Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, my amendment is simple. It would block the Department of Education from implementing recent changes in student aid eligibility that will reduce financial aid to college students by billions of dollars starting in the fall of 2004. Let me repeat that-- billions of dollars. These changes come at a time when tuition is rising dramatically, double digits in many of our State schools across the country; just 9 percent in the State of New Jersey. Students and working families are straining to provide the financial wherewithal to access America's promise of access to higher education. This challenge to working Americans has been vividly documented in a feature article in U.S. News & World Report September 8, entitled ``Beyond Their Reach.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. CORZINE. The Federal study has shown that 84,000 kids across this country would be dropped from the Pell grant program itself, completely eliminated.

Mr. CORZINE. The distinguished Senator from Iowa is reading the chart correctly.

Mr. CORZINE. Certainly.

Mr. CORZINE. I thank the President. I will respond to the Senator from Pennsylvania. It is not the U.S. News & World Report calculations. The Congressional Research Service calculated what the impact is. It is a Federal study. The stimulus doesn't come from U.S. News & World Report. It is reporting to the public what some of the changes are. I think it is important that we do what is necessary to make sure higher education is openly available to every student and to every family. That is what the amendment is about. It is very simple. It is not changing the law. It is dealing with an issue of regulation. The Department of Education has chosen to deal with one in 10 years. It is going to change the flow of funds that is made available--Pell grants, loans, and other financial aid--to students across the country. I would be more than happy to provide my own copy of U.S. News & World Report. But they didn't do the analysis. The analysis was done by the Congressional Research Service in a study provided to the Department of Education. I hope we can consider this not on the basis of publications but looking at it from the effective study of some of the Government agencies that have looked at it.

Mr. CORZINE. I wish I were. I wish the Senator from Pennsylvania could make the argument that I could be on that committee. I would be happy to be on that committee.

Mr. CORZINE. It goes through tuition hikes. It goes through how Federal funding for grants and loans has not kept pace with the rise in tuition. It talks about students having to work many additional hours to be able to meet the financial stress. It is a very complete review of what the burden on working families is with regard to paying for higher education and having access to the American promise that provides. I put that into the Record because it sets the framework for what I am talking about with regard to these regulations on financial aid. I will explain these cuts in student aid which I feel are inappropriate for the times, but I think I can show they are totally unfair within the context of what is happening in the real world. This is a case where people in the Department of Education are operating off of information that is dated and is not applicable to the current circumstances. I will take a few minutes to explain the situation, which is not immediately obvious, but it is very clear it undermines access to higher education in a very substantial way. On May 30 of this year, the Department of Education changed the formula for determining eligibility for Pell grants and other types of Federal financial aid. The formula is complex. It looks a lot like a tax return. I guess people have to go to H&R Block to figure it out, but it is very clear what this does. A family starts with their gross income and through a series of calculations subtracts from that their income to calculate what is called the expected family contribution. They start with gross income and subtract away a number of items to get to expected family contribution. As the name implies, this is the amount a family is expected to contribute toward the college education of their child in any given year, at least for those families above $15,000 in gross income--hard- working, middle-class families. Expected family contribution then is subtracted from the cost of education for that year to determine a student's need for the purpose of Federal aid, such as Pell grants. The expected family contribution is also used by many State and private institutions. This is important to understand. This doesn't just apply to Pell grants; it applies to private institutions as well, all kids who are going to school, not in every instance but in most instances. It impacts their ability to get financial aid and basic allocation of financial assistance for both loans and grants across the country. In other words, changes in a student's expected family contribution has direct impact on that student's eligibility for all kinds of financial aid. As a student's expected family contribution goes up, their eligibility for financial aid goes down. As I noted earlier, the way the student's expected family contribution is calculated is similar to the way Federal taxes are calculated. One of those similarities is the fact that you get credit for State and local taxes that you pay. For income tax purposes we call it a deduction, and it reduces the amount of your taxable income. In the financial aid world it is called an allowance, but it works in a similar way. A student's family gets an allowance for paying State and local taxes. This allowance then reduces the amount of their student's expected family contribution. So, as the State and local tax goes up, the student's expected family contribution goes down. The eligibility for financial aid goes up. If the allowance goes down, the opposite happens: A student's family gets less credit for paying State and local taxes and the student is eligible for a smaller amount of financial aid. This gets at the heart of the problem, this issue I am trying to address tonight. The allowance for State and local taxes is not determined for families based on what they pay; it is not individualized; it is determined by the Department of Education, and through publication in the Federal Register they establish those for each and every State. Each year, the Department of Education publishes a table, and the percentage of income that family can deduct from their income as an allowance for paying State and local taxes is established. Until this year, the Department of Education had not changed these allowances in 10 years. Let me repeat: They had not changed these allowances in 10 years. Somehow or another they decided to do it this year but had not done it in 10 years, while State and local taxes are moving up and down in different amounts in all different environments. On May 30 they decided to slash the allowances across the board. I will just show you this chart, show what actually is taking place in many States. I would like to show, for instance in South Carolina, they would argue taxes fell from 7 percent to 3 percent, so they reduced the allowance by 57 percent. If I am reading this correctly, the Presiding Officer, who lives in Missouri--they have gone from 5 percent to 3 percent and they reduced the allowance for Missouri citizens 40 percent, the deduction to change the eligibility for families to access financial aid. You can go through this chart for every State. Local tax allowances were cut in every State but one, Connecticut. Some of those allowances were 100 percent, 50 percent, 80 percent. New Jersey is one of the lucky ones; it was only 14 percent. I see the Senator from Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania's cut was, if I am reading it correctly, 50 percent. It is important that people understand that, again, this is determining financial eligibility of families on a very wide basis. We can talk about each of the States and how much is being cut. Almost every State except, as I suggested, Connecticut has reduced the allowances we have here. The bottom line is students and their families all across America will get less on allowance for State and local taxes next year for purposes of applying for Federal financial aid. I repeat, it also applies for many private institutions and private aid beyond that. As a result, the expected family contribution, what families are expected to contribute, will go up for nearly all American families and students. While the financial aid impact will vary from family to family, it is clear that an increase will reduce aid for many students. I am having a hard time understanding, as I read the newspapers and I hear that State income taxes and local income taxes are going up, why we have decided to implement this today. This is a very hard thing to calculate for a lot of different issues, but one of the places the Department of Education has worked with CRS is with regard to local allowances as they apply to Pell grants. They have acknowledged that there will be 84,000 students across America who will lose their Pell grants entirely. Not everybody is going to lose them. Some are going to lose just a portion of their eligibility. I will go through an example later. We know that for those 84,000, that is a $270 million drop in the amount of financial aid being provided for students in grants across the country. The fact is, if you sum it up for those who are partially participating and all the others, we are talking about billions of dollars. I emphasize, it is not just Pell grants. Listen to the assessment of Bryan Fitzgerald, the Director of the Advisory Committee for Student Financial Assistance, created by Congress to advise it on higher education. Mr. Fitzgerald was quoted in the New York Times on July 18. Asked about whether damage from the Department's action would just affect the Pell Grant Program, Mr. Fitzgerald said: It doesn't stop there. It will have a ripple effect through all the other financial aid programs--State grants, loans and institutional dollars. The cumulative effect will be much larger. Bryan Zucker, president of the Human Resources Capital, in the same New York Times article stated: [I]n aggregate, there's no question