citizens of my State and across our Nation. It gets at the heart of the tax question. We put down what I think is a terrific legislative initiative in 1975 to deal with disabilities among children and to improve their educational opportunity. But we also put down an objective that we were going to move to 40 percent of the average funding for each child with disabilities. We are nowhere close. I think it is 18.5 percent or so. We are way behind. That is why it is mandatory to step it up over the next 6 years. It is so important. It is real common sense. I have to tell you in my home State of New Jersey, school budgets are capped at only 3 percent annual growth per year. When the spending on special education goes up more, we end by accommodating mandates which are required by cutting other costs in our educational system. We set up a horrific dynamic in our local communities. The only other out on that is local property taxes, which at least in my State are the highest in the Nation, and we are already extraordinarily burdened by them. That is true across the country. It is absolutely essential that we get to full funding. The difference in 2004 versus where we are today and where we would be if we had fully funded 40 percent is almost $300 million--$320 million, $319 million is what we are going to receive, and $641 million is what we would have received if we had full funding. It is a huge difference on the tax base in our community. I cannot tell you that there is any other issue which generates more heat because it sets neighbor against neighbor in the school districts about how they have to make tough choices, or it forces us to go to the taxpayer and raise local property tax burdens which are already extraordinarily high in my State. But it is also true in other places. I have an example of a situation in New Jersey where an individual talks about her son whose needs are being addressed in special education but also reflecting what it has translated into not only for her son but to the special education programs and the rising burden on individual property taxes. It is setting up a system of failure and conflict in our communities. That is unacceptable. We need to accept our responsibility here in Washington to fulfill our pledge and our promise to move to that 40 percent so we don't have these dynamics. It is time it happened. I fully support and compliment the distinguished Senator from Iowa. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I will take a few minutes to talk about an epidemic that affects not only children in my home state of New Jersey, but 1 in 250 children across the Nation--autism spectrum disorder (ASD). I have been working closely with groups such as Parents of Autistic Children and the New Jersey Center for Outreach and Community Services for the Autism Community (NJCOSAC) to address the staggering number of children who have been diagnosed with ASD. In fact, I introduced legislation, the TEACH Act, S. 1422, which highlights the needs of autistic children by bringing more qualified teachers into the classroom, helping families receive the support and services they need for their children, and helping ensure vocational programs to assist people with autism transition from school to work are functioning as intended. With autism diagnoses skyrocketing, we must continue to make every effort to expand the quality and accessibility of treatments for children with ASD. That is why I am happy to report that some provisions of the TEACH Act have been included in the Senate reauthorization of IDEA, S. 1248. S. 1248 contains provisions making funds available to develop and improve programs using cutting-edge research in order to provide in-service training to schools and personnel who teach children with ASD. These funds will ensure quality professional development for special education teachers through the use of scientifically based research on the treatment of autism. With the demand for services grossly outpacing the supply of specially trained teachers and therapists, these provisions are critical to increasing the number of special education teachers qualified to teach children diagnosed with ASD. Expanding access to treatment, especially at an early age, is essential to improving the outcomes for children affected by ASD. I thank Connie Garner and the entire HELP Committee for their assistance in getting this important language in the bill. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues and the autism community to ensure that all children with ASD have access to early intervention by quality teachers trained in providing the most effective treatments. Mr. President, I also wish to mention a small but important part of this IDEA reauthorization that is crucial to parents of children with disabilities. I have had the privilege of working closely with Maura Collinsgru and the Parent Information Center of New Jersey to ensure the rights of parents to represent their children in due process hearings without an attorney. I am happy to report that S. 1248 includes language clarifying this right so that parents can be effective advocates for their children. I would like to mention one New Jersey case in particular that highlights the issue of parental rights in due process hearings. In Collinsgru V. Palmra Board of Education, Robert and Maura Collinsgru were denied the right to represent their son, Francis Robert and Maura Collinsgru were denied the right to represent their son, Francis Collinsgru, during due process hearings. Far from an isolated case, the decision could have broad implications that could be detrimental to families of children with disabilities. As we know, parents' access to attorneys is already very limited. Not only are there very few attorneys willing to take IDEA cases, but there are even fewer who actually specialize in IDEA. Moreover, of those attorneys who do specialize in IDEA, most are already overloaded with cases. Finally, the cost of many of these attorneys is prohibitively expensive, especially for parents who are caring for a disabled child. Attorney's fees are an extra cost that they often cannot afford. With so few available attorneys, therefore, it is essential that parents have the right to stand up for their children in court when faced with an injustice in the system. I would like to take this time to thank Connie Garner for the HELP Committee for her help in getting this language included in the bill. Her efforts have made it possible for parents to retain their right to due process and help their children receive the services they deserve.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an issue that too easily comes off our agenda in America and around the globe. We accepted S. Con. Res. 99 which condemns the Government of the Republic of Sudan for its participation and complicity in the attacks against innocent civilians in the impoverished Darfur region of western Sudan. I think it is not enough just for us to be condemning in this situation. It has all of the makings of turning into a humanitarian crisis that rivals or at least approaches the kinds of problems we saw in Rwanda. While we will take a stand in recognizing it as a problem, I think it is absolutely essential that we maintain attention and focus when there are so many events in the world that draw us away. The United Nations, international humanitarian and human rights organizations, as well as our own Government, agree that the campaign by the extremist, theocratic Sudanese Government and their militia allies against Muslim civilians of African ethnicity in Darfur, western Sudan, over the last 14 months has driven over 1 million civilians from their home. We have the risk of another tragic genocidal action in place. The 1 million Muslim civilians displaced within Darfur, Sudanese citizens victimized by their own Government, cling to life as displaced, homeless persons living in the open or in pathetic and inadequate camps, in constant fear of further attacks and depredation. Their physical condition is severely weakened, food supplies are exhausted, and the international community so far has been unable to get critically needed food assistance into the interior, due to deliberate interference and obstruction by the Khartoum government. These individuals, these Muslim civilians, are fleeing systematic attacks by their own Government, Sudanese armed forces, and their militia allies, the ``janjaweed.'' The horrors which civilian families in Darfur are fleeing include the cold-blooded murder of unarmed civilians; pillage and burning of villages; organized, systematic rapes of women--wives, daughters, sisters; rape used as a deliberate weapon of terror and political control; and the deliberate destruction of farms, the irrigation systems, and food stockpiles on which this already impoverished region depends; in other words, deliberately manufactured starvation that will lead to the kind of real potential for genocide that we have seen in other places on the African Continent. We must stay alert. We must keep the focus of public opinion on this issue. Last is a key point. Even though from 10,000 to as many as 30,000 civilians have died so far in Darfur since February, 2003, the final death numbers for 2004 and 2005 may prove far higher because of the actions that are being taken and the lack of ability for the international community to actually participate and provide assistance for the unbelievable inhumane conditions. This is all in the context of a very difficult environment-- underdeveloped, impassable roads, huge swings in the nature of the weather. It is an incredibly complex and debilitating human situation which needs to be brought to attention. While genocide may not yet have occurred in Darfur, the elements are in place. The possibility of such horrors should not be far from our minds. That is why I speak out about it on the Senate floor, and I will do it over and over. This needs to be made into something about which we have a positive sense of responsibility, both here in the United States and in the international community. U.N. Secretary Kofi Annan has compared the genocide in Rwanda 10 years ago to events that are now unfolding. It will not be enough to go back and look, after the fact, to this kind of inhumanity to man. We will have, later this year and next, an occasion to vow yet again, in the wake of another deliberately inflicted mass murder and disaster, to say: Never again. But we can do that now as opposed to after the fact. I hope all of us in this body, those of us who are part of the Foreign Relations Committee and are very focused on these issues, will make sure it stays a priority, although that is very hard in the complex world we have. So I hope by speaking out today and as we go forward that this Darfur situation will not fall off the radar screen. This is a real risk of genocide evolving. I think it absolutely essential that our Government stand up, stand tall, be outspoken, make sure we are not tolerant of the developments that are so readily reported in that part of the world. It is important that we recognize it and keep it in the limelight so world public opinion can stop this kind of action before it happens. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. May I make an inquiry? Are there other of my colleagues requesting time?

