Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Terrorist Victim Citizenship Relief Act, a bill that would provide citizenship relief to many families adversely affected by the attacks of September 11, 2001. In the time since that tragic day, I have met with several of the families of the victims of the terrorist attacks to discuss a variety of measures in the wake of that national calamity. They have been dealing with a personal anguish that many of us can only imagine. In my view, Congress must do more to help the families of the victims of September 11, and the Terrorist Victim Citizenship Relief Act should be a part of that effort. When American citizens, foreign nationals, and immigrants perished in the cowardly terrorist acts of September 11, the immigration status of hundreds of families was thrown into turmoil. The attacks were on American soil on a major American institution and directed at the United States. Yet American citizens were not the only victims. Hundreds of temporary workers and immigrants died shoulder-to-shoulder with thousands of Americans. Their deaths should be acknowledged and their families should be honored. My legislation would bestow honorary citizenship on legal immigrants and non-immigrants who died in the disaster. This would honor their spirit and their tremendous sacrifice. Perhaps more important, the bill would offer citizenship to surviving spouses and children, subject to a background investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In the spirit of fairness and unity, it is appropriate and responsible to offer the privilege of citizenship to families who lost so much because of this attack on the United States. About 3,000 people lost their lives when four planes crashed on that fateful September morning. Nationals from some 86 countries perished in the attack, including visitors, non- immigrant workers, and legal permanent residents. America was not the only country that suffered losses. There was good reason the complex was called the World Trade Center. In the September 11 attacks, 86 countries including England, Germany, Mexico, Colombia, Japan, Canada, Australia, the Philippines, Ireland, South Africa, and Pakistan suffered tragic losses. And there were many more. In New Jersey, there are dozens of poignant stories of immigrant families who experienced tragic losses in the World Trade Center disaster. These innocent people have lost husbands and wives, sons and daughters, sisters and brothers. Their families have been fractured and their livelihoods jeopardized. Immigrant families have been forced to grapple with a bureaucratic nightmare, wading through the myriad of programs available to the families of victims in an effort to keep their heads above water. They are often disheartened to learn that, although their loved ones died in the same attack, non-citizens are ineligible for many of the programs designed to assist the surviving families of victims. Concerns about immigration status have only added to the tremendous burden immigrant families are already confronting. Take the example of one New Jersey woman who came to my office seeking assistance. Her immigration status was directly dependent on the non-immigrant worker status of her husband who died in the attack. Both of her children were born in the United States. They are full citizens and are enrolled in American schools. She wants to continue to raise her children in the United States. However, under the antiterrorism legislation that was passed in the last Congress, this mother of two is technically deportable right now. My legislation would grant her citizenship immediately, helping her to avoid the burden of removing her children from the only country they have ever truly known, while they are still grappling with the loss of their father. Granting her citizenship is the right thing to do. This woman's story is but one of many. My office has received numerous inquiries from immigrant families concerned that their immigration status has been undermined by the death of a loved one. Many families were in the process of preparing the necessary paperwork to apply for a change in status, only to have their potential sponsor die alongside thousands of others in the World Trade Center attack. This legislation would ensure that those families would be allowed to become American citizens and avoid undue paperwork and heartache. When perpetrating their horrific crime, the terrorists did not distinguish between immigrants and American citizens or between undocumented workers and legal permanent residents. They were attacking the United States, and, in the process, killed thousands, citizens and non-citizens alike. In death, citizenship was irrelevant. The thousands who died did not know it when they went to work, but they were at the front lines in the next American war. Their deaths are a tragedy that every civilized human being wishes could be reversed. Unfortunately, we cannot turn back the clock. However, we can acknowledge the tremendous loss of hundreds of immigrant families by allowing them to take on the full rights and responsibilities of American citizenship. 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 appreciate it very much.

Mr. CORZINE. I would like 10 minutes. I might go a few minutes beyond that.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I add my strong opposition to this conference report on the budget resolution before us today from a whole host of perspectives. I am certainly no expert on procedural rules, but I have heard a description of an approach to the debates we have had about the budget. It is hard to accept if this is the process by which we want to bring discipline to our budgetary process. The area I do understand clearly is fiscal matters, and this budget resolution, in my view, is fiscally irresponsible to the extreme. Maybe more important than the accounting issue is it risks enormous harm to our economy in the short term and in the long term. It poses a clear danger to the future of Social Security and Medicare, and it threatens our ability to provide for critical priorities, such as homeland defense and education for our children. This budget calls for a tax cut of $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years. When we add in the extra interest costs--that is using the assumptions we use now of low interest rates--which are required to pay for that cut, the real cut is $1.6 trillion. It raises the obvious question: Where is the money coming from? It is a question one has to ask when doing budgets: Do we have $1.6 trillion to fund these cuts without raiding the Social Security trust fund or undercutting consensus-driven priorities for the American people? A few years ago, we had the resources and the ability to evaluate whether we wanted to have tax cuts. We had a $5.6 trillion projected surplus. That surplus was built on sound fiscal policies, ones that accompanied an extremely strong economy for many years. It is hard to understand why we needed to change policies since the economy was doing very well and it had probably the greatest run in the 20th century. But we felt there was a need to tinker with this $5.6 trillion surplus. Guess what. It has disappeared, and we have added $1.6 trillion--that 50,000 years the Senator from West Virginia talked about if you count $1 a minute. We do not have the extra dimes, nickles, and dollars--a blank checkbook--to fund these tax cuts or increase any of the spending we might want for homeland security, national defense, making sure we invest in our future so that when our men and women come home from the war, they will have an economy that works for their children and their future. By the way, we are looking at those deficits before these tax cuts, and this proposal in the budget resolution undermines that baseline. So the huge tax cuts proposed in this resolution are going to be relying on payroll taxes that are supposed to be dedicated to Social Security and Medicare. Then they will be financed by putting the remainder on our national credit card. Who is going to get those credit card charges? It is hundreds of billions of dollars that come with the additional interest we will be paying in the years ahead. As we have heard, it is not this generation, it is the next generation--our children and our children's children. We are laying the burden right out on their shoulders. I find it completely irresponsible. You certainly would not do that in your own life. That would border on immorality at a family level. This generation, or at least the most fortunate members of this generation, in my view, have no right to transfer the benefits of America for which we all worked so hard and so many have fought for and given their lives for at the expense of future generations. I do not get it. Just this morning I was at a funeral for a heroic young man in the State of New Jersey who lost his life in Iraq. He made the ultimate sacrifice so we would have a positive future and to protect America. We are doing just the opposite in economic security with respect to this budget. Beyond the raw, in my view, inappropriateness of this intergenerational transfer