that we're talking about a swing of billions of dollars [in financial aid.] I think it is important that we have laid out these facts, that tinkering around with the formula is going to end up undermining the ability of literally hundreds of thousands of middle-class Americans to have access to financial aid grants and loans. It is going to make something that is already very difficult even more troubling, to have access to higher education. I think it is very difficult to understand why we are doing it. Let's put this in the context of what is going on in our States. The Department of Education is reducing the allowance families get for paying State and local taxes. But I think everyone in this Chamber knows State and local taxes are not going down; they are going up. According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, States raised taxes by more than $8 billion in fiscal year 2003 and already plan to enact additional tax increases of over $17 billion for 2004. It is likely through the 2003 and 2004 period that we will see State taxes go up by $25 billion, compared to what the Department is using, where they are saying they are going down. That is before we take into consideration what is happening at the local level, local taxation in many places. I want to use one example. Students and families in Pennsylvania, for example, will have their State and local tax allowance cut from 6 percent to 3 percent. For purposes of this calculation, Pennsylvania families will get 50 percent less credit next year than they did this year. But in fact the senior Senator knows, State taxes are going up in Pennsylvania. In fiscal year 2003 they were raised by $569 million, and in 2004 Pennsylvania is planning more increases. I don't think that is fair to Pennsylvania any more than I think it would be fair in New Jersey. In fact, we have many of the same situations. I think you can go State by State and look at it, look at this possibility. I will not go through each State but I think you can calculate it for every State but Connecticut and you will see there is a loss. State taxes are going up. Local taxes are going up. The only people who do not realize it seem to be the Department of Education. I want working families to have an opportunity at this American dream. I think this needs to be done. I also would cite this article about which I spoke. There is a specific case of a lady named Lynn Caputo of Massachusetts, one of hundreds of thousands of students going through this process about which I spoke. I am not going to read this article. We have a quote here that shows how deeply flawed this is when you apply it to an individual. Ms. Caputo lost a father. By these calculations, she will lose over $1,000 in financial aid next year. Just at the time when her personal situation is changing, taxes are going up in Massachusetts. By these standards of how we deal with expected family contributions, she is doing better than she would have been doing before. It is very hard to understand how that fairness fits with the reality of the world in which we live. Eighty-four thousand students are losing Pell grant loans, and 270 million of them broadens it out to billions of dollars when you take into account all of the other higher education needs. I think we need to do something about this. We can do that without impinging on our budget formulation. That is what my amendment would do. It says the Department of Education cannot use any funds to implement new State and local tax allowances to the extent that they would reduce aid for any student. By the way, there are some technical things about one class of students here or there. But the vast majority are losing. I should note that the amendment is fully offset by provisions to delay the obligation of $200 million in NIH funds until September 30, 2004. As a practical matter, this should have no real impact on their operations or change their needs. We are talking about a serious impact on a broad swath of middle-class Americans having access to financial aid. This isn't partisan. There are Republican States and Democrat States. This is just bureaucracy not keeping up with the times. Let me repeat that they haven't changed these formulas in 10 years. They somehow or other woke up on May 30 and thought we needed to change these formulas. They have not done it for 10 years. Now they are reducing that allowance for taxes at just the time taxes are going up. I don't get it. We are trying to do this in a fiscally sound way by getting an offset. I think we can make a big difference in a very substantial way for a lot of folks. It will not cut Pell grants in any way. I think it will make a big difference in providing access to higher education for kids who are really stretched. I hope the Senate will consider this tomorrow. It really is something that I think goes to the heart of everyone in this Chamber. We are not talking about costing money. We are talking about costing working families in America money. Exhibit 1 [From the U.S. News and World Report, Sept. 8, 2003] Beyond Their Reach (By Rachel Hartigan Shea) In July, administrators of tiny Unity College in Maine tagged 100 fish with vouchers totaling $165,000 in scholarships and other goodies and dumped the finned financial aid into a nearby lake. Nearly 100 students and parents pushed off from shore in canoes, kayaks, and rowboats, all hoping to snag the big one: a fish carrying the $56,800 that would cover four years tuition at the private collage, known for its outdoorsy majors such as aquaculture and forestry. It was a good day to be a smallmouth bass. After seven hours, all but one of the students participating in Unity's first annual ``Fishing for Scholarships'' paddled back empty- handed. Mike Bradford, a sophomore from Bear, Del., reeled in a $50 tuition coupon and a free sea-kayaking trip donated by a local merchant. Nice, but it hardly covered those hefty college bills. A lot of families these days feel as if they're facing college costs without enough funds on the line. Salaries are flat, jobs are scarce, investments haven't fully recovered and savings are tapped out. Financial aid can't seem to keep pace with financial need, and now the Department of Education has tinkered with the financial aid formula to some families' detriment [story, Page 54]. Tuition, particularly at state schools, continues to rise. Families aren't alone in their anxiety: Colleges, too, wonder how they will pay the bills, with endowments down 6 percent last year, the biggest drop since 1974, and 25 states cutting higher education appropriations by as much as 14 percent. Many schools have had to cut classes and sports teams, freeze salaries, and lay off employees to deal with the budget shortfalls. Yes, it looks like a crisis. But before you despair, listen to this: It's still possible to get help paying for college. There's more financial aid money available today than ever before, and more students are getting a piece of it. But the piece is smaller, and it might be in the form of an IOU. It all adds up to a substantial shift in who ends up footing a big chunk of the bill for college: you. ``Students and their families are paying more of the share than they did a decade ago,'' says Donald Heller, senior research associate at the Center for the Study of Higher Education at Penn State. Financial aid was originally designed, of course, to make college affordable for everyone. In 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Higher Education Act which gave colleges government grants to distribute to needy students and established a loan program for the middle class. Seven years later came the debut of the Pell grant, the primary funding mechanism for low-income students. In its early years, the Pell--with a maximum award of $452 based on family income-- covered as much as 84 percent of college costs. But while federal spending on Pell grants has gone up 8 percent since 1991, tuition and fees have increased by 38 percent. The Pell's current maximum of $4,050 covers roughly 39 percent of the average cost of tuition and room and board. And with the White House and Congress eager to limit spending, it's unlikely that the Pell will be raised this year. Gap math. Because of the high cost of grants, the federal government in the late 1970s began turning to loans to fill the gap between federal grants and family need. Two thirds of federal aid now comes in the form of loans. Subsidized Stafford loans allow students with demonstrated need to borrow up to $2,625 their first year ($6,625 for independent students) and more in subsequent years, up to a maximum of $22,265. The government pays the interest--currently 3.42 percent--until the student has been out of school for six months. Students not deemed needy can take out unsubsidized Stafford loans; parents can turn to Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students. Both also boast low rates. It sounds like a pretty good deal. But more loans means more students (who are today outborrowing their parents) are paying the bulk of their college costs. ``The student aid system was based on the parental responsibility to pay for college,'' says Brian Fitzgerald, staff director of the Department of Education's Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. ``Loans mean it's the actual student who is bearing the burden.'' Nationwide, student debt is up 66 percent since 1997. Take Erin Brindell, a 21-year-old from St. Louis. In April, her father, an accountant, took early retirement rather than risk losing his job. Her mother, a teacher who's been fighting cancer, also retired. With Brindell's family income down almost 60 percent from last year, and two other siblings in college (another four have already graduated), the senior asked her school, a private university in Missouri, for more aid. The college said it was out of money and pointed her to a state loan agency. She borrowed $9,700, bringing the grand total of her debt upon graduation next spring to $60,000. Brindell, who is majoring in secondary education, will end up paying for what her family could not, which promises to be a struggle on a teacher's salary. Deep debt. This fall, Congress will consider raising the Stafford loan cap during the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The combination of low interest