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, may I inquire of the time allocation for each side?

Mr. CORZINE. I request permission to use 5 of those minutes and be informed when 4 minutes have been used of the time allocated.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, like you, I sit on the Foreign Relations Committee and I reviewed the nomination of this experienced diplomat, our U.N. Ambassador, John Negroponte. I, too, both in the Foreign Relations Committee and on the floor, will have voted for his confirmation. I do that, acknowledging, however, there are legitimate questions that can be raised about previous concerns in his tenure as an ambassador in Honduras, and human rights violations which are so important in the context of some of the things that are of great concern to us today. But more troubling to me is the context in which this confirmation is actually being considered. The reality is, once again we are doing something on the fly. We are rushing to confirm an ambassador to maybe the most important choice and role we have. In and of itself, it is indicative of the crisis we have in Iraq--frankly, the mess Ambassador Negroponte will be walking into. If the administration--I am very troubled about this--sticks with an arbitrary, artificial June 30 deadline, Ambassador Negroponte's job will begin in less than 2 weeks with little or no definition about what he will be doing. There are no secure or thoughtful political or security plans in place. We do not know who will be making those judgments, how those people will be chosen, their role, or what the true definition of sovereignty in the context of this June 30 transfer will be all about. We do not know how they will be selected. We do not know what the role of the Ambassador will be with regard to those individuals. It is very unclear what sovereignty means. By the way, put into the most dramatic terms today, what is the role of the new ambassador with regard to what is happening to the prison guards? Who will be responsible for that? Sovereignty questions are totally unclear. We still do not have a structure for our forces and how they fit in and what we do going forward and what is the relationship with the United Nations. This is a real problem. We continue with failed and confusing policies. They are true with regard to the U.S. Ambassador. But they reflect the basic incompetence we have seen with regard to our crippled occupation from the start, some might even say our crippled war from the start, because we executed this with real questions about what the justification was with regard to weapons of mass destruction in relation to al-Qaida. We have continued it with poor planning, or no planning, with regard to the occupation that has been in place. Right from the start, there were questions about what the force structure needed to be on the ground. We have heard over and over again the warnings General Shinseki gave us, several hundred thousand troops, dismissed out of hand by the Pentagon. The administration has refused to talk about the cost of this occupation and what the cost to the American people will be, aside from the tragedy of the loss of life. When there have been predictions, they have been so far off base it has made no sense in the context of reality. The administration promised or thought we would be greeted as liberators. We have been anything but that. Seventy percent of the Iraqi people believe we are occupiers. There has been serious resistance with the insurgency. By the way, history would have shown that would be the indication that would occur in the Middle East. But we dismissed every single outside expert, Member of Congress, who might have raised any questions about it and emphasized we had a coalition of the willing that was anything but a serious coalition. Ninety percent of the cost, 90 percent of the troops, 90 percent of the effort, or more, were all American. It is an American occupation. The administration continues with these failed policies. As we go forward, I certainly think we see it very clearly in the lack of clarity with regard to this tragic situation we see now with regard to the administration of prisons and detainees. The fact is, no matter what we do, every time the administration executes one of these policies, there is a flip-flop.

Mr. CORZINE. The idea that we were not going to have the U.N. involved; now we have the U.N. involved. We were going to have de- Baathification; and then we have reentry of Baaths. The issue of deployment of troops. I am supportive of this Ambassador, but it is high time we get a consistent, thoughtful policy that is vetted with more than a few, narrow interests inside the Pentagon and maybe inside the White House. We need to have a real discussion about the direction of our policies on occupation and transition of political power and sovereignty. It is too costly. In the context of this series of events that all Americans are repulsed by, we need to stand back and say it is time to be thoughtful and fully vet the kinds of policies we are going to put in place because this is a long-term project. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, on May 1-3, 2004, over 1,200 students from across the United States visited our Nation's Capital to take part in the national finals of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution. This program, administered by the Center for Civic Education and funded by the Department of Education, was developed specifically to educate young people about our great Constitution and Bill of Rights. I am proud to announce that students from East Brunswick High School in East Brunswick, NJ, won first place in this prestigious academic event. After winning the statewide competition, these outstanding students demonstrated superior knowledge of the U.S. Constitution during the national competition. The 3-day We the People competition is modeled after Congressional hearings. First, the students are given an opportunity to exhibit their knowlege before a panel of adult judges while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Their testimony is followed by questions designed to probe the students' depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. This innovative program continues to be one of the best antidotes to apathy and cynicism in our Nation. Numerous evaluations and independent studies have validated the effectiveness of the We the People program on students' civic knowledge and attitudes. The program helps students to develop an increased understanding of the institutions of constitutional democracy and the fundamental principals and values upon which they are founded. It also teaches students the skills necessary to participate as effective and responsible citizens. I commend the students from East Brunswick High School on their exceptional achievement--their accomplishment is truly inspiring. I wish them the best of luck in learning and advocating the fundamental ideals that identify us as a people and bind us together as a Nation.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. CORZINE. Certainly.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, first of all, let me go back and compliment my colleague from Oregon, who I think has analyzed a problem that fits into a pattern of economic pressure that we see building on the middle class in America. There is nothing more fundamental today in life than filling the car with gasoline and using it for commuting and taking the kids to school and doing all the normal tasks that we have going on. We see the same problem, by the way, with health care costs, tuition costs, and with property taxes across this country. While there may be some good economic statistics out there, middle- class Americans are being hit unbelievably hard on the fundamentals that drive their basic budgets. Nothing--nothing--more clearly demonstrates this than these rising gasoline prices we have been experiencing this year. There has been a 23-cent increase in the price of gasoline. Nationally, the average price for gasoline is $1.84 a gallon. Many places in the country it is over $2 a gallon. This comes from flawed simple economics 101, supply and demand. This administration is doing everything that you can imagine to hold back supply by filling the petroleum reserve at accelerated rates, when it is already about 95 percent full. It does not need to be in this position. As we go into the summer season, the ``perfect storm'' the Senator from Oregon talks about is also being implemented with regard to other policies. It is counter to any basic economic analysis that you would want, to be taking supply off the market that would run down prices. I don't know what people are thinking when they implement policies that are going to restrict supply, and when they are unwilling to confront OPEC as they are cutting back supply. What we are getting is the natural result of rising prices, which is coming right out of the pocketbook of middle-class Americans. It is just absolutely wrong. If you are cynical, you can also say, well, maybe it is because some people benefit from these higher prices. Being someone who worked in the private sector for 25 years of my life, I don't think profits are a bad thing. But when the American people are suffering from this erosion of their quality of life--because of the rise in property taxes, health care costs, tuition costs, and now gas