of wealth, it is also terrible economic policy. That is why we have had--one of the few times in history--10 Nobel Prize economists--hardly 10 economists can agree on anything--and 500 others signing up to say this does not provide short-term stimulus and really does undermine our long-term credibility, our long-term fiscal health. It is very simple what it is going to do. It actually creates antigrowth policies in the sense we are going to create deficits, and as the economy takes off, interest rates will rise and there will be this crowding out--which has gone on off and on when we have run these big budget deficits over time--and undermining of private sector initiatives, and that will depress future economic growth. There are many models that verify this and many people making those arguments. We heard that in the group the Senator from West Virginia talked about in the article on Wednesday--a Republican, a Democrat, conservative, liberal. This is not a policy that is in the mainstream of economic thought, of business thought about how we are going to grow the economy over time. Unfortunately, these negative effects of heavy fiscal deficits are going to last for decades. We have this baby boomer situation where we are going from 40 million 65 and older to 80 million, give or take a couple million on both sides of those numbers, and they are going to raise the cost of Social Security and Medicare in future years. If we are going to maintain those programs, we have an incredible car crash coming with regard to our fiscal conditions, even before these tax cuts. It is not as if we do not have a need to do something about the economy now. I could go through the employment situation. We have lost 460-some-odd thousand jobs in the last 2 months. I check these weekly unemployment numbers, and they are startling. We have people out of work, working part time, dropping out of the labor force. It is not a pretty picture. We need stimulus now. We are having serious shortfalls in the ability for the economy to produce those jobs, and I do not see anyone saying that in the near term this package of proposed tax cuts is going to have much, if any, impact on creating jobs. It might be talked about in some kind of long-term context. At least there is a legitimate debate about whether that works. I actually think the mainstream comes out and says that does not even work in the long run, but there can be an argument about it. In the short run, it is almost universal it has little, if any, impact. We have lost 460,000 jobs in this economy in the last 2 months. President Bush could very well end up being the first President in 50 years to preside over a decline in the total number of private sector jobs in the economy. I do not see this in the self-interest of the President and the administration with regard to good economic stimulus programs. There are plenty of problems we can talk about. Business investment has declined in all but one quarter in the period of time we have been here. The stock market has obviously plummeted. We are now using only about 75 percent of our Nation's productive capacity. We can go on and on. There are just a series of problems. So we have a continuing sense of lack of direction about dealing with the economic circumstance we have, and just at a time when what we are doing is pushing more of the same policies that we have been following for the last 2 \1/2\ years. At least in the world I come from, when something is not working, you admit it, you change it, you move on; you do something else. All we are doing is changing the level of the red ink we have already put on the paper, and we are going to have greater red ink. It is going to hurt this country's economic well-being in the years ahead. Like my colleagues, I hope we will stand back, evaluate this budget resolution, think about that $1.3 trillion that is going to put us deeper in debt--$1.6 billion if we count the interest--and say no to this budget resolution because it undermines the health of the American economy, it does not improve it. I think we are going to be looked at in the history books as a Congress that has really put us into the tipping point of fiscal red ink for as far as the eye can see, for generations to come, and I think it is just wrong that we are funding it out of Social Security, funding it out of payroll taxes. It is an intergenerational transfer, to future generations, of the obligations. I think historians will say we are not doing what it is our responsibility to do, which is to bring fiscal sanity and responsibility to the American budget. This is a system that depends on the rising tide lifting all boats. This budget, and particularly the tax cuts that are implied in it, do anything but lift all boats. They are targeted at a very narrow group. I hope my colleagues will stand up and say no to this budget and do the right thing. I really do hope we can reconsider this and move forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I appreciate the time from the Senator from North Dakota. I say to both my colleagues, they are laying out for the American people the nature of a budget resolution that really does undermine our future. Before the Senator from West Virginia leaves, I heard one of the most direct analogies about what we are doing dollar for dollar and that it would take 32,000 years to count the deficit if we went to a $1 trillion deficit. We are actually creating a $1.6 trillion deficit, which I think is 50,000 years. It is very hard for any of us to understand the dimensions of the fiscal irresponsibility we are taking on here. I compliment the Senator in trying to put this debate in terms which people can picture in reality.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to the brave men and women from New Jersey, and from throughout the United States, serving our Nation overseas. Mr. President, words cannot adequately express the debt of gratitude that Americans throughout our country feel for the sacrifices made by the brave men and women serving in the Middle East, and by their families. Many of these families are anxiously awaiting the return of loved ones from overseas, while others are grieving the loss of loved ones who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. At this moment, several thousand News Jerseyans are deployed in Iraq and the surrounding region to participate in Operation Iraqi Freedom. They deserve our support and our prayers. The people of my State are honored by their service. New Jersey, like many other States, has unfortunately experienced the grim realities of war. On march 29, Cpl Michael Edward Curtin became the first New Jersey resident killed in battle in Iraq. Earlier, Sgt James Riley, another New Jerseyan, was captured by Iraqi forces in an ambush near Nasiriyah. Mr. President, Cpl. Michael Curtin was only 23 when he was killed in a suicide bombing at a checkpoint in Iraq. His parents, Michael and Joan, had to endure the most terrible loss any parent can imagine: the death of a child--their son. They should take comfort, along with his brother, Daniel, and his three sisters, Katherine, Jennifer and Stephanie, that all of New Jersey mourns with them. The family is proud of Michael and knows he did not die in vain. Mr. President, Michael Curtin graduated from Howell High School in 1998, where he was a standout on the football team. He then worked at the Petro-Packaging Company in Cranford before joining the Army. He was posted with the Army's 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, where he was part of the spearhead that led the invasion in Iraq. Although I did not know him personally, from those who did, he was an impressive and courageous young man--committed to his family, committed to his country. Mr. President, along with Senator Lautenberg, I joined Michael's family, friends and community this morning to attend his memorial. It was a sad and moving experience. I saw a family deep in mourning. A community deep in mourning. And it was hard not to be overwhelmed by the terrible loss they have endured. The love they have for Michael. At the same time, through all the sadness and the tears, there also was a certain sense of pride. A well-deserved sense of pride. Because as tragic as their loss is and forever will be, it was a loss that was not in vain. It was a loss fought on behalf of an ideal. It was a loss that reflected Cpl. Curtin's commitment to his community. And his sacrifice on behalf of his country. That commitment represented the best of America. And his family and friends should know that all Americans share in their grief and honor them for their sacrifice, as well. Mr. President, while the family and friends of the late Cpl Curtin remain in mourning, the family and friends of Sgt James Riley also are suffering, though not without hope. Mr. President, Athol Riley describes Sgt Riley, his son, as practical-minded, strong and stubborn. And we pray that these traits will fortify him during his captivity in Iraq. James was with the 507th Maintenance Company where he repaired tanks and serviced Patriot missile batteries for the Army. His unit was ambushed near the Euphrates River and he, along with four other soldiers, were taken captive. I know I speak for all of New Jerseyans when I express our deepest hope for his swift and safe return to New Jersey. We pray for his safe return. Mr. President, Sgt Riley was born in New Zealand and moved to Pennsauken, a town in South Jersey when he was ten years old. He joined the military immediately after high school and has spent the last thirteen years serving his country. Sgt Riley is a man of many talents. He is known as a science fiction buff and has taught himself to play the guitar. We all hope and pray that he will return to his family very soon. Mr. President, Cpl Michael Curtin and Sgt James Riley are just two of the outstanding individuals serving in our armed services who have made tremendous sacrifices and paid a tremendous price for their country. All of our troops, and all of their families, deserve the thanks of our entire Nation. I know I join all New Jerseyans in praying for our warriors' continued safety, and for a swift, decisive and successful end to the war.