rates and a higher limit, some education experts argue, will help more students pay for college without resorting to private loans, which generally have higher interest rates and require quicker repayment. But critics respond that the debt load is already too high and looms darkly over students' futures, forcing them to consider majors--and careers--based on potential earnings rather than academic inclination. Some experts suspect a higher loan limit would not translate into more aid: Institutions will just reduce grant aid by the extra amount students can borrow. At the same time that federal policy is influencing the growth of loans at the expense of grants, states are driving up public university prices and accelerating the cost shift to students. State support for universities has been steadily declining over the past two decades. Legislators see that colleges have sources of funds like tuition and private donations that other pressing budgetary needs like primary education and healthcare do not. And the recent fiscal crises have just exacerbated the decline. This year was the third in a row of drastic cuts to university funding nationwide. The Maryland university system lost 14 percent of its budget, while California lost $700 million of the $9 billion it usually spends on higher education. Experts predict an additional 2.3 percent decline next year. And remember this all comes at a time when many states expect higher enrollments. Nevada, for example, is bracing for a 33 percent boom in high school graduates by 2007. So what can the state systems do? Mostly, raise tuition. The tab at the University of Virginia and the University of California shot up 30 percent this year; the University of Arizona's, nearly 40 percent. And many of the increases are on top of previous tuition spikes; 16 states raised tuition by more than 10 percent last year. Of course, state universities are still a bargain for in-state students, almost 70 percent of whom pay less than $8,000 per year. But low-income students can't afford even small jumps in their share of college costs. For the poorest families, the cost of attendance at a public university is more than half their income. And according to a study last year by the Department of Education's Advisory Committee, there is a $3,800 gap between what families in the lower income brackets need to attend public universities and the financial aid they receive. Some states, like Arizona, have tried to shield the neediest students. ``We ran the numbers to see how we can increase tuition and set aside enough to hold the most needy harmless,'' says Jack Jewett, former president of the state's board of regents, who notes that 14 percent of all tuition revenue will be funneled into financial aid. But many states are coming up short. Indiana managed to boost spending but not enough to cover higher tuition, so it will now have to limit the amount of the awards. And Minnesota couldn't give out any grants to new college students last spring, despite an extra $8 million in the budget, because current students had already consumed the available money. ``I think that policymakers are siding with aid programs more than institutions in terms of cuts,'' says Kristin Conklin, a senior policy analyst with the National Governors Association, ``but that relative protection is not translating into more buying power for students.'' Individual universities are exhausting their financial aid dollars as well. Take Penn State: While it raised tuition 9.8 percent to about $9,500 for incoming freshmen, it has lost $45 million in state funding over the past two years. ``Something would have to be traded off, like competitive wages for faculty or forgoing already delayed maintenance on buildings,'' says Anna Griswold, an assistant vice provost. But there may be another significant reason why there's not enough money to go around. Some critics say that too much is being spent on merit aid. Over the past decade, state grants have gone up 447 percent, but much of that is not need-based. Since 1993, the Georgia HOPE Scholarship, the granddaddy of all the state scholarship programs, has doled out more than $1.9 billion to more than 693,000 students with B averages or better in high school. But programs like Georgia's tend to favor middle- and upper-class students whose families probably could afford college without a scholarship. And with several states funding the merit programs through lotteries, a 2002 study by the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University argues that lottery players, who are ``disproportionately low income, poorly educated, and black,'' are paying for the college education of these better-off kids. The study found that 12 states with merit programs gave out nearly three times as much money for those scholarships as they did for need-based aid. Not surprisingly, colleges limit their financial aid bills by being choosy in the admissions game. ``If a student is marginal and has money, his chances of being admitted are better than a student who is marginal and has no money,'' says Robert Massa, vice president for enrollment, student life, and college relations at Dickinson College. That said, the private Pennsylvania school, which finances most of its aid through tuition, enrolled more students this year because the class as a whole was needier. ``Those additional 30 students are helping us afford financial aid to assist the entire student population,'' says Massa. Just a few dozen schools--all of them private--still pledge that a student's financial need won't influence the admissions process and that they'll meet the full need of the students they accept. Trouble is, poorer students are gravitating to the few need-blind colleges that are left. ``Places like Macalester are reaching a point where we have to consider not being need blind,'' says Michael McPherson, the Minnesota college's former president. Looking up. Yet there are bright spots on the horizon. Institutional aid from private universities rose almost 197 percent in the past decade. Schools with generous endowments can purposely keep loans to a minimum. ``A one-year downturn doesn't necessarily severely impact our ability to maintain our [financial aid] policies,'' says Joseph Russo, director of financial aid at Notre Dame. And a group of wealthy schools (called the ``568 Group'' for a section of federal law that allows them to collaborate) are giving out more grant aid this year, having decided to cap home equity at 2.4 times a family's income in its eligibility test. (The federal government does not count home equity when assessing need.) So, those families whose home prices shot up while their salaries stagnated will find themselves with better aid offers. Even Erin Brindell, with her $60,000 debt, isn't gloomy. ``I can't worry too much,'' she says. ``I've had a great college experience.''

Mr. CORZINE. We have a bill that has been submitted. I will check out the number for the senior Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CORZINE. I very much will consider looking at all of the various ways. I think we have legislation pending to be reviewed in that committee. It just so happens this is one of those places where we deal with higher education. It seems quite appropriate since we have a budget-neutral approach both to raise this issue and to make sure we address it now so people can make their financial plans.

Mr. CORZINE. I think the Senator from Pennsylvania has heard me say that the only number I have used specifically is the 84,000 that CRS has estimated would lose all Pell grant assistance, not the full calculation of how many individual students would lose partial benefits on grants and student loans, by way of Stafford loans and other things, which would be much more complex. And that is what they are pointing out.

Mr. CORZINE. The Senator from Pennsylvania is asking me a question. I would just remark that the Education Department indicates that Pell grant costs will be potentially impacted by $270 million or less. And they estimate--the Department of Education--based on the information of the CRS, that 84,000 students would lose eligibility altogether. They did not make an estimate about how many other students would lose partial eligibility, partial coverage. And they made no estimate with regard to how other people in private institutions or State institutions, using the same calculations of allowances for State and local taxes, would do it. Just know it will be quite substantial, not impacting the Federal Government but impacting how student aid is allocated nationally. Now, very clearly, the Education Department accepts the estimation of 84,000 students losing eligibility for Pell grants. It is not U.S. News & World Report. It is their estimate from their own budget service. I think the Senator is looking at the CRS report of June 25, 2003. And that point is made on--let's see if I can help the Senator from Pennsylvania. It is on CRS-8.

Mr. CORZINE. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE. The Senator from Iowa is exactly correct. He is talking about how budget accounting works in the Federal Government, which is a cashflow system. We are in no way trying to undermine the ability of NIH to be effective.

Mr. CORZINE. That is correct. As a matter of fact, I am supportive of what both the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa have done to double NIH funding over a period of time. I will continue to support that. I believe very strongly in it.

Mr. CORZINE. When students have to drop out or are not be able to go, and there is a decreased demand for higher education from students, that would happen. We are losing a major investment in human capital as time goes on. Clearly, universities are hurt. They are having to deal with trying to find other sources of aid, basically trying to find jobs for kids so they can work at the same time they go to school. It seems to me we are being very shortsighted in implementing such a regulation which does not conform with the facts anywhere. It has been talked about broadly, obviously in the media. There have been studies equally by a number of government institutions. I hope the Senate will consider this in the long run best interest of the country. We are not changing the fiscal year for the NIH funding, just delaying the timing.

