Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the labor provisions in the Gramm-Miller substitute amendment. This approach to homeland security undermines longstanding labor protections and a national commitment to the right to organize. This amendment seems to rely on the unsupported premise that workers rights are somehow incongruous with national security. There is no objective basis for that view. In fact, I would argue labor protections are directly in our national interest. The people of the United States trust federal employees to stand at the frontlines in the war on terrorism and protect our nation against the myriad vulnerabilities that we may confront in the years to come. Border guards, INS workers, and customs agents are people who have the patriotic interest of our nation at heart. They guard our waterways and now protect our airports. Just as we are emphasizing the United States' increasing reliance on these workers, it would demonstrate tremendous chutzpah for the United States to remove essential labor protections and question the commitment and responsiveness of these workers to our national challenges. Working Americans have often sacrificed much to save our nation and to subject them to political and unchecked managerial discretion is an abdication of America's long held belief in the political independence of our government operations. But that is precisely what this amendment would do: eliminate hard fought labor protections as America calls on its employees to take on even greater responsibilities in the War on Terrorism. For instance, in the name of management flexibility, the substitute amendment being considered here would eviscerate the civil service system, and I fear put all Americans at risk. The new Department we are discussing today should not be a Republican Department or a Democratic Department but an American Department from start to finish. There is no room for partisan politics when it comes to defending the American people. This cabinet department is being created for security, a truly nonpartisan objective and its operation after its creation should stay that way. In the event that this substitute amendment is accepted by the Senate, employees of the Department of Homeland Security whose views are out of sync with the official line could be dismissed or transferred with little of no justification. This would have a chilling effect on the ability of employees in this critically important department to perform their jobs with the competence and creativity that everyone would expect. Furthermore, this amendment could undermine vital whistleblower protections designed to ensure that the Congress and the American public are kept aware of severe problems that might develop in the new Department. The so-called ``management flexibility'' provisions would have the effect of silencing criticism in official forms, criticism that is desperately needed to improve America's ability to defend its borders and protect its people. In fact, incentives to leak critical views would be drastically increased as official forms would no longer be easily available. Let us be clear: the primary supporters of this amendment have never been supportive of the various labor protections provided to government employees. They never liked the civil service system, despite the fact that it prevents bureaucratic decisions from getting mired in politics. They oppose the application of Davis-Bacon laws to the new Department, despite the fact that requiring federal government contractors to pay the prevailing wage encourages higher quality work. And they oppose collective bargaining agreements, despite the fact that the underlying legislation allows broad authority for the president to waive collective bargaining rights for job activities directly related to national security. The driver behind this amendment appears to be a political and philosophical view opposing the concepts embedded in the right to organize, not in protecting national security. The fact is, that this Governmental reorganization provided opponents of labor rights with a golden opportunity to undermine the very protection that they have long opposed. This is not a new approach to a new situation, but an old familiar refrain from opponents of labor policies that empower our federal employees. Supporters of this amendment claim the whole purpose of the change is to increase management flexibility in the interests of national security, but make no mistake: this debate is about an ideological opposition to fundamental components of American labor law. With all the waiver authority provided the President in Senator Lieberman's bill, it is difficult to see just how this legislation would tie the hands of the President. Few reasonable analyses believe it will. When tragedy struck on September 11, thousands of firefighters and police officers rushed to the world trade center. They risked life and limb to save their fellow Americans. Their union membership did not make them any less patriotic. Union membership of law enforcement and firefighters across the nation is unquestioned and standard procedure. Their collective bargaining rights did not undermine national security. And their work rules did not stop them from demonstrating a high level of professionalism on that horrific day or any other day. Mr. President, I for one, do not believe we should allow American workers to lose hard-fought labor protections while we are asking them to take on even greater responsibilities and to assimilate into a new department. Clearly the authors of the Gramm-Miller amendment disagree. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Gramm-Miller amendment.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. CORZINE. I want to reinforce what the Senator from New York said. By the way, this statement about not being interested in the security of the American people was made in Trenton, NJ, on Monday at a political rally. It is hard for me to understand what special interests are being reflected in the President's comments and its repeated nature. I wonder if the junior Senator from California actually knew this was made in Trenton, NJ, at a political rally for the competitor to our side of the aisle? Is that not political in and of itself?