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator Landrieu in introducing the Wage Tax Cut Act, legislation that would provide an immediate boost to America's economy by providing wage tax relief to all working Americans and to businesses. In short, this proposal would give all working Americans a wage tax break of up to $765, equivalent to the payroll taxes they have paid on the first $10,000 of their earnings in the year 2001. Working couples would receive tax relief of up to $1,530. This is a 1-year proposal in which all payments and tax credits would come out of the General Treasury. The Social Security and Medicare trust funds would not be affected in any way. Every working American and business-owner would benefit from our proposal. This $765 tax cut would help American families make ends meet and stimulate the economy. It would pay for 5 week's worth of groceries for a family of four; more than 2 months of child care; 3\1/2\ months of utility bills; and 7 months of gasoline. The act would provide business-owners--small and large--a tax credit for up to $765 on the wages of each of their employees. The tax credit for businessowners would put more money in the hands of employers to spur investment in new people, plant, and equipment. By reducing payroll taxes, which amount to a tax on labor, we would encourage more employers to hire new personnel, and to keep those they now have. That is why the Business Roundtable, which represents 150 of the country's largest corporations with over 10 million employees, has endorsed the concept of payroll-based tax relief that we are proposing today. This is a simple, fair, and affordable economic stimulus plan that will get money in the hands of consumers and businesses that will be immediately reinvested in our economy. Unlike the President's proposed tax plan, the Wage Tax Cut Act would provide immediate help to the economy, without being fiscally irresponsible. At $180 billion, its cost is only about 15 percent of the $1.3 trillion in tax cuts included in the conference report on the budget resolution. At this important time in our Nation's history, when thousands of young men and women are bravely serving their country, we need to ensure that the America to which they return is vibrant and strong. This proposal would help create the jobs they need, and the prosperity they deserve. In December 2001, when Senator Bill Frist supported--in fact his own Web site articulated--the stimulative impact that payroll tax relief could have. It quoted the senator as saying: A payroll tax holiday is truly a stimulative, temporary tax cut that would be welcome news for most Americans, especially during the holiday season. As economic growth stagnates and unemployment numbers increase, putting additional money in consumers' pockets will provide a much needed economic boost. Senator Frist continued: The key is for Congress to respond and pass a stimulus bill now, and I believe that this proposal could provide us with a bipartisan solution. Senator Frist was right on the mark about the need, and stimulative impact, of payroll tax relief then. It is my hope that Majority Leader Frist, and the rest of my colleagues, today will stand behind those words and support this proposal to help reinvigorate out economy.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Terrorist Victim Citizenship Relief Act, a bill that would provide citizenship relief to many families adversely affected by the attacks of September 11, 2001. In the time since that tragic day, I have met with several of the families of the victims of the terrorist attacks to discuss a variety of measures in the wake of that national calamity. They have been dealing with a personal anguish that many of us can only imagine. In my view, Congress must do more to help the families of the victims of September 11, and the Terrorist Victim Citizenship Relief Act should be a part of that effort. When American citizens, foreign nationals, and immigrants perished in the cowardly terrorist acts of September 11, the immigration status of hundreds of families was thrown into turmoil. The attacks were on American soil on a major American institution and directed at the United States. Yet American citizens were not the only victims. Hundreds of temporary workers and immigrants died shoulder-to-shoulder with thousands of Americans. Their deaths should be acknowledged and their families should be honored. My legislation would bestow honorary citizenship on legal immigrants and non-immigrants who died in the disaster. This would honor their spirit and their tremendous sacrifice. Perhaps more important, the bill would offer citizenship to surviving spouses and children, subject to a background investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In the spirit of fairness and unity, it is appropriate and responsible to offer the privilege of citizenship to families who lost so much because of this attack on the United States. About 3,000 people lost their lives when four planes crashed on that fateful September morning. Nationals from some 86 countries perished in the attack, including visitors, non- immigrant workers, and legal permanent residents. America was not the only country that suffered losses. There was good reason the complex was called the World Trade Center. In the September 11 attacks, 86 countries including England, Germany, Mexico, Colombia, Japan, Canada, Australia, the Philippines, Ireland, South Africa, and Pakistan suffered tragic losses. And there were many more. In New Jersey, there are dozens of poignant stories of immigrant families who experienced tragic losses in the World Trade Center disaster. These innocent people have lost husbands and wives, sons and daughters, sisters and brothers. Their families have been fractured and their livelihoods jeopardized. Immigrant families have been forced to grapple with a bureaucratic nightmare, wading through the myriad of programs available to the families of victims in an effort to keep their heads above water. They are often disheartened to learn that, although their loved ones died in the same attack, non-citizens are ineligible for many of the programs designed to assist the surviving families of victims. Concerns about immigration status have only added to the tremendous burden immigrant families are already confronting. Take the example of one New Jersey woman who came to my office seeking assistance. Her immigration status was directly dependent on the non-immigrant worker status of her husband who died in the attack. Both of her children were born in the United States. They are full citizens and are enrolled in American schools. She wants to continue to raise her children in the United States. However, under the antiterrorism legislation that was passed in the last Congress, this mother of two is technically deportable right now. My legislation would grant her citizenship immediately, helping her to avoid the burden of removing her children from the only country they have ever truly known, while they are still grappling with the loss of their father. Granting her citizenship is the right thing to do. This woman's story is but one of many. My office has received numerous inquiries from immigrant families concerned that their immigration status has been undermined by the death of a loved one. Many families were in the process of preparing the necessary paperwork to apply for a change in status, only to have their potential sponsor die alongside thousands of others in the World Trade Center attack. This legislation would ensure that those families would be allowed to become American citizens and avoid undue paperwork and heartache. When perpetrating their horrific crime, the terrorists did not distinguish between immigrants and American citizens or between undocumented workers and legal permanent residents. They were attacking the United States, and, in the process, killed thousands, citizens and non-citizens alike. In death, citizenship was irrelevant. The thousands who died did not know it when they went to work, but they were at the front lines in the next American war. Their deaths are a tragedy that every civilized human being wishes could be reversed. Unfortunately, we cannot turn back the clock. However, we can acknowledge the tremendous loss of hundreds of immigrant families by allowing them to take on the full rights and responsibilities of American citizenship. 