prices--you wonder why it is so appropriate that Exxon-Mobil's profits were up 125 percent in the first quarter of this year; BP's profits were up 165 percent; and Chevron- Texaco's profits were up 294 percent. Is that economic fairness, in any context, particularly when you put it into the perspective that what the Bush administration is doing is restricting supply? This is just wrong. It is out of the context of what is best for the American economy and for growth and the quality of life of Americans. It needs to be addressed. We are creating a windfall for American business at the expense of middle-class Americans. And it is happening day after day after day. I do not begrudge profits, but I don't think it ought to be done on the backs of the American middle class because of the general macroeconomic policies of the President. And that is exactly what we have right now. It is wrong and needs to be pushed back, just as we need to confront Saudi Arabia with regard to its leadership in OPEC. If they are our ally, as they claim to be, then we ought to be speaking to them about increasing the production of oil out of OPEC as opposed to the restrictions we have seen. From what we understand from all news reports and actually the Saudi Foreign Minister has said, there has not been one word of contact from this administration to the Saudis about OPEC production. So now we have two of those very large ingredients into the supply and demand equation. That is why we are getting high prices. That is why gas is $1.84 a gallon, on average, in the country. And that is why it is $2 a gallon on the coast and most of the places where our larger population segments work. It is really troubling we cannot put together a response to something that is eroding the quality of life in the aftertax base of middle- class Americans to actually operate in a sound way. So I hope we will all follow Senator Wyden's lead. He has done a terrific job of bringing focus to it, as has the Senator from New York, talking about pushing back against OPEC on production cutbacks. We really need to take a stand for the American people, not for the oil companies and the profitability we are seeing brought forth. At a time when we still have not recovered those 2.6 million private sector job losses, when 8.5 million Americans are unemployed, why we are putting more pressure on middle-class Americans and their quality of life is just hard to believe. It is time for a change. Supporting the proposition of the Senator from Oregon is one that I think we all ought to get out and get to work on. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise along with several of my colleagues, the esteemed Minority Leader, Senator Daschle, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, and my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautengerg, to introduce legislation that will strengthen trade enforcement efforts, open foreign markets to U.S. exports, reduce the trade deficit, create export-based jobs, and provide a lift to America's economy. This legislation would restore the so-called ``Super 301'' process, a tool that has been used by Republican and Democratic administrations to expand access for U.S. exporters to foreign markets. Super 301 requires the Office of the United States Trade Representative to negotiate with foreign countries that have established burdensome trade barriers in order to open those markets to U.S. exports. The legislation also requires the USTR to identify, and eliminate, the illegal protectionist trade barriers that most adversely effect American businesses and workers. With more than 8 million Americans out of a job, we need to take strong action not only to get people back to work, but to get them into well-paying jobs. Unfortunately, in recent years, even when unemployed Americans have found new jobs, too often they've been forced to take a pay cut. That's one reason why so many middle class families are feeling the squeeze, and are having such a hard time making ends meet. One of the areas hardest hit by job loss under this administration is the manufacturing industry. 2.9 million manufacturing jobs have been lost. In many ways, we are witnessing the slow decimation of the U.S. manufacturing industry. And the Bush administration has done little about it. One way to deal with the decline in manufacturing--and the problems in our economy, more generally--is to do a better job of enforcing our trade agreements. U.S. businesses generally are the best, most competitive in the world. But, too often, they're not playing on a level playing field. Instead, they're being forced to contend with a wide variety of trade barriers that make it difficult or impossible for American businesses to compete. The end result is lost opportunities, lost jobs, and lost income for American workers. Let's be clear. Trade is a good thing for America. And as a global leader we must be engaged in the global economy. Trade doesn't just help grow our own economy. It helps build the world economy, which, in turn, promotes democracy and greater security for everybody. I'm not arguing for building walls around the United States. To the contrary, I want to tear down protectionist walls that keep U.S. businesses out, and that destroy jobs here in our own country. The Bush administration likes to advocate for free trade agreements. But it's not enough to sign a trade agreement and trust our trade partners to honor their end of the deal. Those deals need to be complied with. And if they're not, we need to be aggressive in ensuring compliance. Unfortunately, when it comes to enforcing trade agreements, the Bush administration, as Senator Kerry said recently, has been ``asleep at the wheel.'' And there's no excuse for it. After all, we face a trade deficit of nearly $500 billion, and a deteriorating fiscal situation that has led to increasing reliance on foreign creditors. Under the circumstances, you would have thought that the administration would be doing all it could to address these problems. But it's not. There's a stark difference between the commitment of this administration to enforce trade compared to that of the Clinton administration. Between 1995 and 2000, the Clinton administration filed an average of 11 cases a year with the World Trade Organization to battle foreign protectionism. By contrast, the Bush administration has filed only 3 per year. The White House also has repeatedly refused to respond when the bipartisan International Trade Commission has recommended remedies for U.S. businesses facing floods of imports from China--even when the ITC rulings have been unanimous. The President's determination to overrule the ITC has had a dramatic impact on many small businesses, including some in my State of New Jersey. The administration also continues to sit idly by while China, and other Asian countries, manipulate their currency, to the detriment of U.S. exporters. The administration's refusal to enforce our trade agreements, and the passive approach they have taken to problems like Asian currency manipulation, helps explain why we're now facing such massive trade deficits. In fact, the Bush administration is the first since the Hoover administration to preside over a decline in real exports. Again, what we need is a commitment to let U.S. businesses compete on a level playing field. That is why we need to reestablish the Super 301 process. Super 301 may sound like a technical legal mechanism. But it would help open up new markets, boost our economy, strengthen our export- based manufacturing sector, help reduce our trade deficit, and create new, well-paying domestic export-based jobs here in America. Under the legislation, the USTR would, within 30 days of the release of the National Trade Estimate, submit a Super 301 report to Congress, listing the foreign trade barriers that most adversely affect U.S. exports. Within 21 days of submitting the report, the USTR would be required to seek consultations with each trading partner identified in the report in order to resolve the issue. If consultations do not succeed in eliminating the trade barriers within 90 days, USTR would be required to take action that could lead to sanctions either by the U.S. or, ultimately, by the WTO. As I said earlier, Super 301 is not new. It was signed into law by President Reagan, and renewed throughout the '90s by President Clinton. It was a tool that worked. The threat alone of being on the Super 301 list has, and will, force countries who have erected barriers to U.S. exports come to the table. Some will argue that this is protectionism. Some will argue that it's unilateralism. In fact, it's the opposite. It's intended to protect U.S. businesses and workers from protectionist foreign trade barriers-- to knock down walls, not erect them. It's intended to encourage our trade representatives to engage in a constructive dialogue with those who have erected barriers to U.S. products. It equips the administration with a needed tool to fight for the rights of American workers and businesses against those countries who are unwilling to remove those barriers. In a word, Super 301 would make trade more fair. And when trade is more fair--when U.S. companies are playing on a level playing field-- Americans win. American workers win. And when America's workers win, America's economy wins. It is my ardent hope that we can get this much needed bill passed, and I urge my colleagues to give it their support. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Super 301 Restoration Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Protecting America's Workers Act introduced by Senator Kennedy. I am proud to join him as a cosponsor of this important legislation. Yesterday, this country recognized Worker Memorial Day. Created in 1989 to remember workers who have been killed or injured in the workplace over the past year, Worker Memorial Day has been designated April 28 as a tribute to the anniversary of the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. In my view, there is no better tribute to the lives that have been lost than to think about how we can prevent future losses of this kind. The facts tell a grim story: an eight-month examination of workplace deaths by The New York Times found that, over a span of two decades, from 1982 to 2002, OSHA investigated 1,242 horrific instances in which the agency itself concluded that workers had died because of their employer's ``willful'' safety violations. Yet in 93 percent of those cases, OSHA declined to seek prosecution. Employees have a fundamental right to a safe work environment, and more needs to be done to ensure that businesses that deliberately put the lives of their workers at risk are held accountable for their actions. This legislation would go a long way to strengthen our workplace safety system in a variety of ways. I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes provisions to shore up a fundamental weakness in American workplace safety law: the shockingly inadequate penalties associated with crimes under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. This legislation includes the provisions of the Workplace Wrongful Death Accountability Act, S. 1272, legislation that I introduced to increase the maximum criminal penalty for those who willfully violate workplace safety laws and cause the death of an employee. It is unbelievable to me that, under existing law, that crime is a misdemeanor, and carries a maximum prison sentence of just 6 months. These provisions would increase the penalty for this most egregious workplace crime to 10 years, making it a felony. They also increase the penalty associated with lying to an OSHA inspector from 6 months to 1 year, and increase the penalty for illegally giving advance warning of an upcoming inspection from 6 months to 2 years. In recent times, Congress has focused on a shocking succession of corporate scandals: Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, to name a few. These revelations of corporate abuse raised the ire and indignation of the American people. But corporate abuses can sometimes go further than squandering employee pension funds and costing shareholder value. Sometimes, corporate abuses can cost lives. The provisions are based on the simple premise that going to work should not carry a death sentence. Annually, more than 6,000 Americans are killed on the job, and some 50,000 more die from work-related illnesses. Many of those deaths are completely preventable. While many factors contribute to the unsafe working environment that exists at certain jobsites, one easily remedied factor is an ineffective regime of criminal penalties. The criminal statutes associated with OSHA have been on the books since the 1970s, but, over time, the deterrence value of these important workplace safety laws has eroded substantially. With the maximum jail sentence of 6 months, Federal prosecutors have only a minimal incentive to spend time and resources prosecuting renegade employers. According to a recent analysis, since the Occupational Safety and Health Act was enacted, only 11 employers who caused the death of a worker on the job were incarcerated. The logic behind increasing criminal penalties in these cases is simple. It will increase the incentive for prosecutors to hold renegade employers accountable for endangering the lives of their workers and, thereby, help ensure that OSHA criminal penalties cannot be safely ignored. This will provide the OSHA criminal statute with sufficient teeth to deter the small percentage of bad actors who knowingly and willfully place their employees at risk. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this landmark legislation.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am proud to be introducing a bill, along with Senator Collins and Senator Lautenberg, to grant a Federal Charter to the Irish American Cultural Institute, an organization that promotes appreciation and recognition of the important contributions Irish-Americans have played throughout the history of the United States. A longstanding goal of the Irish American Cultural Institute has been to establish a museum of Irish American history and culture in Washington, DC, and I am pleased to introduce legislation that could represent a positive step towards achieving that goal. The Irish American Cultural Institute is a national organization founded in 1962, with local chapters in 17 States. The Institute has spent the last 40 years fighting to promote, preserve and interpret Irish and Irish-American culture. Those involved with the Institute do this, in part, by fostering strong cultural and educational ties between the United States and Ireland: sending American high school students to Ireland, and bringing Irish scholars, musicians, craftsmen, actors, and artists to the Untied States. They also fund academic research projects that provide insights into Irish-American history, and provide fellowships for American professors to spend a year as a visiting scholar at the National University of Ireland. In short, the Irish American Cultural Institute serves as an important educational, informational, and financial resource for key initiatives important to the Irish and the Irish-American community in the United States. Irish-Americans comprise more than 17 percent of the population of the United States, and have made enormous contributions to our Nation in countless ways. A Federal charter will help the Irish American Cultural Institute continue and expand activities that recognize and celebrate the heritage of Irish-Americans. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am proud to be introducing a bill, along with Senator Collins and Senator Lautenberg, to grant a Federal Charter to the Irish American Cultural Institute, an organization that promotes appreciation and recognition of the important contributions Irish-Americans have played throughout the history of the United States. A longstanding goal of the Irish American Cultural Institute has been to establish a museum of Irish American history and culture in Washington, DC, and I am pleased to introduce legislation that could represent a positive step towards achieving that goal. The Irish American Cultural Institute is a national organization founded in 1962, with local chapters in 17 States. The Institute has spent the last 40 years fighting to promote, preserve and interpret Irish and Irish-American culture. Those involved with the Institute do this, in part, by fostering strong cultural and educational ties between the United States and Ireland: sending American high school students to Ireland, and bringing Irish scholars, musicians, craftsmen, actors, and artists to the Untied States. They also fund academic research projects that provide insights into Irish-American history, and provide fellowships for American professors to spend a year as a visiting scholar at the National University of Ireland. In short, the Irish American Cultural Institute serves as an important educational, informational, and financial resource for key initiatives important to the Irish and the Irish-American community in the United States. Irish-Americans comprise more than 17 percent of the population of the United States, and have made enormous contributions to our Nation in countless ways. A Federal charter will help the Irish American Cultural Institute continue and expand activities that recognize and celebrate the heritage of Irish-Americans. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Protecting America's Workers Act introduced by Senator Kennedy. I am proud to join him as a cosponsor of this important legislation. Yesterday, this country recognized Worker Memorial Day. Created in 1989 to remember workers who have been killed or injured in the workplace over the past year, Worker Memorial Day has been designated April 28 as a tribute to the anniversary of the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. In my view, there is no better tribute to the lives that have been lost than to think about how we can prevent future losses of this kind. The facts tell a grim story: an eight-month examination of workplace deaths by The New York Times found that, over a span of two decades, from 1982 to 2002, OSHA investigated 1,242 horrific instances in which the agency itself concluded that workers had died because of their employer's ``willful'' safety violations. Yet in 93 percent of those cases, OSHA declined to seek prosecution. Employees have a fundamental right to a safe work environment, and more needs to be done to ensure that businesses that deliberately put the lives of their workers at risk are held accountable for their actions. This legislation would go a long way to strengthen our workplace safety system in a variety of ways. I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes provisions to shore up a fundamental weakness in American workplace safety law: the shockingly inadequate penalties associated with crimes under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. This legislation includes the provisions of the Workplace Wrongful Death Accountability Act, S. 1272, legislation that I introduced to increase the maximum criminal penalty for those who willfully violate workplace safety laws and cause the death of an employee. It is unbelievable to me that, under existing law, that crime is a misdemeanor, and carries a maximum prison sentence of just 6 months. These provisions would increase the penalty for this most egregious workplace crime to 10 years, making it a felony. They also increase the penalty associated with lying to an OSHA inspector from 6 months to 1 year, and increase the penalty for illegally giving advance warning of an upcoming inspection from 6 months to 2 years. In recent times, Congress has focused on a shocking succession of corporate scandals: Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, to name a few. These revelations of corporate abuse raised the ire and indignation of the American people. But corporate abuses can sometimes go further than squandering employee pension funds and costing shareholder value. Sometimes, corporate abuses can cost lives. The provisions are based on the simple premise that going to work should not carry a death sentence. Annually, more than 6,000 Americans are killed on the job, and some 50,000 more die from work-related illnesses. Many of those deaths are completely preventable. While many factors contribute to the unsafe working environment that exists at certain jobsites, one easily remedied factor is an ineffective regime of criminal penalties. The criminal statutes associated with OSHA have been on the books since the 1970s, but, over time, the deterrence value of these important workplace safety laws has eroded substantially. With the maximum jail sentence of 6 months, Federal prosecutors have only a minimal incentive to spend time and resources prosecuting renegade employers. According to a recent analysis, since the Occupational Safety and Health Act was enacted, only 11 employers who caused the death of a worker on the job were incarcerated. The logic behind increasing criminal penalties in these cases is simple. It will increase the incentive for prosecutors to hold renegade employers accountable for endangering the lives of their workers and, thereby, help ensure that OSHA criminal penalties cannot be safely ignored. This will provide the OSHA criminal statute with sufficient teeth to deter the small percentage of bad actors who knowingly and willfully place their employees at risk. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this landmark legislation.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise along with several of my colleagues, the esteemed Minority Leader, Senator Daschle, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, and my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautengerg, to introduce legislation that will strengthen trade enforcement efforts, open foreign markets to U.S. exports, reduce the trade deficit, create export-based jobs, and provide a lift to America's economy. This legislation would restore the so-called ``Super 301'' process, a tool that has been used by Republican and Democratic administrations to expand access for U.S. exporters to foreign markets. Super 301 requires the Office of the United States Trade Representative to negotiate with foreign countries that have established burdensome trade barriers in order to open those markets to U.S. exports. The legislation also requires the USTR to identify, and eliminate, the illegal protectionist trade barriers that most adversely effect American businesses and workers. With more than 8 million Americans out of a job, we need to take strong action not only to get people back to work, but to get them into well-paying jobs. Unfortunately, in recent years, even when unemployed Americans have found new jobs, too often they've been forced to take a pay cut. That's one reason why so many middle class families are feeling the squeeze, and are having such a hard time making ends meet. One of the areas hardest hit by job loss under this administration is the manufacturing industry. 2.9 million manufacturing jobs have been lost. In many ways, we are witnessing the slow decimation of the U.S. manufacturing industry. And the Bush administration has done little about it. One way to deal with the decline in manufacturing--and the problems in our economy, more generally--is to do a better job of enforcing our trade agreements. U.S. businesses generally are the best, most competitive in the world. But, too often, they're not playing on a level playing field. Instead, they're being forced to contend with a wide variety of trade barriers that make it difficult or impossible for American businesses to compete. The end result is lost opportunities, lost jobs, and lost income for American workers. Let's be clear. Trade is a good thing for America. And as a global leader we must be engaged in the global economy. Trade doesn't just help grow our own economy. It helps build the world economy, which, in turn, promotes democracy and greater security for everybody. I'm not arguing for building walls around the United States. To the contrary, I want to tear down protectionist walls that keep U.S. businesses out, and that destroy jobs here in our own country. The Bush administration likes to advocate for free trade agreements. But it's not enough to sign a trade agreement and trust our trade partners to honor their end of the deal. Those deals need to be complied with. And if they're not, we need to be aggressive in ensuring compliance. Unfortunately, when it comes to enforcing trade agreements, the Bush administration, as Senator Kerry said recently, has been ``asleep at the wheel.'' And there's no excuse for it. After all, we face a trade deficit of nearly $500 billion, and a deteriorating fiscal situation that has led to increasing reliance on foreign creditors. Under the circumstances, you would have thought that the administration would be doing all it could to address these problems. But it's not. There's a stark difference between the commitment of this administration to enforce trade compared to that of the Clinton administration. Between 1995 and 2000, the Clinton administration filed an average of 11 cases a year with the World Trade Organization to battle foreign protectionism. By contrast, the Bush administration has filed only 3 per year. The White House also has repeatedly refused to respond when the bipartisan International Trade Commission has recommended remedies for U.S. businesses facing floods of imports from China--even when the ITC rulings have been unanimous. The President's determination to overrule the ITC has had a dramatic impact on many small businesses, including some in my State of New Jersey. The administration also continues to sit idly by while China, and other Asian countries, manipulate their currency, to the detriment of U.S. exporters. The administration's refusal to enforce our trade agreements, and the passive approach they have taken to problems like Asian currency manipulation, helps explain why we're now facing such massive trade deficits. In fact, the Bush administration is the first since the Hoover administration to preside over a decline in real exports. Again, what we need is a commitment to let U.S. businesses compete on a level playing field. That is why we need to reestablish the Super 301 process. Super 301 may sound like a technical legal mechanism. But it would help open up new markets, boost our economy, strengthen our export- based manufacturing sector, help reduce our trade deficit, and create new, well-paying domestic export-based jobs here in America. Under the legislation, the USTR would, within 30 days of the release of the National Trade Estimate, submit a Super 301 report to Congress, listing the foreign trade barriers that most adversely affect U.S. exports. Within 21 days of submitting the report, the USTR would be required to seek consultations with each trading partner identified in the report in order to resolve the issue. If consultations do not succeed in eliminating the trade barriers within 90 days, USTR would be required to take action that could lead to sanctions either by the U.S. or, ultimately, by the WTO. As I said earlier, Super 301 is not new. It was signed into law by President Reagan, and renewed throughout the '90s by President Clinton. It was a tool that worked. The threat alone of being on the Super 301 list has, and will, force countries who have erected barriers to U.S. exports come to the table. Some will argue that this is protectionism. Some will argue that it's unilateralism. In fact, it's the opposite. It's intended to protect U.S. businesses and workers from protectionist foreign trade barriers-- to knock down walls, not erect them. It's intended to encourage our trade representatives to engage in a constructive dialogue with those who have erected barriers to U.S. products. It equips the administration with a needed tool to fight for the rights of American workers and businesses against those countries who are unwilling to remove those barriers. In a word, Super 301 would make trade more fair. And when trade is more fair--when U.S. companies are playing on a level playing field-- Americans win. American workers win. And when America's workers win, America's economy wins. It is my ardent hope that we can get this much needed bill passed, and I urge my colleagues to give it their support. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Super 301 Restoration Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleagues, Senators Lautenberg, Stabenow, and Mikulski, to introduce legislation, the Preserving Access to Affordable Drugs (PAAD) Act. This legislation is essential to ensuring that no senior who has existing prescription drug coverage receives less coverage once the Medicare prescription drug program goes into effect. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that as many as 1.7 million retirees could lose their employer-based prescription drug benefits as a result of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. Also as a result of the new law, hundreds of thousands of seniors currently enrolled in state pharmacy assistance programs (SPAPs) will be forced out of those programs and into a private Medicare drug plan. Additionally, approximately six million seniors who are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid will lose access to their Medicaid prescription drug benefits, which are more generous and provide greater access to a variety of drugs than the Medicare benefit will. And, despite the fact that the new Medicare law has huge gaps in coverage, seniors who choose to enroll in the new drug benefit will be prohibited from purchasing Medigap coverage to pay for prescription drugs not covered by the new Medicare benefit. No senior should be made worse off by the new Medicare law. The law should expand benefits--not rescind them. The PAAD Act will make critical changes to the Medicare law to ensure that the above-mentioned benefits are safeguarded. First, the PAAD Act will preserve retiree prescription drug benefits by allowing employer contributions to count towards the out of pocket threshold. Under the Medicare law, retirees with employer-based coverage would receive less of a subsidy from Medicare than seniors without such coverage. This lower subsidy creates a disincentive to employers to continue to provide these benefits and will lead to a significant reduction in employer-based benefits. The PAAD Act will ensure that employer-based plans receive the same subsidization as the Medicare prescription drug plans. Second, the PAAD Act will restore language that I added to the Senate-passed Medicare bill to allow states with pharmaceutical assistance programs to administer the Medicare prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in these programs. This will ensure a seamless transition for these seniors and will ensure that they maintain the generous prescription drug coverage that many states, including New Jersey, offer. Third, the PAAD Act will enable states to supplement the Medicare prescription drug benefit for the neediest Medicare beneficiaries, those dually-eligible for the Medicaid program. Under current law, Medicaid wraps around Medicare, paying for copayments and premiums, for those beneficiaries who are extremely sick and poor. Under the new Medicare law, states will be prohibited from using Medicaid to wrap around the Medicare drug benefit for these seniors, stripping them of access to needed prescription drugs. The PAAD Act will ensure that states can provide supplemental Medicaid prescription drug coverage to complement the Medicare drug benefit for seniors who are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. Fourth, the PAAD Act will restore seniors' access to supplemental drug benefits through the Medigap program. Seniors should be allowed to improve the Medicare drug benefit if they so choose. Finally, the PAAD Act will also eliminate the risky demonstration program to privatize Medicare, a program which if not eliminated is likely to impact my state of New Jersey. Under the new Medicare law, seniors who live in areas where a large number of seniors are enrolled in Medicare managed care plans could end up in this privatization scheme. This new program is slated to go into effect in 2010. But, if it were to go into effect today, Gloucester, Burlington, Camden and Salem Counties in New Jersey would likely be chosen to participate in it. One of the goals of medicine is to do no harm. The new Medicare law violates that tenet. My legislation is critical to preserving and protecting existing prescription drug coverage while expanding it to those who currently lack such coverage. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation and improve prescription drug benefits for all seniors.

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

Mr. CORZINE

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

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about S. 2290, the pending bill on asbestos legislation before the Senate. Like many of my colleagues before me, I also want to express great frustration because it does not seem as though we are moving the ball down the field on something that I think a lot of us believe is a very important issue. It is one that demands to be addressed and looks for a legislative solution that we are all trying to find. Among the many issues that I hear about from my constituents, this is one that very frequently shows up in our discussions and at townhall meetings. A lot of people have suffered devastating injuries after exposure to asbestos. Families have lost loved ones. It is a real deal in people's lives. I have heard from companies, CEOs, and people who are trying to manage their company's liabilities, and it is a real problem. Insurance companies, many of which are headquartered in my State, have spoken about this issue and my old industry, the financial industry, is concerned about the penalties and its implications in the capital markets that are imposing very severe costs on defending companies and insurers because of the crisis. This is something that we ought to address. Unfortunately, our current system is not working, and that is a reality for those who need it. It is not working for the defendant companies that want certainty for their business planning. It is not working for insurance companies that face accelerating claims, and it is certainly not working for asbestos victims. We need to make sure those who are truly injured receive the compensation they deserve in a timely fashion and on a basis that is fair to all involved. It needs to be done. We need to address it. Decades of asbestos use and a coverup of its health effects have resulted in a massive occupational and environmental health crisis. By the way, we are still having exposure developed by a lot of the imports that we are now receiving into our Nation, where some of those who manufacture abroad are not dealing with the issues we have begun to deal with. It is a real killer, a silent killer, physically but also emotionally debilitating to many people across America. Medical costs associated with asbestos-related diseases are astronomical. They are off the charts. It is not a matter of millions. It is billions and it is an annual affair and it cries out to be addressed. Hundreds of thousands of workers and their family members have suffered and died from asbestos-related cancer and lung diseases. I think the number is about 10,000 die each year. Approximately 24 million have been exposed. In my home State of New Jersey, which is an old manufacturing State, 2,700 people have been killed by asbestos since 1979, and two of our counties in New Jersey are in the top 10 in the Nation in those asbestos-related deaths. That is Camden and Somerset Counties. So this is a real deal for us. We would like to see this addressed. We cannot ignore the tragedy of these asbestos deaths and injuries. We can and we should be able to come up with a workable solution. As I said, like many of my colleagues, I would like to see a national trust fund to compensate victims through a no-fault system, ensuring that those who are most injured receive a just award as quickly as possible. It should not be going on for 5 or 10 years. I hope we can agree that we need to focus on paying those who are truly sick and that we must pay those people fairly. That is why I was pleased last year when the Judiciary Committee held bipartisan hearings on the issue, had bipartisan negotiations, and seemed to be making progress towards arriving at a fair and balanced solution. Unfortunately, last year the Judiciary Committee reported out a bill that did not have broad bipartisan support and was not, in my view at least, balanced in its approach to the issue. The bill before us has gotten worse. Good amendments that were added in committee have been dropped, and the size of the fund, frankly, is at the low end of anyone's expectations of what is appropriate. I will take a few moments to discuss what I see are some of the most glaring flaws in the bill that we are debating and reasons, at least right now as it stands, I cannot support it. First, the size of the fund is quite simply out of touch with reality. I hear estimates of anywhere from $100 billion to $300 billion as the cost of settlement that people would expect for the probability of the associated problems with asbestos, and we have picked the low end of that number as the basis on which we are going to deal with it. The bill that was reported out of committee would