Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I made a few opening remarks last night. I want to start by saying we are all looking for the same objective; that is, to get to the bottom of understanding the development and the use of intelligence that was the basis on which we entered into a conflict during which we have now lost 335 men, and literally thousands have been injured. There is a reason to understand whether the development and use of that intelligence was appropriately handled. The commission I am suggesting, as I read before, underscores its commitment to the process the distinguished Senator from Kansas outlined. It is not to usurp; it is to make sure everyone will have the view that it is bipartisan, that it is independent of any kind of political process. It is to build upon what is going on in the intelligence committees, not to usurp it. There is no intention to undermine the credibility of the individuals who are involved in it. I will say that 10 people, as staff, working on and reviewing the intelligence that involves 250,000 troops, where there has been untold loss of life, and the arguments that were made preceding, do not match the reality of what we are finding afterwards-- whether it is in regard to aluminum tubes and centrifuges, yellow cake from Niger, connections of al-Qaida and Iraq, claims about mobile laboratories, missile technology, and now the Kay report which, at least at this stage--and it is an interim report--has disputes about almost all elements that were used as the basic topic. I think the public has a reason to be concerned. I have other issues when I look at how the 9/11 Commission has actually been able to operate. I don't know whether the same kind of concerns are operating with regard to the Intelligence Committee. I know the 9/ 11 Commission chairman, who is a respected New Jersey former Governor, a person of great esteem, a Republican, is saying there is difficulty in getting the information to be able to look at the events that led up to 9/11. As a matter of fact, subpoenas have had to be issued to get the records of the FAA. It strikes me when you add the difficulty the 9/11 Commission has had in getting the information--and we don't know what has gone on in the Intelligence Committee. You look at the fact that senior administration officials have been willing to out a CIA agent, to discredit somebody who actually comes into the public to talk about it. I think the public has a reason to want to have independence in making an assessment of whether the intelligence has been used properly and the development and the use of it have been done properly. That is where my interest is. I know the distinguished Senator from Kansas and the distinguished Senator from West Virginia want to get to the bottom of this just as much as this Senator does, as much as this body ought to want to; and the people of America ought to have an understanding that we are not developing intelligence for purposes of winning political arguments or winning arguments on the floor of the Senate but to form what is the proper policy. To me, I think we ought to do everything possible to make sure intelligence is properly developed. That is what I have been trying to suggest. I did it earlier in July and I am doing it again. I believe very strongly that this is an important issue. There are a whole series of issues about which there are questions. There are very visible examples of challenges to the facts by people who were either close or near to the effort. I will go ahead and say it. On Wednesday night, there was a follow-through by an individual who was in a senior position in the State Department, and I will quote how he felt the intelligence was framed. ``Plenty of blame to go around,'' according to Mr. Thielmann, who, by the way, was a senior officer in the State Department, a 25-year veteran in the Office of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs. He said: The main problem is senior administration officials have what I call a ``faith-based approach to intelligence.'' They knew what they wanted the intelligence to show. They were really blind and deaf to any kind of countervailing information the intelligence community would produce. I would assign some blame to the intelligence community and most of the blame to senior administration officials. I just believe there are enough questions in the public's mind, and they grow incrementally all the time, that it is time for us to have an independent view of this matter. That in no way is undermining what is going on in the Intelligence Committee. It builds on it. That is the purpose. That is certainly where I come from. That is the argument I have tried to make and I will continue to make. Again, I have great respect for the leadership on the Intelligence Committee. I am sure there is a good-faith willingness to try to get to the bottom of this situation. I think this is very important. We have other questions: North Korea, Iran, and the terrorist networks that exist across this globe. If we cannot trust our intelligence, then we are going to have a hard time making fundamental decisions in this Chamber, and the American people are going to have a hard time judging whether we made the right decisions and whether we are working in their best interests. I yield to my distinguished colleague from New York.

Mr. CORZINE. If the Senator from Kansas will yield a couple of minutes to my side back.

Mr. CORZINE. I know we will have some Members who want to speak. I wonder, could we increase the 10-minute agreement to 15 on my side?