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 today to introduce legislation, the Microbicides Development Act of 2003. I am very pleased to be introducing this bipartisan bill along with my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Cantwell, Gordon Smith, Dodd, Leahy, Murray, Durbin, and Lautenberg. I thank my colleagues for their support of this important legislation, which we believe is vital to the pursuit of combating the global HIV/AIDS crisis. As you know, recently released UN reports paint the most horrendous picture yet of the HIV epidemic, with AIDS continuing to kill more people worldwide than any other infectious disease, and sparing no corner of the world. According to the UN, China could have more than 10 million HIV-infected people by 2010. Infection rates in Russia and Eastern Europe are rising faster than anywhere else. India may soon have the largest number of people living with HIV/AIDS in the world. And Sub-Saharan Africa remains devastated by an epidemic that has lowered life expectancy from 62 years on average to just 47. In hard- hit countries like Botswana, where 45 percent of women attending prenatal clinics are HIV-positive, a 15-year old youth has an 80 percent chance of dying of AIDS. The UN reports come on the heels of CIA assessments that the AIDS pandemic is entering a ``stage of substantial increases in size and scope.'' Despite alarm bells ringing from the organizations as diverse in mandate as the UN and the CIA, little attention is paid to the reality that the face of the HIV epidemic both at home and abroad is increasingly female. As of the end of 2002, according to the Joint United Nations/World Health Organization Programme on HIV/AIDS, half of the world's HIV/AIDS-infected people were women. In Sub-Saharan Africa, 58 percent of all adult HIV/AIDS cases were found in women, and in hard-hit nations such as Zambia, girls are five times more likely than boys to be HIV positive. Here in the United States, 30 percent of new HIV infections each year occur among women, most of whom, 64 percent, are African-American. The majority of U.S. women, 75 percent, acquire the disease through heterosexual transmission. My own State of New Jersey has the Nation's highest HIV/AIDS infection rate among women and the sixth highest infection rate among all adults. And here in our Nation's capital, one in three people with HIV now is a woman. Biologically, women are four times more vulnerable to HIV infection. Their vulnerability increases due to their lack of economic and social power in many societies, where women often cannot control sexual encounters or insist on protective measures such as abstinence or mutual monogamy. The typical woman who gets infected with HIV has only one partner--her husband. This trend devastates families and puts children at risk. This astounding reality bears restating: The single greatest risk factor for a woman in the developing world of contracting the HIV virus is being married. Women need HIV-prevention tools that they can control to safeguard their health and that of their families and communities. Unfortunately, there exists absolutely no HIV or STD prevention method that is within a woman's personal control. Condom use must be negotiated with a partner. We are all aware that for too many women, particularly low- income women in the developing world and many in our own country who rely upon a male partner for economic support, there is no power of negotiation. We know these women are at risk--yet, we expect them to protect themselves without any tools. Today we have the opportunity to invest in groundbreaking research that can produce these tools, and ultimately, empower women. Microbicides are self-administered products that women could use to prevent transmission of STDs, including HIV/AIDS. I say ``could'' because due to insufficient research investments, no microbicides have been brought to market. This legislation would expand federal investments for microbicide research at the National Institutes for Health, NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, and the United States Agency for International Development, USAID. In addition to encouraging new investments in microbicide research, the Microbicides Development Act will expedite the implementation of the NIH's five-year strategic plan for microbicide research, as well as expand coordination among Federal agencies already involved in this research, including NIH, CDC, and the United States Agency on International Development, USAID. Perhaps most importantly, the legislation calls for the establishment of a Microbicide Research and Development Branch within the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The National Institutes of Health, principally through the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIAID, spends the majority of Federal dollars in this area. However, microbicide research at NIH is currently conducted with no single line of administrative accountability or specific funding coordination. In addition, other federal agencies such as CDC and USAID undertake microbicides research and development activities. Because there is no federal coordination, however, there is the risk that inefficiencies and duplication of effort could result. Through a variety of committees Congress has requested that NIH and its Office of AIDS Research provide Congress with a ``federal coordination plan'' for research and development in this area, but formal submission of this plan has been repeatedly delayed. A branch dedicated to microbicide research and development at the NIH is essential to providing the appropriate staff and funding for the coordination of these activities at the NIH and across agencies. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Microbicides Development Act of 2003. I am very pleased to be introducing this bipartisan bill along with my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Cantwell, Gordon Smith, Dodd, Leahy, Murray, Durbin, and Lautenberg. I thank my colleagues for their support of this important legislation, which we believe is vital to the pursuit of combating the global HIV/AIDS crisis. As you know, recently released UN reports paint the most horrendous picture yet of the HIV epidemic, with AIDS continuing to kill more people worldwide than any other infectious disease, and sparing no corner of the world. According to the UN, China could have more than 10 million HIV-infected people by 2010. Infection rates in Russia and Eastern Europe are rising faster than anywhere else. India may soon have the largest number of people living with HIV/AIDS in the world. And Sub-Saharan Africa remains devastated by an epidemic that has lowered life expectancy from 62 years on average to just 47. In hard- hit countries like Botswana, where 45 percent of women attending prenatal clinics are HIV-positive, a 15-year old youth has an 80 percent chance of dying of AIDS. The UN reports come on the heels of CIA assessments that the AIDS pandemic is entering a ``stage of substantial increases in size and scope.'' Despite alarm bells ringing from the organizations as diverse in mandate as the UN and the CIA, little attention is paid to the reality that the face of the HIV epidemic both at home and abroad is increasingly female. As of the end of 2002, according to the Joint United Nations/World Health Organization Programme on HIV/AIDS, half of the world's HIV/AIDS-infected people were women. In Sub-Saharan Africa, 58 percent of all adult HIV/AIDS cases were found in women, and in hard-hit nations such as Zambia, girls are five times more likely than boys to be HIV positive. Here in the United States, 30 percent of new HIV infections each year occur among women, most of whom, 64 percent, are African-American. The majority of U.S. women, 75 percent, acquire the disease through heterosexual transmission. My own State of New Jersey has the Nation's highest HIV/AIDS infection rate among women and the sixth highest infection rate among all adults. And here in our Nation's capital, one in three people with HIV now is a woman. Biologically, women are four times more vulnerable to HIV infection. Their vulnerability increases due to their lack of economic and social power in many societies, where women often cannot control sexual encounters or insist on protective measures such as abstinence or mutual monogamy. The typical woman who gets infected with HIV has only one partner--her husband. This trend devastates families and puts children at risk. This astounding reality bears restating: The single greatest risk factor for a woman in the developing world of contracting the HIV virus is being married. Women need HIV-prevention tools that they can control to safeguard their health and that of their families and communities. Unfortunately, there exists absolutely no HIV or STD prevention method