have had $153 billion, and we have come up with $109 billion, absolutely at the very low end of any of the national estimates, any of the academic estimates of objective outside observers. We are starting at the wrong place in the negotiation. In addition to the anemic overall funding, the bill has other weaknesses. For example, the Hatch substitute deprives victims of exposure adequate compensation. Awards just remain far too low for many victims with serious diseases that are an outgrowth of this. Funding would not pay for victims' medical bills, let alone compensate their families for any type of hardships. To give an example, a worker with 15 years of asbestos exposure and lung cancer would be guaranteed only $25,000 in compensation. I do not see how that relates to the risk of life that individuals would be taking in that context. In another example, victims with asbestos who lose 20 to 40 percent of breathing capacity or are disabled from work will receive only $85,000 for lost wages and medical costs. These numbers do not fit the circumstance. Now, $25,000 barely gets a family of four above the poverty line, and we are talking about $25,000 and $85,000 in lost wages and medical costs that accrue to those things. We are not in the right ballpark. The pending bill also guts a Biden amendment adopted in the committee with strong bipartisan support to protect victims' rights in the event of fund insolvency. It would allow that once the fund was insolvent, if that $109 billion was not enough, then bring claims back into State court. That was overwhelmingly supported in committee. Given the low level of funding in this bill, insolvency obviously is a problem. I believe it is unfair to ask the victims to give up their rights to enter into a fund without knowing that fund would have sufficient assets to cover the claims, and where do they go in those circumstances. So it is another major problem. The pending bill would also treat victims with pending claims unfairly. This one is really hard to swallow. It would wipe out the claims of more than 300,000 people who have claims pending in the current system, even those who have already received jury awards. We are looking back into history and changing history. I don't understand why, when we have had a judicial process, we have come to a conclusion or we are even in the process of that, we want to stop, start all over and move people into another system. It does not strike me as consistent with a commonsense sense of fairness. If you have an award, it ought to go through. In addition, the bill significantly weakens key provisions that would protect victims without an effective remedy during the transition to a new system. The bill also lacks transparency with regard to companies and insurers and how they are going to contribute to the fund and in what amounts, which makes it difficult to determine whether companies are paying their fair share. By the way, there is a lot of hooting and hollering among the insurance companies. A lot of them oppose this because they don't know what their deal will be. There is no certainty here, either for the victims or for a lot of the people who are going to participate here in funding this trust fund. That doesn't make sense and I think it is a real problem that also needs to be addressed. We need to amend it. It also contains a windfall for certain companies. While we are taking it away from some folks, we are certainly giving it to others. It contains this windfall with regard to Halliburton, which has an estimated $4.8 billion in asbestos liability, but would only have to pay $1.2 billion under the Hatch-Frist bill. Why them? Why are they getting such a break, particularly after a judgment has already gone through? It is sort of the reciprocal or the reverse of what we already were talking about with a lot of individuals. They are going to get slammed and somebody here is going to get the advantage. They are going to apply it in a way that is very uneven and lacking in balance. That should be addressed. This is not a fair and balanced approach to this problem. It is not fair to the injured victims or the families of those who died, and it is not fair to companies that want relief from the growing problem, and it doesn't provide for the certainty and planning I think corporate America is looking for. Let me take a moment to discuss what I think is also a misleading claim by supporters of the bill. This one is actually hard to understand, how this gets any circulation at all. Unfortunately, this administration, as a lot of us have talked about on other occasions, has been weak in the record of creating jobs. I don't have to go through the litany of 2 million lost jobs, 8.4 million unemployed Americans, 2.6 million private sector jobs lost. That was the only period of time, actually, since the Depression an administration has more than likely overseen a period of decline in job growth in the country. But somehow we have decided this is a jobs bill; somehow this is going to create jobs. There are those who will argue many of the asbestos companies have been forced into bankruptcy and that cost has seriously damaged the American economy, particularly as it relates to jobs. The facts don't meet the description. This is sometimes a fact-free arena. We make assertions and do not necessarily follow through. But if anybody does any serious analysis of what goes on in these companies that have gone through these reorganizations under chapter 11 protection, they will know they have been able to use this device as a means to manage through their obligations and they are able to pay out some of their responsibilities but it has kept their companies going. The truth is, they have not gone out of business, many of them--most of them. Some are doing better than ever. Let's take Halliburton, since I mentioned it once before. Halliburton has agreed to compensate the innocent victims and companies poisoned with a settlement of more than $4 billion. That is, of course, unless we pass this legislation, then only $1.2 billion. In order to pursue this settlement Halliburton has agreed to put two of its companies into chapter 11 temporarily until a court approves a trust arrangement to compensate asbestos victims. Meanwhile, Halliburton on its own Web site is telling its customers that it: . . . will continue in business and will continue to provide all the excellent services our customers expect from us. In other words, outside the asbestos and silica settlement, it will be business as usual. In what kind of shape are these companies that have chosen chapter 11 reorganization? The answer can be found in a new analysis conducted by Professor George Benston of Emory of the seven largest asbestos companies that sought chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization protection in 2000 and 2001. This is a real study by someone trying to bring an objective perspective. Professor Benston studied the asbestos companies and compared them to companies in their business that did not declare bankruptcy reorganization in order to determine how successful their operations would be under the supervision of the bankruptcy court. He concluded: On the whole, they essentially have increased or stabilized their sales, assets, employment, and profitability, and have projected increases. It is fair to say they are viable and likely to be increasingly successful companies that should generate funds to exit bankruptcy significantly stronger than when they went in. We are doing this because this is a jobs bill, when it is fair to say they have increased or stabilized their sales, assets, employment, and profitability, and have projected increases. Somehow or another, objective evidence doesn't seem to match with the claims. This is hardly a jobs bill. The argument falls apart on the surface of it, as far as I can tell. So while I am sympathetic to the corporations that generally want to fulfill their obligations with respect to asbestos victims and certainly I have an appreciation for their desire for serious financial planning, if this asbestos bill is the best we can do, the administration can do, the leadership--Senator Frist and Senator Hatch--can do to create jobs in our country and address this problem, then I think we have a lot higher objectives for which we need to set our standards. That is why I think we ought to have a full debate. We ought to have a lot of votes on amendments that will actually address a number of these problems we talked about. I hope we can get back to those bipartisan negotiations, away from this floor, where we can talk about the size of the trust fund, we can talk about some of this ex post facto analysis about who is benefiting and who is not; where we can make sure the general awards to victims are actually higher and there is some serious backstop if the fund doesn't actually have the resources to be able to deal with these issues. We sure the heck ought to stop talking about this in a context that makes no sense in economic reality, that this is a jobs bill. I go back to this. This is one of those things I think Americans across the board want to see Congress act on. This is not something that has a Republican or Democratic label. We want to find a resolution. I want to find a resolution. We have to do that in a fair and balanced manner. I thought the Judiciary Committee made a lot of progress on this on the bill they reported out. That is not what we are working on. I don't understand why we don't turn the clock back just a little bit and get on with some of the hard work that was done when we came up with some of these bipartisan approaches to deal with this very thorny issue. On the basis of offering a helping hand to many victims and their families, for companies that need to have stability in their balance sheet and the ability to make plans for the future, to reduce the caseload we have in our court system, there are a lot of reasons we ought to be moving in this area. We are not pulling together, sitting down and negotiating a transaction formulation of legislation that makes sense for everybody. Everyone is going to have to give a little bit, but this is something that could be done if we wanted to go to work to make it happen. The will is there. Certainly the demand is there. I think there is a lot of ground for positive, constructive dialog. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, first of all, let me congratulate the distinguished Senator from Iowa for pointing out and being so persistent in dealing with this issue of overtime pay and how working Americans are being treated by the economic policies of the current administration. I have been on the Senate floor a number of times over the last several months talking about the status of the American economy--the job losses that we have had: 2 million, roughly, generally, and 2.6 million private sector jobs. We have talked about the pressure on the middle class. Good gracious, we are now talking about cutting overtime pay for 8 million working Americans in the middle class. Goodness knows, the budget situation in this country, under this administration, has been a fiasco. We have gone from projections of $5.5 trillion worth of budget surpluses to $5 trillion of budget deficits over the next 10 years--$18,000 of debt per American to $24,000 now, and projections it will get up to $35,000 over the next 10 years--an incredible failure of economic policy. But today I want to talk about another indicator that is showing the weaknesses and the failures of this policy. Last week, millions of Americans paid their income tax. A lot of us struggled to figure out how to do that and send it in by the April 15 deadline. But the fact is, when all is said and done, about 30 percent of Americans' income was paid in Federal, State, and local taxes--about 30 percent. But while the average American is paying 30 percent of their income in taxes, the majority of corporations are paying far less. In fact, about 60 percent of all corporations reporting income did not pay income tax at all. That is according to the General Accounting Office. Sixty percent of corporations did not pay any Federal tax at all. Moreover, about 95 percent of corporations pay less than 5 percent of their income in taxes. As a share of corporate profits, corporate taxes are now at their lowest level since World War II. There has been a dramatic shift in the tax burden from corporations and high-income folks to those middle-class folks who are now going to have their overtime cut. It is an incredible change in the direction of this country and in fairness. While corporate taxes have declined, as the good Senator from Iowa pointed out, corporate profits have increased dramatically over the last several years, much greater than wages. Median income during the Bush administration has fallen about 3 percent for the average worker in America. Corporate profits, by contrast, have increased by 26 percent. There has been a huge growth in corporate profits at the same time median income for working Americans is down. In other words, workers have received relatively little benefit from the increase in corporate profits. With all this ``hootin' and hollerin''' about GDP growth, it is not showing up in the paychecks of working Americans. In the early 1990s, when you had an increase in the economy as we are seeing now, 60 percent of those increases in income went to wages, and about 40 percent went to corporate profits. In today's recovery, the one that has occurred over the last several years, only 13 percent has gone to working men and women, and almost 87 percent has gone to corporate profits or corporate wages, to the CEOs. It is incredible, 60 percent versus 13 percent. There is something afoul here. It fits into an overall flow of facts that middle-class income workers are getting hurt in this economy. The fact is, we have seen median income decline 3 percent for the average worker in America. And by the way, at the same time income has fallen for real families in America, the costs are going up. For example, a couple of items that go on in everybody's budget: Health insurance is up 14 percent at the same time these median incomes are going down. Corporate profits are going up. Gasoline prices are up 19 percent. College tuition, something that gives access to the American promise, is up 28 percent at the same time. I hate to get into property taxes, but in many parts of our country, all we have done is shift the tax burden from the Federal Government to the local level. The Bush record includes income falling for middle-income families and rising costs on things that matter in their lives. It is incredible, particularly when put in the context that we haven't been creating jobs. The fact is, we have 8.4 million Americans without jobs. That is the latest survey. We have been hearing a lot of hootin' and hollerin' about growth and jobs. There are 8.4 million Americans without jobs. That is 2.4 million more jobs lost during this administration's tenure and stewardship of the economy. Something is wrong here. Income is going down. Jobs are going down. Costs are going up. What is happening is we are putting incredible pressure on the average American. By the way, even when people get jobs after they have lost a job, there is an incredible loss of real income for those individuals. That is how that median income came down. According to survey, for workers who lost jobs in 2001, the average salary was $44,570. Today, for those who have found jobs, the average salary an individual ultimately was able to get was $35,410. That is another 21-percent drop for those people who lost jobs and then ultimately reentered the workforce. We have median income going down. We see job losses going up. We see corporate profits going up, and no sharing of that going on in the economy. There is a real problem. The administration's proposals and policies have done an incredible job of actually undermining the well-being and quality of life for middle-income Americans. Many people have different views about fairness, but since the tax date was last week and we talked about the fact corporations are not paying their fair share, I want to mention the fact for the middle 20 percent of Americans, a range of people who have an adjusted gross income from filings and income tax, the average tax break for that middle 20-percent, middle-class America, was $647. That is not something to throw out the window, but it is not a great amount of money given what tuition costs are doing, and given gasoline prices and health care costs. But it is a break. But if you were in the top 1 percent of Americans, on that same scale of adjusted gross income, you got an average tax break of about $35,000.

Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Senator from Maryland. Finally, if you look at those individuals in America who have been blessed with good earnings and opportunity, with $1 million of earnings or more, a tax cut of $123,500. I don't understand why anyone would think this is going to be stimulative to the economy, efficient to the economy. Let alone does it relate to the fairness most Americans expect. Here we have $1.5 trillion in tax cuts and a whole bunch of it is going to the people making $1 million or more, and the middle class is getting a very small portion. We have a major problem with economic policy. We clearly are not creating jobs. We clearly are undermining the quality of life of middle-income Americans. There is a classic fairness issue that is going on here which I wanted to relate with regard to corporate income taxes and certainly with regard to how tax breaks work. It is time for a rethink. The IMF and the OECD this week released reports that said the current administration's policies are going to end up undermining growth for the rest of the world because we are running such big deficits. There is something wrong. It is time for us to address it. I will come out here and talk about these kinds of pressures on the middle class, on our budget, on what is fair. We need to make sure the American people know they are not getting a fair shake. We need to pass the legislation for which the Senator from Iowa has so assiduously fought to make sure 8 million people are protected on overtime. We need to make sure we change this tax policy so all Americans benefit from the great bounty we have. The choice is clear. We were able in the 1990s, with a different set of policies, to create 22.5 million jobs, the greatest increase in wealth for all Americans, not just middle class but all Americans. We decreased poverty. All good indicators of what happened. Now we have lost 2.6 million private sector jobs; 8.4 million people are unemployed; and we have a distribution of income that makes no sense for the middle class.

Mr. CORZINE. That was $124,000.