Mr. CORZINE. Reserving the right to object, I could not hear.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, the goal of this commission is not about blame. This is about trying to find out what went wrong and why we had the kind of development and use of intelligence that is so patently inconsistent with the facts that seem to be coming out. Most of us do not sit inside those quiet halls of the Intelligence Committee. The public does not, but they are seeing fact after fact refuted. They see CIA agents outed. They see people who were a part of the intelligence community complaining. One of the ways to restore the confidence in something that is absolutely necessary to be able to carry out the war on terrorism, which we all believe in and want to support, is to have confidence in our intelligence community. It is not to undermine the Intelligence Committee. This amendment underscores a commitment to support the ongoing congressional reviews regarding the collection and analysis of data. It is not to undermine it. We all have tremendous faith in the chairman and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, but this is to restore the confidence of the American people, to restore the confidence of all of us who have to use the information to draw the conclusions that are necessary as to whether we are going to put men and women in harm's way. I could not agree more with the Senator from West Virginia. Intelligence and military operations now are absolutely intimately linked. They are one in the same. If it is faith based, then we will reach the wrong conclusions. I hope the Senate will support my amendment.

Mr. CORZINE. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New York.

Mr. CORZINE. How much time remains?

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Illinois and a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. CORZINE. I yield 1 minute to my friend.

Mr. CORZINE. If the distinguished Senator from Kansas will recall, I gave a presentation last night of about 30 minutes on this subject. I will be happy to respond to different elements. I thought I would hear what the arguments were and then make a response. If you would like to see it all now, I would be more than happy to do some responding, but I would like to hear the overall argument.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, in a few minutes I will be sending an amendment to the desk. This amendment calls for a bipartisan commission to study the development and use of intelligence related to Iraq. The mission would examine several key issues, including intelligence related to the following questions: Whether Iraq possessed chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons; whether Iraq had a link to al-Qaida; whether they attempted to acquire uranium in Africa; whether Iraq attempted to procure aluminum tubes for the development of nuclear weapons; whether Iraq possessed mobile laboratories for the production of weapons of mass destruction; whether Iraq possessed delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction. Mr. President, this is the same amendment I offered in July. At that time, 45 Senators joined in the effort to establish an independent commission, reflecting broad public concern about the potential misuse of intelligence information leading up to the war. Since then, however, additional troubling information has come out and these concerns have grown considerably in many people's minds. These concerns also have grown in the context of a larger intelligence shortcoming. One need only look at our failure thus far to find Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, to know that we have a long way to go to ensure that our intelligence capacities are as strong as they can be. Time after time we have seen news stories about the administration's selective use of intelligence. Just last night, it was reported in a very troubling report on ``60 Minutes II'' that a former aide to Secretary of State Powell, Greg Thielmann, a senior career State Department official, made serious charges against the Secretary and the administration. According to Mr. Thielmann, at the time of Secretary Powell's dramatic prewar presentation to the United Nations, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability was so weak that it posed no threat to the United States and little threat even to its immediate neighbors. According to Mr. Thielmann, the administration adopted a ``faith- based approach to intelligence.'' He went on to say: They knew what they wanted the intelligence to show. They were really blind and deaf to any kind of countervailing information the intelligence community would produce. I have a full transcript of that interview which I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the administration's own search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has borne out the concerns that Mr. Thielmann and others held. After months of searching throughout the country, inspectors still have not found any evidence of such weapons. Several times the administration tried to claim that such evidence had, in fact, been found. But each time the claims have proven empty. Recently heard again from David Kay, the man leading the CIA's search, that no chemical or biological weapons have been found to date and that Iraq's alleged nuclear program--the one that administration officials regularly raised when discussing the specter of a mushroom cloud--was only at ``the very most rudimentary stage.'' Let me give a couple examples of other claims that may have been intentionally misleading. Last September, President Bush, surrounded by Members of Congress in the White House Rose Garden, claimed that Iraq could launch a chemical or biological strike within 45 minutes. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer cited this capability as the elusive ``smoking gun'' when it first came to light. Just 2 weeks later, Congress gave the President authority to go to war in Iraq. Yet this claim, the strongest evidence that Iraq represented an imminent threat, was dropped after the administration consulted with the CIA. One has to ask: Why wasn't that consultation done with the CIA before making the claim and before Congress used the information in deliberations about the war resolution? Similarly, President Bush and his top advisers repeatedly asserted Saddam and al-Qaida had a strong relationship. On September 25, 2002, President Bush said: You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam. The implication was clear: There was a connection between Saddam and the terrorist attacks of September 11. Only in the last month, after the Vice President repeated a similar assertion strongly disputed by the press and security analysts, did the President admit no such connection existed. It is now clear that the administration has either been grossly wrong in its interpretation of intelligence or has intentionally misused the intelligence produced by the community. When I offered this amendment in July, we were focused on a particular assertion that was made in the January State of the Union Address. That is: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. At the time, there was a flurry of press interests in these words, though lately that seems to have largely been forgotten. The power of the President's allegation in those words is difficult to overstate. The Bush administration used legalistic language apparently intended to lead people to believe that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear program. The President didn't say the British were claiming anything. He didn't say they alleged anything. He said they learned Saddam was attempting to buy uranium, implicitly accepting the charge as fact. Although just 16 words, it was a powerful statement that resonated throughout the Nation and the world. It became a key argument in the case of immediate use of force in Iraq. Only after many months did we learn the statement was based on information that the CIA had repeatedly flagged the White House as inaccurate. We didn't learn about this from the administration. We learned about it from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the media. Only later did the administration spokesperson and the President admit the statement was inappropriate for the State of the Union Address. The administration has yet to fully explain how it got there. Instead, the administration has turned on those who have reported the truth. Recently, unknown senior administration officials publicly disclosed the name of a covert CIA operative apparently in retaliation for public statements by the operative's spouse that contradicted the administration's claims about Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium from Niger. This wasn't just any operative. It was one of the CIA's elite intelligence officers, a nonofficial cover agent. Releasing the agent's name was a betrayal of intelligence apparatus for political purposes, which has likely harmed our national security and has only contributed to a sense among many that the administration is uninterested in protecting the integrity and objectivity of our intelligence operations. In this case, the administration continues to resist efforts to appoint a special counsel to investigate this criminal act. Nor has this been the only example of opposition to independent, nonpartisan reviews on national security matters. The administration also seems unwilling to openly share information with the commission established by Congress to investigate the events of September 11. The commission was established on a bipartisan basis. It is charged not only with investigating the events leading up to 9/11 but with producing recommendations to prevent future terrorist attacks. Their mission is critical. I can tell you as a Senator who comes from a State where 693 people died on September 11--10 in my hometown--this is a serious investigation and review of the failures that led to 9/11. Yet, according to recent statements by several commission members, the administration has been stonewalling. Too many of their requests are being ignored. Too much evidence is being withheld. And the commission has been frustrated in its efforts to get the information it needs to do the job. Again, just yesterday, the commission was forced to issue subpoenas to officials at the FAA for documents that the administration should have been handing over voluntarily. By the way, this was not the CIA, not the Pentagon, but the FAA. The question of accurate intelligence is central to Congress's ability to make decisions about national security. It is especially important now that the Bush administration has endorsed a doctrine of preemptive war, a doctrine the administration reiterated today preceding its trip to the Far East. As we confront ongoing threats to U.S. interests, particularly with regard to weapons of mass destruction, we must be sure that what we are told is true. Last October, for example, during the Iraqi debate, Secretary James Kelly was in Pyongyang meeting with the North Koreans. At that meeting--a meeting that occurred a full week prior to the Senate vote on