that is within a woman's personal control. Condom use must be negotiated with a partner. We are all aware that for too many women, particularly low- income women in the developing world and many in our own country who rely upon a male partner for economic support, there is no power of negotiation. We know these women are at risk--yet, we expect them to protect themselves without any tools. Today we have the opportunity to invest in groundbreaking research that can produce these tools, and ultimately, empower women. Microbicides are self-administered products that women could use to prevent transmission of STDs, including HIV/AIDS. I say ``could'' because due to insufficient research investments, no microbicides have been brought to market. This legislation would expand federal investments for microbicide research at the National Institutes for Health, NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, and the United States Agency for International Development, USAID. In addition to encouraging new investments in microbicide research, the Microbicides Development Act will expedite the implementation of the NIH's five-year strategic plan for microbicide research, as well as expand coordination among Federal agencies already involved in this research, including NIH, CDC, and the United States Agency on International Development, USAID. Perhaps most importantly, the legislation calls for the establishment of a Microbicide Research and Development Branch within the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The National Institutes of Health, principally through the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIAID, spends the majority of Federal dollars in this area. However, microbicide research at NIH is currently conducted with no single line of administrative accountability or specific funding coordination. In addition, other federal agencies such as CDC and USAID undertake microbicides research and development activities. Because there is no federal coordination, however, there is the risk that inefficiencies and duplication of effort could result. Through a variety of committees Congress has requested that NIH and its Office of AIDS Research provide Congress with a ``federal coordination plan'' for research and development in this area, but formal submission of this plan has been repeatedly delayed. A branch dedicated to microbicide research and development at the NIH is essential to providing the appropriate staff and funding for the coordination of these activities at the NIH and across agencies. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Akaka and Sarbanes to introduce the Financial Literacy for Self- Sufficiency Act. Our bill would require States to promote financial education through their TANF, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, programs. Financial education--education that promotes an understanding of consumer, economic, and personal finance concepts--is extremely important for all families, and is especially important for low-income families who are moving from welfare to work. While TANF focuses on moving families off cash assistance and into work, it fails to provide recipients with the tools they need to maximize their earnings and manage their expenses in order to achieve financial stability once they are employed. If we truly expect to move these families to achieve financial independence, we must give them the tools they will need to make that transition. One of these tools is a bank account. Millions of low-income families remain outside of the formal banking system, with many of them spending too much of their hard-earned dollars at costly check cashing operations. In fact, more than eight million families earning under $25,000 a year lack a checking or savings account. A study conducted by the United States Department of the Treasury in 2000 found that a worker earning $12,000 a year would pay approximately $250 a year just to cash their payroll checks at such an outlet. And, nearly 16 percent of the checks cashed at check cashing outlets are government benefit checks--including welfare benefit checks. In addition to expanding the number of banks that do business in low- income communities, educating low-income unbanked families about the benefits of formal checking and savings accounts can significantly improve access to financial services. But, financial education isn't just about bank accounts and savings. It is also about protecting low-income families form predatory lending and devastating credit arrangements. Financial education that addresses abusive lending practices can help prevent unaffordable loan payments, equity stripping, and foreclosure. I strongly support legislative efforts to end predatory lending practices in our country, but until we do, ensuring that consumers are aware of unfair and abusive loan terms is a measure that will provide them some protection from these tactics. Finally, families leaving welfare for work face many challenges, including securing child care and transportation. One challenge that often is not mentioned, however, is the challenge of transitioning from a benefits-based income to a wage income. Financial literacy programs that educate families transitioning from welfare to work about taxes and tax benefits that they may be eligible for, such as the Dependent Care Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, will ensure that they have access to these important work benefits. The Financial Literacy for Self-Sufficiency Act will allow States to use their TANF funds to collaborate with community-based organizations, banks, and community colleges to create financial education programs for low-income families receiving welfare and for those transitioning from welfare to work. As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan Chairman Greenspan has noted, ``Educational and training programs may be the most critical service offered by community-based organizations to enhance the ability of low-income households to accumulate assets.'' I hope members of the Senate Finance Committee will join my colleagues and me in promoting financial education for our nation's TANF recipients when they act to create a reauthorization framework for our nation's welfare program. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Akaka and Sarbanes to introduce the Financial Literacy for Self- Sufficiency Act. Our bill would require States to promote financial education through their TANF, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, programs. Financial education--education that promotes an understanding of consumer, economic, and personal finance concepts--is extremely important for all families, and is especially important for low-income families who are moving from welfare to work. While TANF focuses on moving families off cash assistance and into work, it fails to provide recipients with the tools they need to maximize their earnings and manage their expenses in order to achieve financial stability once they are employed. If we truly expect to move these families to achieve financial independence, we must give them the tools they will need to make that transition. One of these tools is a bank account. Millions of low-income families remain outside of the formal banking system, with many of them spending too much of their hard-earned dollars at costly check cashing operations. In fact, more than eight million families earning under $25,000 a year lack a checking or savings account. A study conducted by the United States Department of the Treasury in 2000 found that a worker earning $12,000 a year would pay approximately $250 a year just to cash their payroll checks at such an outlet. And, nearly 16 percent of the checks cashed at check cashing outlets are government benefit checks--including welfare benefit checks. In addition to expanding the number of banks that do business in low- income communities, educating low-income unbanked families about the benefits of formal checking and savings accounts can significantly improve access to financial services. But, financial education isn't just about bank accounts and savings. It is also about protecting low-income families form predatory lending and devastating credit arrangements. Financial education that addresses abusive lending practices can help prevent unaffordable loan payments, equity stripping, and foreclosure. I strongly support legislative efforts to end predatory lending practices in our country, but until we do, ensuring that consumers are aware of unfair and abusive loan terms is a measure that will provide them some protection from these tactics. Finally, families leaving welfare for work face many challenges, including securing child care and transportation. One challenge that often is not mentioned, however, is the challenge of transitioning from a benefits-based income to a wage income. Financial literacy programs that educate families transitioning from welfare to work about taxes and tax benefits that they may be eligible for, such as the Dependent Care Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, will ensure that they have access to these important work benefits. The Financial Literacy for Self-Sufficiency Act will allow States to use their TANF funds to collaborate with community-based organizations, banks, and community colleges to create financial education programs for low-income families receiving welfare and for those transitioning from welfare to work. As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan Chairman Greenspan has noted, ``Educational and training programs may be the most critical service offered by community-based organizations to enhance the ability of low-income households to accumulate assets.'' I hope members of the Senate Finance Committee will join my colleagues and me in promoting financial education for our nation's TANF recipients when they act to create a reauthorization framework for our nation's welfare program. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, in a few minutes, I will send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Edwards and me. About a half hour ago, Senator Edwards talked about an issue that has been one of the most serious concerns of mine and a whole host of Americans--about the state of our security and the threat to the American people, which they face by the potential of a terrorist attack on our Nation's chemical plants. There are literally thousands of chemical producers, refineries, and similar facilities in the United States where chemicals released by any of these plants could kill or injure tens of thousands--and, frankly, even millions--of Americans through exposure to highly toxic gases. That is why these facilities are potentially so attractive to terrorists. Unfortunately, there are 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. Far too many facilities simply have not stepped up to accept the responsibility. There are a number of private companies that have done everything ever thought to be necessary, but there are many that have been left out and keep vulnerabilities in front of the American people and are basically putting millions of Americans at risk. I have a chart here that will show where--in red--these facilities are that put more than a million Americans at risk. There happens to be 11 in my State of New Jersey. It is a serious issue. There is one of those in the State of the Presiding Officer. But in a broad cross- section of our country, there are huge numbers of these facilities located in highly populated areas. 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 750 facilities in 39 States where chemical release can expose more than 100,000 people to these chemicals. Those are the States in yellow. There are 3,000 facilities spread across 49 of the 50 States where chemical release could expose more than 10,000 people. Frankly, these are pretty staggering numbers, and I think it represents a broad vulnerability across America. The consequences of an attack on a chemical plant are potentially so horrific that it is hard for me to understand or accept inaction in this area. In fact, I would argue this body has been in sort of psychological denial, I guess, about this problem. If September 11 taught us anything, it taught us that America can no longer avoid thinking about the unthinkable. We have to face up to the Nation's most serious vulnerabilities. We have to focus on them, and we have to confront them head on. Let me repeat one statistic. There are 123 chemical facilities around the Nation that, if attacked, could threaten over 1 million American lives. This is a big deal in New Jersey. To bring this home in specific terms, there are 11 facilities in my home State, and one petrochemical plant in the middle of downtown Newark and south Carney that exposes nearly 8 million people in the greater New York-New Jersey region--8 million people potentially exposed to toxic fumes if there were a terrorist attack, a criminal attack, or, by the way, even if there was a safety violation bringing about an explosion. We have had a number of those incidents in my State that have taken lives just because of safety considerations, let alone if the plants were under an attack by a terrorist or criminal activity. These facilities pose a serious threat to public safety because they contain the kind of toxic chemicals that, if released, could cause those injuries I am talking about--chemicals such as chlorine, ammonia, hydrogen fluoride, the types of chemicals that were used to manufacture the bomb in Oklahoma City and the type of chemicals in Bhopal. There are all kinds of these chemicals in our cities, in our States, chemicals that serve very positive and important industrial functions but could instantly be transformed into weapons of mass destruction at the hands of terrorists. This is not just my opinion. This is not an enviroview. This is not some hyped-up point of view. It has been documented and acknowledged time after time by experts and by the current administration. Most recently, on March 18, the General Accounting Office issued a new report on the matter. GAO found that chemical facilities may be attractive targets to terrorists because of the extent of harm they could inflict. Yet, as GAO explained, there are no Federal laws requiring chemical plants to assess vulnerabilities and to take action to guard against terrorist attacks. I am going to submit a summary of the GAO report. For those who need thoughtful and systematic information about the vulnerabilities, about what is not being done, I suggest they read the whole report. I ask unanimous consent to print a brief summary of the GAO report in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered in order notwithstanding rule XVI.

Mr. CORZINE. Again, I urge my colleagues, before we have a chance to vote on this amendment in the coming days, to sit down and look at this in a serious minded way, knowing that we have addressed some of the problems and that we can move forward to have a positive embracing of real steps to protect the American people from exposure we have to chemical plants. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, in addition to this GAO assessment, they recommended the Department of Homeland Security and EPA, working together, develop a strategy, including a legislative proposal, to address the threats of attacks on chemical plants. I listed the highlights of their report which has a recommendation that there is a need for legislation in this area. There is a need now to protect the American people against chemical plant risks. The GAO report was released on March 18 of this year. To continue with the acknowledgment that this is real, only a month earlier, the Department of Homeland Security, when it raised the Nation's alert to code orange, sounded the alarm about the threat facing chemical facilities. In its bulletin it sent out to State and local officials, 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. Based on information, nuclear powerplants and industrial chemical plants remain viable targets. That is from the Department of Homeland Security to all State and local officials: ``Chemical plants remain viable targets,'' and we have not done anything. It is time to recognize that there is broad recognition by the administration and by those who study this issue that it is time to act. That was on February 12 of this year. Let me go back to October 6 of last year. On that day, Homeland Security Secretary Ridge and EPA Administrator Whitman had a letter published in the Washington Post. They stated in that letter: 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. They go on to say that while there have been good steps taken by private industry, there are over 15,000 chemical facilities nationwide that contain large quantities of hazardous chemicals, and they must be required to take steps that mimic industry leaders in this area. That letter was from Secretary Ridge and EPA Administrator Whitman last October. I ask, Has the administration proposed such bipartisan legislation? Have they proposed any legislation? Have they issued any regulations to address the threat facing chemical plants? Have they even proposed any such regulations? Have they done anything--anything at all--to meaningfully address the security threats facing chemical plants? I think the fair answer is no to each and every one of those questions. Periodically, we have seen press reports that the administration may be working on some type of proposal, and I commend that effort. I hope they will. But so far, they have shown no willingness to work on a bipartisan basis. I have sent letter after letter, question after question, made phone call after phone call, trying to enter into a negotiation, not only with the administration, but the other side of the aisle, on this issue. The bottom line is, a year and a half after the attacks of September 11, there still has not been a serious response with regard to what we are doing here. In fact, the Nation has known about this problem for a very long time. The Department of Justice issued a report on this matter a year and a half before September 11. Let me read a brief excerpt from a summary of that report which was issued on April 18, 2000: We have concluded the risk of terrorists attempting in the foreseeable