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Lieberman amendment establishing a commission to examine and report upon the facts and circumstances relating to the most catastrophic terrorist attack in the history of the United States: the September 11 terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. I was a cosponsor of the legislation upon which this amendment is based and am eager for the work of the commission to get underway. The senseless attacks of September 11, 2001, made it clear to all Americans that the United States was inadequately prepared for the threats posed in a post-cold-war world. Now that the Soviet Union has dissolved and American relations with Russia and China have improved markedly, disparate religiously motivated non-state actors have distinguished themselves as a clear and present danger to international stability and the security of the American homeland. The commission that would be created by this amendment would go a long way in helping the United States identify the causes of the September 11 disaster and inform the U.S. Congress as it embarks upon the difficult process of reorganizing our government to respond to newly recognized threats. For many families that I have spoken with, the inability of the government to provide a full accounting of the events surrounding the death of their loved ones in the September 11 attacks has added to their grief. They have requested that the government provide them with a thorough explanation of the various factors that led to the untimely deaths of their dear relatives. If the public report released by this commission provides some small measure of comfort to these families, then in my view, it is worthwhile. But this commission is important for pragmatic as well as emotional reasons. Few people doubt that the terrorist attacks unmasked unfortunate weaknesses in the United States homeland security posture. In the weeks and months following the attacks, the Congress moved swiftly to address some of the most obvious weakenesses. Consequently, there have already been substantial changes in a variety of areas, ranging from the formation of the Transportation Security Administration to necessary adjustments in the way that the Department of Justice responds to new threats. But our work is far from complete. It would be an unfortunate mistake to believe that the U.S. Congress has already uncovered all of the missteps that allowed the horrific tragedy of September 11, 2001 to take place. A commission, composed of outside experts and government officials, will provide a nuanced analysis of the myriad events related to the most catastrophic attack on the United States in history. The work of the Intelligence Committee has been entirely professional and profoundly important, but it is insufficient by design. The mistakes and miscuss relating to the September 11 attacks are not limited to intelligence failures alone, but run the gamut from foreign policy decisions regarding the use of American forces and aid after the fall of the Soviet Union to shortcomings in American law enforcement and immigration practices. Ultimately, an effective investigation must not restrict itself simply to the operations of our intelligence- gathering agencies. In fact, an effective analysis should not limit itself to the Federal Government, but must take an incisive look at both the public and private sector and at the State and national level, to generate recommendations that will truly address the specific and often esoteric factors that led to the September 11 attacks. No committee or commission to date has been given the jurisdiction to take the long view and provide a holistic evaluation of the factors relating to and the issues surrounding the most devastating attack in American history. The commission that would be created by this amendment would provide a level of scrutiny and self-reflection that is urgently needed after an event of the magnitude and the scope of the September 11 disaster. Just 11 days after Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941, the U.S. Congress passed legislation creating the Roberts Commission, a commission to determine, in the words of historian Gordon Prange, ``whether `derelictions of duty' or `errors of judgment' had influenced the Japanese at Pearl Harbor and, if so, who was responsible.'' The commission then made a series of recommendations designed to improve American security. The September 11 disaster is no less significant and has no fewer ramifications than the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor. The President has correctly characterized the international fight against terrorism as a war. As we embarked on World War II, we established a commission to analyze the Pearl Harbor attack. Similarly, as we embark on the war on terrorism, we must establish a commission to analyze the September 11 attacks. It is essential that Congress know what went wrong so the United States can plan for the future. Weaknesses must be shored up, gaps must be filled, and oversights must be rectified. Above all, this amendment would represent an important step in realizing the ultimate goal of all Americans, both Democrat and Republican alike: to ensure that an event like September 11 never happens again. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Lieberman's amendment.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Anna Marie O'Loughlin, a woman who has dedicated more than a decade of her life to advocating and caring for children in the foster care and adoption system. Her boundless energy, courage, and commitment to children make her an outstanding parent and an asset to the State of New Jersey. I congratulate her on recieving of the 2002 Congressional Angel in Adoption Award. In 1991, Anna Marie O'Loughlin and her husband, Frank, adopted their first child from the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services, DYFS. Jason, a toddler born drug and alcohol addicted, suffered multiple learning disabilities as a result of his unfortunate start in life. Five years later, Anna Marie and Frank adopted another child, a 10- year-old boy with an attachment disorder. Later that same year, the O'Loughlins volunteered to serve as foster parents, receiving their first foster child, an infant girl, in January of 1997. Seven months later the infant girl's biological sister joined the family. Anna Marie and Frank adopted both girls in December 2000. In January 2001, Anna Marie left a thenty-year career in order to be more consistently available to her children, and opened her home and heart, this time as an emergency placement foster home for older children and teenagers. Children aged 2 to 17 passed through her home, some in the middle of the night, and moved on when DYFS found a foster home. Anna Marie established a particularly special relationship with one of these children, a 16-year-old boy who had been in multiple homes and treatment facilities. He would soon be forced to leave the foster care system due to his age, and would have been left to face an uncertain future on his own. However, Anna Marie stepped in with her characteristic determination to change that outcome, and in January 2002, the O'Loughlin home became a permanent foster home for this young man. Over the course of these years, Anna Marie also became an outspoken advocate for children in the foster care and adoption system. She has served on the board of Concerned Parents for Adoption in a variety of positions, including president from 1996 to 2000. Currently, Anna Marie works as a co-trainer for adoptive and foster parent applicants. She presents workshops at the Concerned Parents for Adoption conference on older child adoption and teenage issues, offering a wealth of experience and practical knowledge. Anna Marie has said that she cannot help feeling that her work is making a difference. Indeed, she has reached out to children in desperate need to offer them a better life. As our nation reaffirms its commitment to service, Anna Maria is a shining example. Again, I congratulate Anna Marie on her well-deserved recognition, and I thank her for her tireless efforts on behalf of children.