the resolution authorizing force in Iraq--the North Koreans admitted to Mr. Kelly that they had an active nuclear program. Yet despite the importance of such information from the North Koreans, admitting a nuclear weapons program, and its relevance to debate regarding Iraq and America's national security posture generally, administration officials waited until after Congress had voted on the resolution to authorize the use of force before revealing the details of the North Korean disclosure to most Members of Congress and certainly the American people. As I see it, that information was both relevant and timely to the debate on whether to go to war in Iraq. What should have our priorities been? What was the information that should have been factored in when we made that judgment? Was the information withheld because it might affect Congress's debate on the war resolution? I cannot be sure. But the American people have a right to know. While matters such as these may be beyond the scope of the commission I am proposing, a thorough review of intelligence questions related to Iraq is necessary if we are to successfully address other threats and we are to have credibility and confidence in those judgments--including North Korea, Iran, and other rogue states and international terrorist networks. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I hope some of those who initially opposed it will see that the time has come for a thorough, independent, nonpartisan review, structured so there would not be any partisan bias. David Kay's report finding no weapons of mass destruction after a 6-month search, the statements from former administration insiders charging that intelligence was misused, a willingness of administration officials to retaliate against one such insider by revealing the identity of a key CIA operative, the administration's refusal to appoint a special counsel to investigate the crime, the administration's failure to cooperate fully with the commission investigating the 9/11 terrorist attacks, all highlight the need for an independent, nonpartisan commission to examine what are already acknowledged deficiencies in how intelligence related to Iraq was presented to the American people prior to the war. The goal of this commission is not to assign blame. The goal is to understand what happened and then use those findings to recommend improvements in our intelligence operations and make certain intelligence is used for policy formulation, not policy justification. I say to my colleagues, why would anybody be afraid to let an independent commission find the truth? If the administration was acting in good faith, they should want the facts to come out. If there were systemic problems in our intelligence establishment, its relationship with the White House, we all have an interest in identifying them and correcting them. The commission would not prejudge anything. It would simply provide a mechanism to find the truth and bring it to light. Again I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. In the end, the safety and security of the American people are at stake and so, by the way, is the safety and protection of our men and women in uniform. They deserve unbiased, nonpolitical, actionable intelligence to be able to do their job and do it well. Just as much as they need financial support, just as much as they need the support of all of America, they need to have unbiased, nonpolitical intelligence to do their job. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I can offer this amendment which I send to the desk.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Michael Gayle during consideration of this legislation.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of the act for purposes of the pending amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORZINE. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, this amendment I have offered, along with Senators Lautenberg and Durbin, would reduce the retirement age for members of the National Guard and Reserve from 60 to 55. This change would allow an estimated 92,000 reservists currently age 55 to 59 to retire with full benefits, honoring their service and respecting the drastic demands we put on them in the post-cold-war era and the age of terrorism. As we reflect on the demands placed on our soldiers in Iraq and other parts of our world because of terrorism, particularly our reservists-- roughly 20,000 are in the theater--it is time we actually make this important change in the benefits that our reservists and guards receive. This chart shows how we were deployed in 1992. We had 1 million total man-days per year from reservists and guards. It jumped to 13 million in 2001. It was 41 million in 2002. It will be up again in 2003. We are using our reservists dramatically differently than in previous years. It is time to recognize that and make sure they are treated appropriately. This request is at the top of the requests of the Reserve Officers Association, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Air Force Sergeants Association, American Legion, a variety of folks. It will make a difference in making sure our people want to continue their career as reservists and guards. It will potentially reduce the cost of declining enlistment and retention forces, promote an overall package of incentives to meet recruiting and retention goals. It will make a difference in our people's lives. We need to move forward on this parity between reserve and civilian retirement age. I hope my colleagues will join in supporting this important amendment.