future to cause an industrial chemical release is both real and credible. Again, April 18, 2000: Terrorists or other criminals are likely to view the potential of chemical release from an industrial facility as a relatively attractive means of achieving these goals. That report was issued before September 11. Its conclusion has been echoed by other Government agencies and in private studies with regard to vulnerabilities in our infrastructure. I will not relate them all, but the warnings have been repetitive, from the Hart-Rudman Commission to the Department of Homeland Security on February 12 when they issued their code orange alert. While some companies may well be doing an outstanding job in securing their facilities, many are not. Simply relying on voluntary standards just is not working, and if we are going to protect America from the threat of terrorist attacks on chemical facilities, we need to do more. That is why in October 2001 I introduced the Chemical Security Act. That is why I worked with Senators on both sides of the aisle to move the legislation through the Environment and Public Works Committee. Ultimately, the committee approved the legislation on a rollcall vote of 19 to 0. Not a single Senator voted no--not a single Senator. The amendment I am offering today, along with my good friend, the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Edwards, is based on the legislation that was approved by the committee on a 19-to-0 vote. However, we have made a few changes in good faith to make it more acceptable to industry and to win broader support. The legislation requires the Department of Homeland Security and EPA to do three things: First, the Department has to identify high-priority chemical facilities, those that potentially put a large number of people at risk. Second, they must require those high-priority facilities to assess their vulnerabilities to develop and implement plans to improve security and use safer technologies. Third, these assessments and plans would have to be submitted for review by the Department of Homeland Security. The changes could be required if deficiencies are identified. That is the amendment in a nutshell. It is a simple, commonsense approach that would establish standards and ensure some balance at this time. Last year, after my legislation was approved unanimously in committee, some in industry expressed concerns. Industry opposition ultimately killed the bill, kept it from even coming up for debate on this floor. Opposition to the bill was largely based on two points, both of which I am going to try to address, with changes from what came out of committee. First, opponents argued that the responsibility for overseeing chemical security should rest with the Department of Homeland Security rather than the Environmental Protection Agency. I proposed giving the responsibility to EPA for a reason. They have the expertise on chemical plants. They have the expertise on dealing with these highly toxic chemicals. Under the Clean Air Act, they already have a requirement to oversee. They have the expertise. DHS does not. On the other hand, I recognized from the start that the EPA did not have the expertise to evaluate security arrangements. So we originally asked the Department of Justice back in October of 2001--we have subsequently changed that to the Department of Homeland Security--and now we have put the Department of Homeland Security as the lead agency in charge of what has been requested by those in industry because they wanted security to be the primary element. So we have responded. Having said that, I also acknowledge that in spite of EPA's expertise, the latter was necessary. So in an effort to broaden support for our proposal, we continue to modify and we reflect others' concerns. The second concern raised by industrial lobbyists about the bill, again unanimously approved by the EPW Committee, focused on the bill's provision to require businesses to shift to safer technologies, to the extent practical. I will take a moment to explain why this provision was included and why it is so important. It is not just enough to put barbed wire on high fences around the place when some attacks could come over those walls--planes and other things--which we have begun to understand can happen post-September 11. We know no matter how high we build those walls a committed terrorist can get to those facilities, and it becomes important to make sure the facilities are as safe as they possibly can be without putting companies out of business. To truly protect the public, we need to do more. We need to take steps to build in better inherent technology. I have seen a great example of that in Washington, DC, as I think Senator Edwards mentioned, at the Blue Plains Sewage Treatment Plant. Prior to September 11, they were storing chlorine and sulfur dioxide in car trains just across the river. Both are volatile, dangerous chemicals. If those tanks were attacked, a poisonous cloud could have been over Washington, DC. It would have been one of those places where roughly a million people could have been exposed--certainly hundreds of thousands, including the Capitol and the White House. Business recognized this was a risk and did something about it. In fact, we should be quite proud of business taking an initiative on a voluntary basis to address this problem. They changed from chlorine to sodium hypochlorite, which is a strong version of bleach but much safer, less volatile. It is going to cost 25 to 50 cents a year for those who drink water in the District, but I think it is a small price to pay to bring about the kind of safety considerations that the public and the community would expect. It sounds like a bargain to me. To the extent practical, we need to find ways to move away from dangerous and toxic chemicals to other chemicals or other processes that protect and make the processes safer. I understand it is an expensive process. So what I have done in this amendment, as opposed to in the original bill, is I have offered economic incentives and economic support to those companies that transform to safer technologies. For those businesses that need help, I have put $50 million into this bill to make that process better. So we have a second element that really has tried to accommodate some of the concerns that people had in this regard and how onerous it might be. We have a problem. We have some obvious steps to deal with it and we have tried to get the private sector to move in a direction that will enhance both the security and bring about safer technologies that will protect people. So that is it. I think it is an extremely important initiative that needs to be taken in the context of the homeland security efforts that are included in this supplemental. I hope people will take this seriously, as Senator Edwards, Senator Jeffords and others have, as 19 Senators in EPW did when we voted on this after much review and discussion. I am eager to work with the administration. I am eager to work with those on the other side of the aisle to make sure we have an initiative to protect our chemical plants, which is really about protecting the American people. I hope we can move to this goal. This should be one of the No. 1 steps we have in this process. I send the amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Edwards and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. CORZINE. This amendment which I offer today with Senators Kerry, Jeffords, Murray, Lautenberg, Clinton, Boxer, and Sarbanes, increases funding for environmental protection and natural resource conservation. Cleanup of brownfields, Superfund sites, MTBE, contaminated water supplies are a national and a bipartisan objective. These environmental challenges to public health stand as roadblocks to economic development and economic renewal across America. Addressing these issues with efficacy requires a constancy of purpose and funding. The amendment does just that. In addition, this amendment provides resources to fund parks, open space acquisition, wildlife habitat, and beach conservation. These should not be shortchanged. They are investments in the future of America, not just for today's generation but future generations. Funding for the amendment adds $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2004 and the same amount in future years adjusted for inflation. The funding is offset by a corresponding reduction in the nonreconciled tax cut. I ask for the support of my colleagues to be sure we protect our environment.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I had a statement earlier today, but I would like to briefly say that I am pleased my colleagues passed the supporting resolution today for our troops. We need a strong and unequivocal expression of support for the courageous men and women who are fighting for our values and defending America tonight in the Persian Gulf. It is important to say that this is an expression that is far more than just a personal expression. It is an expression of feelings that the people of New Jersey--I see my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, is in the Chamber as well, and I know both of us feel powerfully for the mothers, the fathers, the brothers, the sisters, the spouses all of those who have loved ones in harm's way, that we strongly stand with them, and the people across this country do as well. The gist of my statement is that no matter how we may have felt and debated and deliberated these issues, our united view is unshakable as we go forward. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an amendment I would like to bring up tomorrow. It would increase funding for environmental protection and natural resource conservation, reduce pollution, and improve America's quality of life. If I had my druthers, we would all be dealing with a ``patriotic pause,'' as far as I am concerned, until we were able to get a better handle on some of the costs. It seems incongruous to me that as our men and women are sacrificing on the ground in the Middle East, we are unwilling to think about and factor in those costs in this budget process as we go forward. I think it is particularly unusual to understand that maybe as soon as next week we will get a supplemental that covers this, and it may be literally hundreds of billions of dollars of expenditures that are not considered in the context of a budget that is already estimated at $300 billion on a unified basis, on an on-budget basis, and on an off-budget basis $400 billion. It is hard for me to understand, but I am a realist. It is a quarter of 11 at night, and we will be debating amendments that make a real expression about what our budget is about, our priorities. I think it is absolutely essential that the budget process be about difficult choices and an expression of those choices. For millions of Americans, and certainly for myself, I strongly believe we cannot neglect the environment and our natural resources, and our budget should reflect that importance. I ask my colleagues to consider in that vein that the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request increases discretionary spending at an average rate of 4 percent for all discretionary spending. But with respect to his requests with regard to the environment and conservation issues, the President's budget actually cuts spending on the environment. By the way, in the House budget resolution--that is where we will be negotiating when we go to conference--that is a cut of $1.3 billion relative to the enacted levels in fiscal year 2003. Fortunately, the Senate resolution does restore some of that, but in my view we could do a lot better, and we should do a lot better. My amendment is a simple 1-year amendment to improve that, to meet that 4 percent discretionary standard that might be how we are looking at other spending. In dollar terms, my amendment would increase our investment in environmental protection and resource conservation by up to $30.4 billion. That is $2.4 billion above what the President has asked for and $1.1 billion over the Senate resolution. The spending is offset by a corresponding reduction in the size of the tax cut. By adopting this amendment, the Senate would make a strong statement that even in these difficult times we have not lost the desire, the faith, the will, to provide for environmental protection and natural resource conservation. They are really continuing important priorities of the American people. By adopting this amendment, the Senate would make it possible to fund a number of very vital environmental programs. I will itemize a couple. The amendment funds clean water and drinking water State revolving funds--something that is important for economic expansion--at a combined level of $3 billion. It is only about $800 million over the level that is asked for in the budget resolution. This money flows directly to the State loan funds and will be used to build sewage treatment plants and water purification facilities, an important part of our infrastructure. Forty percent of our Nation's lakes and rivers still do not meet the goal of the Clean Water Act of being fishable and swimmable. It is about 80 percent in New Jersey. While my amendment will not get us all the way there, it goes a long way to close the gap between where people estimate we should be over the next 25 years and the $535 billion expenditure it will take to get us there. Second, my amendment will also fully fund efforts to enforce environmental laws, clean up toxic waste dumps, and redevelop abandoned brownfield sites. Superfund is critical to my home State. My colleague from New Jersey has been one of the most articulate advocates in making sure we fully fund Superfund. He was one of the original authors of building this law in our Nation. We have 111 Superfund sites in New Jersey, most of any in the Nation. Forty-nine States have Superfund sites. One in four Americans lives within a mile of a Superfund site. That is a real health issue, a quality of life issue, and it is one that needs to be addressed. There are lots of ways to go. We are cutting down the number of cleanup sites. Two years ago, we had 87 Superfund cleanups in a year. It has dropped below 40 now. We need to do better. We need to work at this now. Of course, there are brownfield sites in every State in the Nation. We were all very proud that we passed the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001, but getting around to funding that at authorized levels has not happened. My amendment would make this possible in fiscal year 2004. The amendment would fund important natural resource conservation programs, conservation programs that fight sprawl, protect open space, and improve quality of life for all Americans. We have a long tradition of valuing and fighting to protect parks, wildlands, wildlife, open spaces, recreation resources, and cultural treasures. This is important to the heart and soul of this country, special places that need to be addressed. Several years ago, as we entered the 21st century, we started the Conservation Trust Fund that would fund land and water conservation programs in a way that the toolbox would be available across the country to work on these issues--the sprawl, taking in parklands, and protecting our shorelines. It is unfortunate that we are not adequately dealing with this issue that will impact every American's life. So I hope we can consider this amendment. It is funded, as I suggested, out of the tax cuts, and we can do a lot to really improve our society with relatively minimal expenditures in such an overwhelmingly large budget. By adopting my amendment, the Senate will boost vital environmental protection and natural resource conservation programs. It will mean cleaner water, more Superfund sites and brownfields cleaned up, and more acres of open space and wildlife habitat protected. I hope the Senate will affirm this commitment to the environment as an important funding priority in our budget. I look forward to bringing up this amendment for debate tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE. I yield myself up to 10 minutes.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues and the Nation in a strong and unequivocal expression of support for the courageous men and women of the United States military, who now defend America's values in the Persian Gulf. This expression is far more than a personal expression. It is an expression of the feelings of the people of New Jersey--many who are mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and spouses of those in harm's way. For all of us, these brave individuals are in our hearts and prayers. Mr. President, today our Nation is united. United in support for our Nation's military. United in appreciation for the bravery and sacrifice of our service men and women, and their loved ones. United in our unshakable commitment to victory, a victory, with the grace of God, that will be achieved with maximum speed and minimum casualties. Mr. President, we Americans obviously had our differences as we moved on the path that got us to this point. There are many reservations I could express and people more thoughtful than myself have done so. But in our democracy, there is a time for differences and a time for debate. That said, there comes a time to end debate and unite. That time is now. That unity is without regard to party, ideology, or philosophy. We all stand together as members of the great American family. Mr. President, the United States military is unrivaled in its power and its competence. In that strength, I am confident that we will succeed in our mission. A mission to free the Iraqi people. A mission to help ensure that our Nation can live in peace, without the threat of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of madmen and terrorists. So, Mr. President, on behalf of all New Jerseyans and in company with all Americans, let me again express my deep appreciation to the courageous Americans who are putting their lives on the line, and for their loved ones. They are America's heroes. Their Nation will support them every step of the way until the day comes, as we pray it will, when these hostilities are complete.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. I would like to make a few comments with regard to the amendment.