Mr. CORZINE. This change in regulation is done once in 10 years, by the way, not on a systematic every-year basis looking at what is going on in the States. It will have the potential to affect your students in Iowa or my students in New Jersey and anywhere across the country. The effect is quite substantial, and it also can reduce that amount somebody would be eligible for a Pell grant. So $4,000-plus could be reduced to $2,000. This could be meaningful dollars in grants that are lost to students across this country just at a time, by the way, when tuition is going up 10 percent a year--in that neighborhood--in State universities across the country, at the same time that universities are having to cut back classes because they do not have the resources coming and budgets are being reduced from the State governments. It is a difficult mix of things to be implemented. We ought to act sooner rather than later. That is why we are talking about it now.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, first I wanted to speak on Senator Harkin's amendment with regard to protecting overtime pay for hard- working Americans. I also want to second the efforts Senator Kennedy is making. Both Senators Harkin and Kennedy are giants with regard to protecting hard-working Americans who are under incredible stress in our economy today. I heard Senator Kennedy talk about the people with $15,000 annual incomes who benefit from Pell grants. Tuitions are going up 15, 20 percent across the board. They are 9 percent in New Jersey, so I guess we are doing well at Rutgers. We are not increasing our financial aid at all. The Senator also knows that back in the drawing rooms of the Education Department they are changing the regulations that are reducing the amount of grants and availability of funding for both grants and financial aid for middle-class Americans. It is unbelievable what we are doing to and the pressure we are putting on the American people, the hard-working people who drive this economy. I compliment the Senator on his efforts in raising this issue on higher education. I think what singles out more than almost anything I have heard debated is trying to take away overtime pay for the American people. I am just one individual who believes that the best way to grow our economy is to have rising tides lift all boats, making sure everybody participates in the excellence and the wealth of America. But we are doing everything we can to undermine that for millions of American workers. So I am proud to join Senator Harkin, Senator Kennedy, and all those who want to speak up for those who are making America work. We are talking about the whole of America's economy. We need to put it in the context of what is happening in the American economy. People talk about the stock market going up, rising to the point that we have recouped $2 trillion of $7 trillion lost; but the fact is we have not recouped job one yet during any kind of economic turnaround. Nine million Americans are unemployed today. A million have dropped out-- actually 2 million have stopped looking for jobs. The unemployment rate hovers at 6.2 percent even today. We have heard that unemployment claims went up to 15,000 today, the highest in the last 12 weeks, above the threshold that shows there is weakening job growth in the economy. The average length of unemployment is longer than it has ever been-- 19 weeks. It spiked this summer to the highest level in two decades. Quite honestly, we are seeing the worst employment recession we have had since the Great Depression. It is a real problem for working Americans. And now we are trying to make it really hard on the people who do have jobs. Not only are we not doing addressing unemployment in this country in a real sense, but we are now placing burdens on those who actually are delivering and working every day. I think it is just discouraging to undermine the economic well-being of those who are working, as well as ignoring those who are left out in this jobless recovery we have. Senator Harkin has been so eloquent in talking about this back-to- history view of where we are taking ourselves. Looking at the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act and the 40-hour workweek--one of the highest ones in economically developed countries--nobody is arguing that we ought to change that; we are saying you ought to get time and a half when working overtime, and we should define it in a way that is really meaningful for people who work on hourly wages. I just don't understand the timing. I don't understand the proposition of it. We should be encouraging having resources in the pockets of people who will go out and spend it and drive the economy. When we are talking about how we get jobs growing in this country, people need the ability to create demand. This does the opposite. It just seems hard to understand why we want to strip workers of their right to overtime pay, particularly at a time of economic stress in our economy. American families are the drivers of our economy. It is the vast middle class in this country who are in these jobs. They are not in executive positions. This is not redefining what executive positions are. This is trying to cut away at the bulk of those people who are working on an hourly basis, really providing so much of what is good happening in our economy. These changes mean real losses--on average, 25 percent of annual income--for an estimated 8 million Americans. By the way, if that happens, what does that do to the competitive labor market, or for changes in what is going on? This is about building up the bottom line of corporate America at the expense of working Americans. Again, I go back to rising tides lift all boats and why we want to undermine the economic well-being of policemen, nurses, firefighters, EMTs, and even journalists. Some of us sometimes have trouble with them, but journalists are also folks who would be carved out of this. I have heard Senator Kennedy say--and I am sure Senator Harkin mentioned this before--that so much of this is focused on women in the workplace. It is incredible. We are asking families to have two wage earners so they can make it in today's society, and we have turned the situation into where overtime pay will be taken away from the folks making the sacrifices, trying to get their kids into higher educational environments where they can have access to the American promise. I don't get it. I don't think the American people get it. I think we have to make sure everyone understands this administration, and those who believe they want to so-call ``clarify'' the rules and change them, is really undermining the economic health and welfare of our American middle class--the people who are paying the bills, living their lives within the rules, and doing the right things for everyone. Mr. President, this country deserves better, in my view. I stand fully behind the efforts of Senator Harkin and those who are pushing very hard to block this work rule change that I think undermines the health of our economy and the health and welfare of working Americans in our economy. It is bad and it should not go through. We need to support this amendment that protects working Americans. By the way, that will be good for everybody. That will be good for business, good for creating demand in our society, and I hope we understand we have to look at this on a holistic basis, not on something that just helps special interests and a limited number of folks in our economy. I think we can do a lot to improve our economy. One of the ways to do it is to stop these kinds of actions from taking place. I am proud to stand with Senator Harkin in this effort.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fire Safety Incentive Act of 2003, legislation to improve fire safety and save lives by creating incentives for business owners to install automatic fire sprinkler systems. This bill would classify automatic fire sprinkler systems as five-year property for purposes of depreciation under the Tax Code. In 2001, fire departments across the United States responded to 1.7 million fires. Not including victims from the September 11 terrorist attacks, 3,745 people died in fires, 99 of whom were firefighters. Fires also caused almost 21,000 civilian injuries and $8.9 billion in direct property damage. On average, fire departments respond to a fire every eighteen seconds, with fires breaking out in a structure every sixty seconds and in a residential structure every eighty seconds. Recent tragedies have demonstrated how the lack of effective fire safety precautions can have disastrous consequences. In February, 99 concertgoers were killed when a pyrotechnic display erupted into a fire that devastated the concert venue in the deadliest fire in Rhode Island history. Unfortunately, the building was not equipped with fire sprinklers to respond to the fire. In my home state of New Jersey, a fire on the campus of Seton Hall killed three college students and injured 58 more people. In response to that tragedy, I introduced the Campus Fire Safety Right to Know Act of 2003, S. 1385, which calls for disclosure of fire safety standards and measures with respect to campus buildings. The Fire Safety Incentive Act would go further by providing economic incentives to business owners to install automatic fire sprinkler systems. It is difficult to dispute the effectiveness of sprinklers in controlling fire and saving lives and property. According to the National Fire Prevention Association, over a 10-year period ending in 1998, buildings with fire sprinkler systems were proven safer. There were 60 percent fewer deaths in manufacturing buildings equipped with fire sprinkler systems than in those without. Similarly, in hotels, there were 91 percent fewer deaths in buildings with fire sprinkler systems. In fact, the NPFA has no record of a fire killing more than two people in a public assembly, educational, institutional, or residential building in which a fire sprinkler system was installed and operating properly. The same study showed that property loss from fires was significantly reduced by the presence of fire sprinklers, from a low range of 42 percent in industrial buildings to an impressive high of 70 percent in public assembly occupancies. While the effectiveness of fire sprinkler systems is well established, the major impediment to their widespread use has simply been their cost. Moreover, many State and local governments lack any requirements for structures to contain automatic fire sprinkler systems. This bill would encourage businesses to install fire sprinkler systems by creating tax incentives to do so. Under the current Tax Code, assets are classified under different schedules of depreciation. The often-employed ``straight-line'' depreciation method uses an average deduction from year-to-year for 39 years. This legislation allows businesses to classify sprinklers under a 5-year schedule, creating a meaningful tax incentive to install automated sprinkler systems. This legislation would save lives and prevent many tragedies. I hope my colleagues will support it, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, every two minutes a woman is sexually assaulted in the United States, and an estimated 25,000 annually will become pregnant as a result of rape. Though there is widespread consensus in the medical community that emergency contraception is a safe and effective means of preventing pregnancy after unprotected intercourse, studies indicate that many hospitals still do not provide emergency contraception to rape survivors. That is why today, along with my colleagues Senators Kerry, Murray, Durbin, Lautenberg, and Cantwell, I am introducing the Compassionate Assistance in Rape Emergencies Act, or CARE Act, which will ensure that women who are survivors of sexual assault have access to and information about emergency contraception regardless of where they receive medical care. Emergency Contraceptive Pills (ECPs) are the most commonly used method of emergency contraception. ECPs are birth control pills taken in larger doses that can reduce a woman's risk of becoming pregnant by up to 95 percent when taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse. I want to be clear that emergency contraception does not cause abortion. Instead, emergency contraception works by inhibiting ovulation or fertilization, or by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg before a pregnancy can occur. Despite the documented benefits of emergency contraception, many hospitals neglect their responsibility to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault survivors. For example, a survey of emergency rooms in New York State found that 54 percent did not consistently provide emergency contraception to women who had been raped. In Pennsylvania, only 28 percent of hospitals routinely offer and provide emergency contraception to sexual assault survivors. In short, survivors of sexual assault are not consistently getting access to all the treatment options available to them to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. I believe it is unacceptable that a rape victim's access to standard care depends on the hospital to which she is taken. All healthcare institutions that counsel or treat women who have been raped should consistently inform, provide or meaningfully refer women for emergency contraception. Indeed, the emergency care standards of the American Medical Association recommend that rape survivors seeking medical care be counseled about their risk of pregnancy and offered emergency contraception. The legislation, which is identical to legislation recently introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives James Greenwood and Steven Rothman, would require hospitals that receive federal funds to offer information about and access to emergency contraception for victims of rape. This commonsense legislation will help ensure that women who have survived a heinous sexual attack will have access to comprehensive and compassionate emergency medical care. We must not sit idly by while so many sexual assault victims are not given the opportunity to safely and effectively prevent a pregnancy caused by their assault. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this effort to help sexual assault victims across the country receive the medical care they need and deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, every two minutes a woman is sexually assaulted in the United States, and an estimated 25,000 annually will become pregnant as a result of rape. Though there is widespread consensus in the medical community that emergency contraception is a safe and effective means of preventing pregnancy after unprotected intercourse, studies indicate that many hospitals still do not provide emergency contraception to rape survivors. That is why today, along with my colleagues Senators Kerry, Murray, Durbin, Lautenberg, and Cantwell, I am introducing the Compassionate Assistance in Rape Emergencies Act, or CARE Act, which will ensure that women who are survivors of sexual assault have access to and information about emergency contraception regardless of where they receive medical care. Emergency Contraceptive Pills (ECPs) are the most commonly used method of emergency contraception. ECPs are birth control pills taken in larger doses that can reduce a woman's risk of becoming pregnant by up to 95 percent when taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse. I want to be clear that emergency contraception does not cause abortion. Instead, emergency contraception works by inhibiting ovulation or fertilization, or by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg before a pregnancy can occur. Despite the documented benefits of emergency contraception, many hospitals neglect their responsibility to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault survivors. For example, a survey of emergency rooms in New York State found that 54 percent did not consistently provide emergency contraception to women who had been raped. In Pennsylvania, only 28 percent of hospitals routinely offer and provide emergency contraception to sexual assault survivors. In short, survivors of sexual assault are not consistently getting access to all the treatment options available to them to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. I believe it is unacceptable that a rape victim's access to standard care depends on the hospital to which she is taken. All healthcare institutions that counsel or treat women who have been raped should consistently inform, provide or meaningfully refer women for emergency contraception. Indeed, the emergency care standards of the American Medical Association recommend that rape survivors seeking medical care be counseled about their risk of pregnancy and offered emergency contraception. The legislation, which is identical to legislation recently introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives James Greenwood and Steven Rothman, would require hospitals that receive federal funds to offer information about and access to emergency contraception for victims of rape. This commonsense legislation will help ensure that women who have survived a heinous sexual attack will have access to comprehensive and compassionate emergency medical care. We must not sit idly by while so many sexual assault victims are not given the opportunity to safely and effectively prevent a pregnancy caused by their assault. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this effort to help sexual assault victims across the country receive the medical care they need and deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fire Safety Incentive Act of 2003, legislation to improve fire safety and save lives by creating incentives for business owners to install automatic fire sprinkler systems. This bill would classify automatic fire sprinkler systems as five-year property for purposes of depreciation under the Tax Code. In 2001, fire departments across the United States responded to 1.7 million fires. Not including victims from the September 11 terrorist attacks, 3,745 people died in fires, 99 of whom were firefighters. Fires also caused almost 21,000 civilian injuries and $8.9 billion in direct property damage. On average, fire departments respond to a fire every eighteen seconds, with fires breaking out in a structure every sixty seconds and in a residential structure every eighty seconds. Recent tragedies have demonstrated how the lack of effective fire safety precautions can have disastrous consequences. In February, 99 concertgoers were killed when a pyrotechnic display erupted into a fire that devastated the concert venue in the deadliest fire in Rhode Island history. Unfortunately, the building was not equipped with fire sprinklers to respond to the fire. In my home state of New Jersey, a fire on the campus of Seton Hall killed three college students and injured 58 more people. In response to that tragedy, I introduced the Campus Fire Safety Right to Know Act of 2003, S. 1385, which calls for disclosure of fire safety standards and measures with respect to campus buildings. The Fire Safety Incentive Act would go further by providing economic incentives to business owners to install automatic fire sprinkler systems. It is difficult to dispute the effectiveness of sprinklers in controlling fire and saving lives and property. According to the National Fire Prevention Association, over a 10-year period ending in 1998, buildings with fire sprinkler systems were proven safer. There were 60 percent fewer deaths in manufacturing buildings equipped with fire sprinkler systems than in those without. Similarly, in hotels, there were 91 percent fewer deaths in buildings with fire sprinkler systems. In fact, the NPFA has no record of a fire killing more than two people in a public assembly, educational, institutional, or residential building in which a fire sprinkler system was installed and operating properly. The same study showed that property loss from fires was significantly reduced by the presence of fire sprinklers, from a low range of 42 percent in industrial buildings to an impressive high of 70 percent in public assembly occupancies. While the effectiveness of fire sprinkler systems is well established, the major impediment to their widespread use has simply been their cost. Moreover, many State and local governments lack any requirements for structures to contain automatic fire sprinkler systems. This bill would encourage businesses to install fire sprinkler systems by creating tax incentives to do so. Under the current Tax Code, assets are classified under different schedules of depreciation. The often-employed ``straight-line'' depreciation method uses an average deduction from year-to-year for 39 years. This legislation allows businesses to classify sprinklers under a 5-year schedule, creating a meaningful tax incentive to install automated sprinkler systems. This legislation would save lives and prevent many tragedies. I hope my colleagues will support it, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I will vote against the free-trade agreements, and I want to take a few minutes to explain why. Having spent many years in the financial world, I understand the tremendous value of trade to America and to nations around the world. Free and open trade can enhance prosperity, create jobs, and increase opportunity. That is why I supported the North American Free Trade Agreement before I came to