Mr. CORZINE

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

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment, and I call up amendment No. 1811.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Durbin, and hopefully others, this amendment is designed to reduce the retirement age for members of the National Guard and Reserves from 60 to 55. This change would allow for an estimated 92,000 reservists, currently age 55 to 59, to retire with full benefits and would restore parity between the retirement systems for Federal civilian employees and reservists. Just to refresh my colleagues' memory, regular military personnel can retire after 20 years of service regardless of their age--38, 48, 55, or 60--and receive their retirement benefits at the time of retirement. As we reflect on the demands placed on our soldiers in Iraq, particularly our Reserve and Guard forces--of which there are roughly 20,000 in theater--there is no more appropriate time to consider this important proposal to support these brave men and women. As a matter of basic fairness, it is only right to restore parity between the retirement age for civilian employees and their Reserve counterparts. When the Reserve retirement system was created in 1947, the retirement age for reservists was identical to the age for civilian employees. At age 60, reservists and Government employees could hang up their uniforms and retire with full benefits. However, since 1947, the retirement age for civilian retirees has been lowered by 5 years while the retirement age has not changed for reservists and guards. The disparate treatment of Federal employees and reservists would have been serious enough had the nature of the work performed by the reservists been steady over the past five decades, but today this country places an increasingly heavy demand on its Ready Reserve, more of a demand than has ever been the case in our Nation's history. Today more than 200,000 reservists have been called up to serve their country in the war on terrorism, and 170,000 of these reservists and Guard troops are now on active duty, here at home and abroad. America's dependence on our Ready Reserve has never been more transparent to the American people. Reservists are now providing security at our Nation's airports, and they patrol the air over our major cities. They provide caps, protection. With call-ups that last several months and take reservists far from home in serving our Nation, it is increasingly clear that reservists are performing the same role as those on active duty and any other service. Before the war on terrorism, reservists were performing 13 million man-days each year--get the idea of how big that is--more than a tenfold increase over the 1 million man-days the Reserves averaged just 10 years ago. It has moved dramatically, even before the war on terrorism began. In fiscal year 2002, reservists contributed 41 million man-days. And this year, in fiscal year 2003, that number will be up again. So we are using our Reserve Forces dramatically more than was ever the case in the history of the Reserve and Guard units. These people are on active duty for an increasing amount of time, particularly as we justify and move forward with the war on terrorism. These are staggering increases. Those defenders of the American people should have that recognized by shortening their time before they are eligible for retirement. In my view, with additional responsibility should come additional benefits. I know this proposal is not without cost. But not improving the reservists' benefits also will have a cost, potentially a severe cost. After all, in recent years we have seen our military struggling to meet recruitment and retention goals. It has been even more severe sometimes with our Guard and Reserve. That has improved somewhat after 9/11. But unless the overall package of incentives is enhanced, there is little reason to believe we will be able to attract and retain highly trained Reserve personnel over the long run, particularly as their deployments and the number of man-hours has increased. Active-duty military personnel have often looked to the Reserves as a way to continue to serve their country while being closer to their families. We have been drawing people out of the active military into the Reserve. With thousands of dollars invested in training active-duty officers and enlisted soldiers, the United States benefits tremendously when personnel decide to continue with the Reserves. But with Reserve deployments increasing in frequency and duration, pulling reservists away from their families and civilian life, imposing real hardships on those families, the advantage in joining the Reserves has been dramatically reduced. There is no question about that. The more we depend on the Reserves, the greater chance we have of losing highly trained former active-duty service men and women and a number of people who have just joined the Active Reserve because they thought it was a way they could supplement income and be involved in supporting our Nation. In my view, the added incentive of full retirement at 55 might provide just the inducement some of them need to stay on despite the surge in deployments. By the way, to illustrate, in the period 1953 to 1990, there were 11 deployments of reservists and guards. Between 1991 and 2001, there have been 50 deployments of reservists and guards. Now those numbers are accelerating as we take on this war on terrorism. It is an enormous change in how we are utilizing our Reserve Forces. I hear from the guards and reservists in New Jersey to whom I spoke directly that one of those things they are most interested in is seeing a shortening of the period before they have access to retirement benefits. It will make a big difference in their lives. They consider it important. Enacting this legislation will send a clear message that our Nation values the increased sacrifice of our reservists during this trying time. This proposal has been endorsed by key members of a broad military coalition, including the Reserve Officers Association, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Air Force Association, and Retired Enlisted Association, the Fleet Reserve Association, the Naval Reserve Association, and the National Guard Association. All of the groups that represent these individuals in our system are strongly supporting this initiative. It would restore parity between the Reserves retirement system of our Guard and Reserve and the civilian retirement system, acknowledge the increased workload of reservists, and provide essential personnel with the inducement to join and stay in the Reserves until retirement. I do hope my colleagues will support this amendment. This is the appropriate time given what kind of challenge we are laying down for our National Guard and Reserve across this country. We have increased their responsibilities. We have put severe challenges in front of them and their families, and it is our responsibility, in my view, to recognize that and to address it. I think one of the best ways to do that is to reduce the retirement age for the Reserve and the Guard. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate is considering legislation designed to prohibit discrimination in health insurance and employment based on genetic information. In the last decade, biomedical researchers have made great strides in genetic research. While these discoveries are critical to researching treatments and, ultimately, discovering cures for many diseases, this information also has the potential to be used to deny health care insurance or employment to an individual who has a genetic predisposition to an illness. That is why we must make it illegal for employers and health insurers to discriminate against individuals on the basis of their genetic information. S. 1053 is an important step, but it is only a first step. Any legislation addressing this issue must include strong enforcement and deterrence mechanisms. As this legislation moves forward, I hope its enforcement provisions will be strengthened. Without strong accountability provisions, there is little to deter employers and health insurers from using genetic information inappropriately. In addition, I hope that when this legislation is conferenced, the conferees will find ways to strengthen the privacy provisions. It is essential that our laws keep pace with technological advances and that we continue to protect the privacy of our citizens. Advances in technology cannot place fundamental American rights at risk. Despite my concerns about the enforcement and privacy provisions, I believe this legislation is a critical first step and look forward to working with my colleagues to continue addressing the important issue of genetic discrimination.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the FHA Multifamily Housing Loan Limit Adjustment Act of 2003, that will improve access to affordable housing for families living in high cost areas where there is a shortage of such housing. This bill was introduced earlier this year by Congressmen Gary Miller (R-CA) and Barney Frank (D-MA) and was recently approved by the House Financial Services Committee. The Multifamily Housing Loan Limit Adjustment Act of 2003 is supported by housing and community advocates and has also been endorsed by the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Realtors, the Mortgage Bankers Association, the Manufactured Housing Institute, and the National Affordable Housing Management Association. The Federal Housing Administration's Multifamily Housing programs are among HUD's most successful. The Federal Government has tried a number of different approaches to providing housing over the last 50 years. The most successful of these rely heavily on a public/private partnership that encourages the private sector to produce housing with support from the Federal Government. The FHA mortgage insurance programs have been extremely successful in producing new and rehabilitated housing with little or no cost to the Federal Government. As you know, rising construction costs have resulted in a shortage of moderately priced affordable rental units. Rent increases now exceed inflation in all regions of the country, and new affordable rental units have become increasingly harder to find. Because of the current dollar limits on loans, FHA insurance cannot be used to help finance construction in high-cost urban areas such as the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area, Philadelphia and San Francisco. HUD statistics demonstrate this--in 2002 and 2003, no multifamily loans have been FHA insured in New York City, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Seattle, Massachusetts, or New Jersey. Increasing the limits on loans for rental housing would create more incentives for public/private investment in communities through America and spur the new production of cooperative housing projects, rental housing for the elderly and new construction or substantial rehabilitation of apartments by for- and non-profit entities. The National Association of Home Builders estimates that increasing the limits in high cost areas will allow for an additional 6,000 units of rental housing to be built each year in the cities limited by the current law. These 6,000 units will generate $318 million in new income to the residents and businesses in these cities, $38 million in added revenues to the local governments, and 6,720 new jobs. Over a ten year period, the cumulative effects of the additional building will contribute $9 billion in new income to the cities where the limits currently constrain new rental production. While Congress approved legislation I introduced in 2001 to increase the statutory limits for FHA-insured multifamily project loans to account for inflation, we failed to act on a key provision in my bill to raise the loan limits for high cost areas. I am reintroducing that portion of my bill gain, with the hope that two years later, we can finally achieve the increases we need to make the FHA multifamily programs succeed in all our communities, particularly in those high costs areas that so desperately need additional affordable rental housing. There is currently no HUD program designed to provide rental housing for working families from 60 percent to 100 percent of median income who are unable to find decent, affordable housing near where they work. Yet, the most recent Census data reveals that these working families, including vital municipal workers like teachers and police officers, are increasingly vulnerable and the lack of decent, affordable housing is increasingly being seen as a significant impediment to local economic growth. This is one reason why the FHA multifamily programs are so important. Without this much-needed adjustment to the FHA multifamily loan limits, access to affordable housing for our working-citizens will continue to lag, thousands of more families will join the 14 million people who currently face severe housing needs and our nation's economy will suffer. I hope my Senate colleagues will support the legislation and help ensure that America's working families have access to affordable housing. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Community Economic Development Expertise Enhancement Act of 2003. This regulation would provide funding for nonprofit, community-based economic development organizations and for the establishment of partnerships between these organizations. Most importantly, the legislation would authorize grants to promote the use of mentors to improve the operational capabilities of community-based organizations in the areas of project development, personnel management, legal services, and financial management. These and other eligible uses of the funding would increase the capacity of these organizations to expand community development activities throughout the country. Over the past several decades, our Nation has seen the emergence of community-based organizations that have helped break the cycle of poverty for millions of families. Today, according to the National Congress of Community Economic Development, there are more than 3,600 of these organizations, many of which serve some of our Nation's most economically challenged communities. These include both urban and rural areas, as well as suburban regions. Typically, community development corporations have annual budgets ranging from $200,000 to $500,000 and staffs averaging about six members. Their lack of personnel, expertise and financing often creates real constraints on their ability to make even greater contributions to their community. This legislation would expand our investment in these organizations, and expand their capacity to build homes, create jobs, improve public safety, provide critical social services, increase access to capital, and turn around communities now filled with despair. The bill would serve a wide range of communities with different economic, geographic, and social characteristics. I hope my colleagues will support the bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the FHA Multifamily Housing Loan Limit Adjustment Act of 2003, that will improve access to affordable housing for families living in high cost areas where there is a shortage of such housing. This bill was introduced earlier this year by Congressmen Gary Miller (R-CA) and Barney Frank (D-MA) and was recently approved by the House Financial Services Committee. The Multifamily Housing Loan Limit Adjustment Act of 2003 is supported by housing and community advocates and has also been endorsed by the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Realtors, the Mortgage Bankers Association, the Manufactured Housing Institute, and the National Affordable Housing Management Association. The Federal Housing Administration's Multifamily Housing programs are among HUD's most successful. The Federal Government has tried a number of different approaches to providing housing over the last 50 years. The most successful of these rely heavily on a public/private partnership that encourages the private sector to produce housing with support from the Federal Government. The FHA mortgage insurance programs have been extremely successful in producing new and rehabilitated housing with little or no cost to the Federal Government. As you know, rising construction costs have resulted in a shortage of moderately priced affordable rental units. Rent increases now exceed inflation in all regions of the country, and new affordable rental units have become increasingly harder to find. Because of the current dollar limits on loans, FHA insurance cannot be used to help finance construction in high-cost urban areas such as the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area, Philadelphia and San Francisco. HUD statistics demonstrate this--in 2002 and 2003, no multifamily loans have been FHA insured in New York City, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Seattle, Massachusetts, or New Jersey. Increasing the limits on loans for rental housing would create more incentives for public/private investment in communities through America and spur the new production of cooperative housing projects, rental housing for the elderly and new construction or substantial rehabilitation of apartments by for- and non-profit entities. The National Association of Home Builders estimates that increasing the limits in high cost areas will allow for an additional 6,000 units of rental housing to be built each year in the cities limited by the current law. These 6,000 units will generate $318 million in new income to the residents and businesses in these cities, $38 million in added revenues to the local governments, and 6,720 new jobs. Over a ten year period, the cumulative effects of the additional building will contribute $9 billion in new income to the cities where the limits currently constrain new rental production. While Congress approved legislation I introduced in 2001 to increase the statutory limits for FHA-insured multifamily project loans to account for inflation, we failed to act on a key provision in my bill to raise the loan limits for high cost areas. I am reintroducing that portion of my bill gain, with the hope that two years later, we can finally achieve the increases we need to make the FHA multifamily programs succeed in all our communities, particularly in those high costs areas that so desperately need additional affordable rental housing. There is currently no HUD program designed to provide rental housing for working families from 60 percent to 100 percent of median income who are unable to find decent, affordable housing near where they work. Yet, the most recent Census data reveals that these working families, including vital municipal workers like teachers and police officers, are increasingly vulnerable and the lack of decent, affordable housing is increasingly being seen as a significant impediment to local economic growth. This is one reason why the FHA multifamily programs are so important. Without this much-needed adjustment to the FHA multifamily loan limits, access to affordable housing for our working-citizens will continue to lag, thousands of more families will join the 14 million people who currently face severe housing needs and our nation's economy will suffer. I hope my Senate colleagues will support the legislation and help ensure that America's working families have access to affordable housing. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to discuss my opposition to the voucher provision in the D.C. appropriations bill. Our government promises every child in the United States a free and appropriate public education. The very idea that Federal funds that should be going to our Nation's public schools to fulfill that promise will instead be siphoned away to private schools is of great concern to me. As a product of public schools, and the child of a public school teacher, I am a strong supporter of the public school system. I often say that while we cannot be a Nation of equal outcomes, we can and must be a Nation of equal opportunities. Our public schools are the key to equal opportunity for all American children. Although the voucher program we are discussing today would only impact the District of Columbia, it clearly would have national implications. It is a calculated first step toward broader voucher programs, which would drain resources from our public schools--the very schools that are free and open to all children, and accountable to parents and taxpayers. Simply put, vouchers are not the answer to our educational ills--they are bad education policy driven by ideological goals. Wouldn't our energy be better focused on strengthening our public schools, which can and do succeed with adequate resources? To succeed, schools need high-quality teachers, a rigorous curriculum, high expectations, parental involvement, and effective management. All of these require adequate resources. In 2001, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which was intended to reform public education by establishing high standards for every student, providing Federal incentives to boost low-performing schools, and creating accountability. Unlike vouchers, which even supporters acknowledge would reach only a small fraction of children, No Child Left Behind was intended to implement proven, effective reforms in all schools not just for a few students, but for all students. But the administration and this Congress are not living up to the promise of No Child Left Behind and are underfunding it by over $8 billion. This leaves millions of children behind and places additional burdens on already burdened State and local education budgets. And, on top of underfunding No Child Left Behind, we are now considering giving funds to schools that are not even subject to its provisions. As we know, No Child Left Behind would ensure oversight and accountability, including testing standards and teacher qualification standards. But the voucher program we are considering today does not provide the same system of accountability or oversight of these private schools, nor does it set the same criteria for the very people that will be teaching our children. In fact, this bill allows any private school to apply to participate in the program, but there is no evaluation process before they are accepted to participate. This leaves D.C. children vulnerable to poor- performing schools. I ask proponents of the bill: How can we ask our public schools to fulfill the significant mandates of No Child Left Behind, when we are refusing those schools adequate funds and at the same time giving Federal money to schools that are not even required to abide by many of its mandates? Proponents of the voucher program say that it provides parents with ``choice'' that they do not currently have. This is simply not true. The District of Columbia already offers three alternatives to traditional public schools. First, D.C. has the largest number of public charter schools per capita in the Nation. If we pass this voucher program, these charter schools will remain underfunded. Yet we still want to give private schools money. Second, D.C. has established 15 public transformation schools that have, for the first time ever, succeeded in raising the scores of low- income children in low-performing schools. Again, however, the very programs in these transformation schools that have succeeded are now seeing cuts in funding. Yet we still want to give private schools money. Finally, D.C. allows parents who are not content with their neighborhood school to send their child to out-of-boundary schools that are accountable to public education standards. Yet we still want to give private schools money. If this is not school choice, then what is? Why can't we give these types of schools a chance to succeed rather than undermining them and draining funds from their already successful programs? Proponents of vouchers also claim that the program in this bill is a pilot program and should be given a chance. But Milwaukee and Cleveland both tried to implement a voucher program, and a GAO study of the programs in these two cities found no or little difference in voucher and public school students' performance. Our cities have tried vouchers and have not succeeded. Our children should not be guinea pigs for programs that have simply not been proven effective at raising academic achievement. I am not the only one opposed to this program. My friend and colleague in the House of Representatives, Eleanor Holmes Norton, along with the majority of the D.C. City Council and School Board, also oppose any voucher program. In addition, the residents of the District of Columbia are overwhelmingly opposed to private school vouchers. Let's not turn D.C. into a laboratory for school vouchers. Vouchers are not the solution to improving educational opportunity in D.C. or anywhere else in America. Let's instead focus on fulfilling the promise of No Child Left Behind by fully funding it, and giving our public schools the resources they need to truly succeed.