the Senate. And it is why I supported the free-trade agreement with Jordan. Measures like these held the promise of greater economic growth to the benefit of citizens in all countries involved and represented a growing movement toward freer trade around the globe. Yet in recent years, we have seen a serious deterioration of the trade situation here in the United States, and our Nation's trade deficit has grown dramatically. The current account deficit in the first quarter of this year increased to more than $136 billion, and many project that it will surpass $500 billion this year. That means that every day, we are being forced to borrow nearly $2 billion because of our trade imbalance. That is a serious problem, and it is simply unsustainable. Something is not right with our ability to export American goods and services, but particularly manufactured products. Beyond the enormity of the trade deficit, American businesses increasingly are shipping jobs overseas. Not just low-skilled jobs, but professional, highly skilled and well paid jobs. That is one reason the so-called economic recovery touted by the Bush administration has widely been characterized as a jobless recovery. In fact, it is worse than a jobless recovery, it is a job-killing recovery. And while workers in this country are losing jobs, our trade policy is helping to create jobs overseas. Today, many American firms are outsourcing high- technology jobs to low-wage environments to the detriment of American workers. Sadly, this troubling trend has not received enough attention here in Washington. It is a matter affecting millions of Americans who are looking for work--well-paying, upwardly mobile work. And, I believe, it requires a serious rethinking of our Nation's whole approach to trade. Unfortunately, the trade agreements considered last night failed to address this problem, and I have many concerns about them. For example, I am quite concerned about provisions in the agreements that effectively overturn U.S. immigration laws and allow thousands of foreigners to enter our country to take what will often be highly paid positions. These people will take jobs away from Americans who want them and need them. And it is especially disturbing that such a significant change in immigration laws is being included in a trade agreement. As I see it, immigration is the type of matter that deserves close attention here in the Congress, with a full opportunity for debate. It is not something that should be rammed through without any meaningful opportunity for amendment or public input. I also am concerned about the inadequacy of the labor protections, included in thee agreements. Mr. President, I supported the Jordan Free Trade Agreement in part because it recognized the importance of protecting worker rights. That agreement ensured that both nations adhere to internationally recognized worker protection standards, and that worker rights could be enforced. It also ensured that labor standards were subject to the same procedural protections as the other provisions of the agreement. The Chilean and Singapore agreements fail to meet that standard. To the contrary, the labor protections in these agreements are not only much more narrowly defined--essentially dependent on the laws of the respective countries--but enforcement of those protections is much more limited, as well. For example, not all violations of labor laws could be enforced through the agreements--only those that are ``sustained.'' Also, there are strict limits on the amount of fines and sanctions that are authorized in the case of labor violations, unlike violations of other provisions in the agreement. This disparity in the treatment of labor and commercial violations, in my view is wrong. Mr. President, I am concerned that the labor provisions in these agreements, and other similar provisions relating to environmental protection, will serve as a template for other trade agreements already under discussion. As I see it, the Administration would be making a serious mistake if it uses these provisions as a model for future agreements. I hope that will not happened. Mr. President, the types of commercial, labor and environmental issues addressed in these agreements are critical to the future of our nation, our economy, and millions of American workers. Yet, again, we are debating these agreements under expedited procedures that allow for every little debate and no amendments. In effect, while jobs continue to be sent abroad and millions struggle unsuccessfully to find work, the American people are being shut out of the process. In my view, that is not the right way to conduct the people's business. Mr. President, I recognize that these agreements have, in fact been approved. But I would urge my colleagues, before we continue along the same theme path as we develop other similar agreements, let us take a step back and rethink our nation's whole approach to trade, Something is seriously wrong when America is hemorrhaging dollors and hemorrhaging jobs. We need to change course. And continuing blindly with a failed approach would be a dereliction of our responsibility to protect America's economy and America's workers. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to address these issues in the months and years ahead.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to honor the magnificent life, and the legacy, of Celia Cruz, and to introduce legislation to award her posthumously our Nation's highest civilian award, the Congressional Gold Medal. This award would be an appropriate tribute to Ms. Cruz's life, given her innumerable accomplishments in the world of entertainment, her work as an ambassador of Latino culture, and her many contributions to American society. Celia de la Caridad Cruz Alonso was born on October 21 during the 1920's. She died on July 17, 2003, at her home in Fort Lee, NJ. Over a prolific 50-year career as an entertainer, Celia Cruz, the ``Queen of Salsa,'' recorded more than 50 albums. Each was a showcase of her talent, flair, and the passion she brought to her work. Her collaborative efforts ranged from work with legendary salsa artist Tito Puente, pop star David Byrne, and hip-hop producer Wyclef Jean. Through those cross-cultural efforts, Cruz's music reached over four generations of fans, and helped break down ethnic and cultural barriers. Celia Cruz's gifts as an entertainer were recognized throughout the world, and she won hundreds of awards, most notably a 1990 Grammy Award and Billboard Magazine's ``Lifetime Achievement Award'' in 1995. In 1994, Ms. Cruz was recognized by President Clinton with a National Endowment of the Arts award. While best known for her work as an entertainer, Celia Cruz was much more than a singer to her fans, especially to Latinos in America. She touched the lives of millions. The outpouring of sorrow that accompanied the news of her passing underscores that point. More than 100,000 people turned out to pay their respect, and honor the memory of Celia Cruz at her wake in Miami, FL. More than 75,000 people lined the streets of Manhattan--some crying, many singing and fondly recalling Ms. Cruz's life--as her funeral procession made its way from the St. Patrick's Cathedral. The enormous outpouring of support that accompanied news of the death of Celia Cruz provides some indication about the special nature of this amazing woman. Her story is that of a girl from meager means in Havana, Cuba who eventually grew up to become a ``queen.'' Celia Cruz was one of 14 children raised in Havana's Santa Suarez district. As a child, she could be heard by neighbors as she sung her siblings to sleep. She received her first award in a competition on the talent show La Hora Del Te on Radio Garcia Serra, in which she won first prize. Her first break came in 1950 when she took over as the lead singer with Cuba's Sonora Matancera. Cruz's first recording was a 78 rpm single released with Sonora Matancera in January 1951, entitled ``Cao Cao Mani Picao''. On July 15, 1960, Cruz and members of her band fled Cuba for the United States, to escape the regime of Fidel Castro. They were able to get out by convincing Castro's officials that the group was simply going on another tour abroad. Enraged by the singer's choice to pursue freedom, Castro never forgave Cruz for this and refused to let Celia return to Cuba--even as her mother was sick and when her father passed away. In the 60's, Celia Cruz and Pedro Knight, her husband and a member of the band, decided to make America their permanent home and Celia Cruz became a citizen of the United States. During that time, Celia Cruz transformed from a gifted, charismatic Cuban-American singer to a woman who would become the ``Queen of Salsa.'' In 1966, she teamed up with the legendary Tito Puente and together they released eight albums. Although her classic style, the origins of salsa, did not immediately appeal to Latin youth during the 1960's, Celia Cruz returned with a vengeance after a stint in the Operetta ``Hommy,'' in the early 1970's. By 1973, Latin pride had begun to take hold in American cities with large Latino communities--particularly in New York, New Jersey and Florida. In New York, Latin musicians had begun to mix classical musical styles from Puerto Rico, such as Bomba and Plena, with classical musical styles from Cuba, such as Mambo and Son, combining them with the trombone for a more urban sound. This combination created what is now known as salsa--and Celia Cruz was a pioneer of the genre. Ms. Cruz signed with Fania Records, one of the major salsa record labels of the time, and in the summer of '74 released Celia & Johnny, the first in a series of collaborations with Johnny Pacheco. Building upon the success of these albums, Cruz then recorded albums with other top leaders on the Fania roster, like Willie Colon, Papo Lucca and Ray Barretto, whose bands each had their own trademark sound. She toured with the Fania until 1988. While Latin music has historically been predominately dominated by male artists the talent of Celia Cruz could not be ignored. Her flamboyant clothing, charismatic presence, proud voice and her trademark ``Azuuuuuuuuuuuuucar!'' tag line became legendary. In addition to her lucrative recording career, Cruz also had roles in several American films such as Salsa, the Mambo Kings and the Perez Family. She was a true pioneer. As I mentioned earlier, Celia Cruz received hundreds of awards as a result of her contributions to music, most notable the Grammy Award and the National Endowment of the Arts Award from President Clinton. Her contributions to society and her contributions to Latino culture have also been well recognized. Among those the Presidential Medal in Arts from the Republic of Colombia and the Hispanic Heritage Award's Lifetime Achievement Award. Other notable recognitions bestowed upon Ms. Cruz include an honorary Doctorate of Music from Yale, a star on Hollywood's ``Walk of Fame,'' and the keys to the cities of Union City, NJ; Miami, FL; Dallas, TX; and New York City. Those recognitions are all noteworthy, and the life of Celia Cruz warrants each and every one of them. But of the hundreds of awards won by Celia Cruz, there is one award that she did not receive, but most certainly deserves the Congressional Gold Medal. This award is considered our Nation's highest civilian honor, and has been awarded to a rare and esteemed group of individuals. Notable recipients include George Washington, Sir Winston Churchill, Bob Hope, Robert Frost, Joe Louis, Mother Teresa, and most recently Tony Blair. The standards for considering legislation authorizing Congressional Gold Medal state that, among other things, ``the recipient shall have performed an achievement that has an impact on American history and culture that is likely to be recognized as a major achievement in the recipient's field long after that achievement.'' Celia Cruz, music pioneer and the acknowledged ``Queen of Salsa,'' certainly fits the criteria to receive the Congressional Gold Medal. Celia Cruz, ambassador of Latin culture, impassioned voice of freedom, and American is what the Congressional Gold Medal is about. This award would properly honor the legacy, and the life, of Celia Cruz. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to honor the magnificent life, and the legacy, of Celia Cruz, and to introduce legislation to award her posthumously our Nation's highest civilian award, the Congressional Gold Medal. This award would be an appropriate tribute to Ms. Cruz's life, given her innumerable accomplishments in the world of entertainment, her work as an ambassador of Latino culture, and her many contributions to American society. Celia de la Caridad Cruz Alonso was born on October 21 during the 1920's. She died on July 17, 2003, at her home in Fort Lee, NJ. Over a prolific 50-year career as an entertainer, Celia Cruz, the ``Queen of Salsa,'' recorded more than 50 albums. Each was a showcase of her talent, flair, and the passion she brought to her work. Her collaborative efforts ranged from work with legendary salsa artist Tito Puente, pop star David Byrne, and hip-hop producer Wyclef Jean. Through those cross-cultural efforts, Cruz's music reached over four generations of fans, and helped break down ethnic and cultural barriers. Celia Cruz's gifts as an entertainer were recognized throughout the world, and she won hundreds of awards, most notably a 1990 Grammy Award and Billboard Magazine's ``Lifetime Achievement Award'' in 1995. In 1994, Ms. Cruz was recognized by President Clinton with a National Endowment of the Arts award. While best known for her work as an entertainer, Celia Cruz was much more than a singer to her fans, especially to Latinos in America. She touched the lives of millions. The outpouring of sorrow that accompanied the news of her passing underscores that point. More than 100,000 people turned out to pay their respect, and honor the memory of Celia Cruz at her wake in Miami, FL. More than 75,000 people lined the streets of Manhattan--some crying, many singing and fondly recalling Ms. Cruz's life--as her funeral procession made its way from the St. Patrick's Cathedral. The enormous outpouring of support that accompanied news of the death of Celia Cruz provides some indication about the special nature of this amazing woman. Her story is that of a girl from meager means in Havana, Cuba who eventually grew up to become a ``queen.'' Celia Cruz was one of 14 children raised in Havana's Santa Suarez district. As a child, she could be heard by neighbors as she sung her siblings to sleep. She received her first award in a competition on the talent show La Hora Del Te on Radio Garcia Serra, in which she won first prize. Her first break came in 1950 when she took over as the lead singer with Cuba's Sonora Matancera. Cruz's first recording was a 78 rpm single released with Sonora Matancera in January 1951, entitled ``Cao Cao Mani Picao''. On July 15, 1960, Cruz and members of her band fled Cuba for the United States, to escape the regime of Fidel Castro. They were able to get out by convincing Castro's officials that the group was simply going on another tour abroad. Enraged by the singer's choice to pursue freedom, Castro never forgave Cruz for this and refused to let Celia return to Cuba--even as her mother was sick and when her father passed away. In the 60's, Celia Cruz and Pedro Knight, her husband and a member of the band, decided to make America their permanent home and Celia Cruz became a citizen of the United States. During that time, Celia Cruz transformed from a gifted, charismatic Cuban-American singer to a woman who would become the ``Queen of Salsa.'' In 1966, she teamed up with the legendary Tito Puente and together they released eight albums. Although her classic style, the origins of salsa, did not immediately appeal to Latin youth during the 1960's, Celia Cruz returned with a vengeance after a stint in the Operetta ``Hommy,'' in the early 1970's. By 1973, Latin pride had begun to take hold in American cities with large Latino communities--particularly in New York, New Jersey and Florida. In New York, Latin musicians had begun to mix classical musical styles from Puerto Rico, such as Bomba and Plena, with classical musical styles from Cuba, such as Mambo and Son, combining them with the trombone for a more urban sound. This combination created what is now known as salsa--and Celia Cruz was a pioneer of the genre. Ms. Cruz signed with Fania Records, one of the major salsa record labels of the time, and in the summer of '74 released Celia & Johnny, the first in a series of collaborations with Johnny Pacheco. Building upon the success of these albums, Cruz then recorded albums with other top leaders on the Fania roster, like Willie Colon, Papo Lucca and Ray Barretto, whose bands each had their own trademark sound. She toured with the Fania until 1988. While Latin music has historically been predominately dominated by male artists the talent of Celia Cruz could not be ignored. Her flamboyant clothing, charismatic presence, proud voice and her trademark ``Azuuuuuuuuuuuuucar!'' tag line became legendary. In addition to her lucrative recording career, Cruz also had roles in several American films such as Salsa, the Mambo Kings and the Perez Family. She was a true pioneer. As I mentioned earlier, Celia Cruz received hundreds of awards as a result of her contributions to music, most notable the Grammy Award and the National Endowment of the Arts Award from President Clinton. Her contributions to society and her contributions to Latino culture have also been well recognized. Among those the Presidential Medal in Arts from the Republic of Colombia and the Hispanic Heritage Award's Lifetime Achievement Award. Other notable recognitions bestowed upon Ms. Cruz include an honorary Doctorate of Music from Yale, a star on Hollywood's ``Walk of Fame,'' and the keys to the cities of Union City, NJ; Miami, FL; Dallas, TX; and New York City. Those recognitions are all noteworthy, and the life of Celia Cruz warrants each and every one of them. But of the hundreds of awards won by Celia Cruz, there is one award that she did not receive, but most certainly deserves the Congressional Gold Medal. This award is considered our Nation's highest civilian honor, and has been awarded to a rare and esteemed group of individuals. Notable recipients include George Washington, Sir Winston Churchill, Bob Hope, Robert Frost, Joe Louis, Mother Teresa, and most recently Tony Blair. The standards for considering legislation authorizing Congressional Gold Medal state that, among other things, ``the recipient shall have performed an achievement that has an impact on American history and culture that is likely to be recognized as a major achievement in the recipient's field long after that achievement.'' Celia Cruz, music pioneer and the acknowledged ``Queen of Salsa,'' certainly fits the criteria to receive the Congressional Gold Medal. Celia Cruz, ambassador of Latin culture, impassioned voice of freedom, and American is what the Congressional Gold Medal is about. This award would properly honor the legacy, and the life, of Celia Cruz. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this amendment addresses one of the most serious security threats facing the American people. As I will indicate later, this is not an assertion I make alone but an assertion made by a broad range of security experts, including the Secretary of Homeland Security: the threat of a terrorist attack on our Nation's chemical facilities. There are literally thousands of chemical producers, refineries, and similar facilities throughout the United States where the release of chemicals can kill or injure literally tens of thousands and, in many instances, millions of Americans through exposure to highly toxic gases. That is why these facilities are potentially so attractive to terrorists. That is why security officials indicate that point. From a practical viewpoint, often these facilities are located in the most densely populated communities across our Nation. The legacies of the great era of American manufacturing were practiced in our urban communities and continue to be in many instances today. New Jersey happens to be one of those communities that is densely populated--it is the most densely populated State in the Nation, and many of these facilities with exposures to over 1 million people are located in my State. Unfortunately, there are currently no Federal security standards for chemical facilities, none. So the private sector has been left to do as it sees appropriate on a completely voluntary basis. There are some very positive actions by some in the industry to make sure that security and safety at the plants is attended to. There are good standards being promoted by trade associations. But far too many of the facilities across this country have not stepped up to meet their responsibilities. Far too many continue to be vulnerable to attack. Time after time we have seen press reports and other indications that our chemical facilities are not properly secure, and there has been very little effort to improve the safety of the processing in many plants. Put literally, millions of Americans are at risk. A recent report by the conference board, by the way, that confirms this shows there has been a very limited increase in expenditures at publicly held companies in this country. Less than 4 percent at the median, and very little, according to many of the anecdotal pieces of information we have been able to find with regard to chemical plants. According to the EPA, there are 123 facilities in 24 States where a chemical release could expose more than 1 million people to highly toxic chemicals. There are about 750 facilities in 39 States where a chemical release could expose more than 100,000 people to these chemicals. Thirty-nine States have that kind of exposure. I have with me a map that shows how many of these facilities are located in each State. This really is a broad-based national issue. There are nearly 3,000 facilities spread across 49 States where a chemical release could expose more than 10,000 people. These are staggering numbers representing a broad vulnerability across America. The consequences of an attack on a chemical plant are potentially horrific, and it is hard for any of us to even imagine. Think back to 1983 in Bhopal, India, where over 3,000 people died and innumerable injuries and problems in health still linger today. I would argue that our Nation appears to be in denial about this problem. If anything, September 11 taught us that we cannot avoid thinking about the unthinkable. We have to face up to the Nation's most serious vulnerabilities. We have to focus on them and confront them head on. If we look at what has been identified by security experts and the people at the Department of Homeland Security, we will draw that conclusion. I repeat one of the statistics I mentioned: There are 123 chemical facilities around our Nation that could threaten more than 1 million American lives in their immediate vicinity. To bring this home, there are eight of these facilities in my home State of New Jersey, one that has the potential to expose over 8 million people in the Greater New Jersey-New York region with a toxic cloud. Think about that, 8 million people located smack dab in the middle of one of the most densely populated areas in our country. These facilities pose a severe threat to public safety. They have serious weapons that could be used against the American people and cause massive injuries and death. Loaded with chemicals such as chlorine, ammonia, and hydrogen fluoride, chemicals that serve an important industrial function, they could be instantly transformed into a weapon of mass destruction at the hands of a terrorist. I am not arguing that many are not doing what they are supposed to be doing. I see great activity about security and safety in many of the pharmaceutical plants in New Jersey. There are many who are not stepping up to the plate to make sure the public is protected, and this is not just my opinion. Again, it has been documented by experts in the administration and the like. On March 18, the General Accounting Office issued a new report on this matter. GAO found that chemical facilities may be attractive targets for terrorists because of the extent of harm they could inflict. If one is trying to find a way to seriously impact broad numbers of the population, this is how GAO says terrorists might actually accomplish that. GAO goes on to say: There are no Federal laws requiring chemical facilities to assess vulnerabilities, to take action, to safeguard against these attacks. GAO recommended that the Department of Homeland Security and the EPA jointly develop a strategy, including legislative proposal, to address the threats of attacks on chemical facilities. The GAO report was released on March 18 of this year, but only one month earlier the Department of Homeland Security itself sounded the alarm about the threat facing chemical facilities. In the bulletin issued on February 12 of this year, when we moved to code orange, the Department stated: Al-Qaida operatives also may attempt to launch conventional attacks against U.S. nuclear/chemical-industrial infrastructure to cause contamination, disruption and terror. In our releases to our own people across this country, we identify this as a vulnerability. We ask our local law enforcement to protect the American people. Based on information, nuclear power plants and industrial chemical plants remain viable targets. Now I go back to October 6 of last year. On that day, Homeland Security Secretary Ridge and EPA Administrator Whitman had a letter of theirs published in the Washington Post. In that letter they stated: The Bush administration is committed to reducing the vulnerability of America's chemical facilities to terrorist attack and is working to enact bipartisan legislation that would require such facilities to address their vulnerabilities. That was on October 6 last year. I think this is July 23. The letter goes on to state: We applaud the voluntary efforts some in the industry have undertaken-- By the way, I do as well-- but we believe that every one of the 15,000 chemical facilities nationwide that contain large quantities of hazardous chemicals must be required to take the steps the industry leaders are taking at their facilities: performing comprehensive vulnerability assessments and then acting to reduce those vulnerabilities. Yet in spite of all of these public acknowledgments, comments and statements, we still have not been able to enact chemical security legislation. I introduced a bill back in October of 2001, and did a lot of compromising with a lot of folks on the EPW committee, addressing industry concerns. We reported out a bill 19 to 0. I reintroduced that legislation in this Congress. In April, I offered the bill with further modifications as an amendment to the Defense supplemental appropriations bill. The amendment was defeated on a point of order. In that bill, I actually included additional funds to help facilitate putting in security elements to make sure industry believed we were working as partners to accomplish it. I will not be offering that legislation on this appropriations bill. I know it would be subject to a point of order. But I simply cannot let this legislation go through without drawing attention to an issue that just lingers and lingers. For the people of the State of New Jersey, and I know in all of these other States that I just talked about, this is a serious risk as we go forward. In that regard, I want to commend Senator Byrd for recognizing the importance of this issue and including chemical security as a priority in his amendment yesterday. More than any other Senator, the senior Senator from West Virginia has consistently demanded that we do more on homeland security than talk about it. So I thank him for his leadership on homeland security in general, and more specifically for his attention to chemical plant security. The amendment Senator Edwards and I are offering today is the chemical security portion of Senator Byrd's amendment. It appropriates $80 million for the Department to conduct vulnerability assessments at chemical facilities--simple, with none of the other stuff that is such an onerous problem for the industry. Just get an assessment of what the risks are. We would not tolerate this with our nuclear plants in this country. We check them out all the time. We have a whole infrastructure to do it. We have these plants located--again, 123 right in the middle of our most vulnerable areas, our most densely populated areas. This $80 million is the amount the Congressional Budget Office has estimated it will cost to conduct vulnerability assessments nationwide. Some have questioned whether we should legislate this as a priority. They argue that we have funds in the bill that could be used for this purpose and that we should let the Department identify infrastructure priorities as they see fit. That certainly does not jibe with the language I have heard Secretary Ridge, EPA Director Whitman, the GAO, and others talk about, and I would respond that chemical plants have consistently been identified by every security expert and leader as a top priority. They must be addressed. Last week, Rand Beers, who until recently was a senior director for combating terrorism on the Bush administration National Security Council, was asked the following question: When we think about homeland security, what specifically concerns you? To which Mr. Beers replied: We have looked at the chemical industries around the country and have a very serious concern. There are a number of these plants in locations around the country where an explosion would create a catastrophic result which could approximate the World Trade Center. These are areas where we need the Federal Government to give the chemical industry the guidelines that are necessary in order to protect those plants, because for the plants to simply do it on their own is going to create a great disadvantage to those who do and an advantage to those who don't because it will cost money. So it ought to be evened out across the industry. I wish I had been as articulate as Mr. Beers. That is exactly what we need to be doing. By the way, it is unfair for those who are actually dealing with the problem relative to those who walk away from their responsibility in their communities. Chemical plants were the first thing on Mr. Beers' list, and we have done nothing to address this threat. I think it is appropriate that we deal with it and give direction to the Department in this regard. This amendment, which would fund vulnerability assessments, is a positive step. It is one that we ought to take today. I also want to make it clear it is a first step, and we need to do more. After we appropriate these funds, we will still have the task of passing authorizing legislation to assure appropriate security standards and accountability mechanisms are put in place, as Mr. Beers alluded to in his comments. We just have to get moving on this issue. Earlier in the year, Senator Inhofe introduced his own bill on chemical plant security. There is much in that bill that I find positive. It does not go far enough, in my view, but it is a good first step. It is a great place to start. We need to get moving on this issue. We have people exposed to vulnerability that almost everyone recognizes and identifies. I think we need to get moving in the Congress, and I think the administration needs to step forward also. Despite consistent statements in support of the concept of the legislation, it has not been pushed as a priority on the agenda. So I am calling on the President and Secretary Ridge to move on this issue. My goal is to truly develop bipartisan legislation, an effective approach that deals with the real vulnerability that we have; one that can move through this body and the House and be signed into law. For now, as a first step toward securing chemical plants, I urge my colleagues to support this simple amendment which will provide $80 million to the Department of Homeland Security to conduct vulnerability assessments at chemical plants. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.