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Fitzgerald, Sarbanes, and Akaka to introduce the Education for Retirement Security Act of 2002. This bill will provide access to badly needed financial and retirement education for millions of mid-life and older Americans whose retirement security is at stake. Improving financial literacy has been a top priority for me in Congress. I believe it is a critical and complex task for Americans of all ages, but it is especially crucial for Americans as they approach retirement. In fact, low levels of savings and high levels of personal and real estate debt are serious problems for many households nearing retirement. Although today's older Americans are generally thought to be doing well, nearly one-out-of five, 18 percent, were living below 125 percent of the poverty line in 1995, which was a year of tremendous economic prosperity in our nation. And, only 53 percent of working Americans have any form of pension coverage. In addition, financial exploitation is the largest single category of abuse against older individuals, and this population comprises more than one-half of all telemarketing victims in the United States. While education alone cannot solve our Nation's retirement woes, financial education is vital to enabling individuals to avoid scams and bad investment, mortgage, and pension decisions, and to ensuring that they have access to the tools they need to make sound financial decisions and prepare appropriately for a secure future. Indeed, the more limited time frame that mid-life and older Americans have in which to assess the realities of their individual circumstances, recover from bad economic choices, and to benefit from more informed financial practices make this education all the more critical. Financial literacy is also particularly important for older women, who are more likely to live in poverty and be dependent upon Social Security. The Education for Retirement Security Act would create a competitive grant program that would provide resources to State and area agencies on aging and nonprofit community based organizations to provide financial education programs to mid-life and older Americans. The goal of these programs is to enhance these individuals' financial and retirement knowledge and reduce their vulnerability to financial abuse and fraud, including telemarketing, mortgage, and pension fraud. My legislation also authorizes the creation of a national technical assistance program that would designate at least one national nonprofit organization that has substantial experience in the field of financial education to provide training and make available instructional materials and information that promotes financial education. Over the next thirty years, the percentage of Americans aged 65 and older is expected to double, from 35 million to nearly 75 million. Ensuring that these individuals are better prepared for retirement and are more informed about the economic decisions they face during retirement will have an important impact on the long term economic and social well-being of our nation. I hope that as the Senate moves to address pension reform, my colleagues will work to address the issues outlined in this legislation. The recent rash of corporate and accounting scandals and the declining stock market have jeopardized the retirement savings of millions of Americans, making the need for financial literacy even more clear. In closing, I would like to acknowledge the expertise and assistance that AARP, the Older Women's League, OWL, and the Women's Institute for a Secure Economic Retirement, WISER, offered to me in drafting this legislation. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Fitzgerald, Sarbanes, and Akaka to introduce the Education for Retirement Security Act of 2002. This bill will provide access to badly needed financial and retirement education for millions of mid-life and older Americans whose retirement security is at stake. Improving financial literacy has been a top priority for me in Congress. I believe it is a critical and complex task for Americans of all ages, but it is especially crucial for Americans as they approach retirement. In fact, low levels of savings and high levels of personal and real estate debt are serious problems for many households nearing retirement. Although today's older Americans are generally thought to be doing well, nearly one-out-of five, 18 percent, were living below 125 percent of the poverty line in 1995, which was a year of tremendous economic prosperity in our nation. And, only 53 percent of working Americans have any form of pension coverage. In addition, financial exploitation is the largest single category of abuse against older individuals, and this population comprises more than one-half of all telemarketing victims in the United States. While education alone cannot solve our Nation's retirement woes, financial education is vital to enabling individuals to avoid scams and bad investment, mortgage, and pension decisions, and to ensuring that they have access to the tools they need to make sound financial decisions and prepare appropriately for a secure future. Indeed, the more limited time frame that mid-life and older Americans have in which to assess the realities of their individual circumstances, recover from bad economic choices, and to benefit from more informed financial practices make this education all the more critical. Financial literacy is also particularly important for older women, who are more likely to live in poverty and be dependent upon Social Security. The Education for Retirement Security Act would create a competitive grant program that would provide resources to State and area agencies on aging and nonprofit community based organizations to provide financial education programs to mid-life and older Americans. The goal of these programs is to enhance these individuals' financial and retirement knowledge and reduce their vulnerability to financial abuse and fraud, including telemarketing, mortgage, and pension fraud. My legislation also authorizes the creation of a national technical assistance program that would designate at least one national nonprofit organization that has substantial experience in the field of financial education to provide training and make available instructional materials and information that promotes financial education. Over the next thirty years, the percentage of Americans aged 65 and older is expected to double, from 35 million to nearly 75 million. Ensuring that these individuals are better prepared for retirement and are more informed about the economic decisions they face during retirement will have an important impact on the long term economic and social well-being of our nation. I hope that as the Senate moves to address pension reform, my colleagues will work to address the issues outlined in this legislation. The recent rash of corporate and accounting scandals and the declining stock market have jeopardized the retirement savings of millions of Americans, making the need for financial literacy even more clear. In closing, I would like to acknowledge the expertise and assistance that AARP, the Older Women's League, OWL, and the Women's Institute for a Secure Economic Retirement, WISER, offered to me in drafting this legislation. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, will the leader yield for a question?

Mr. CORZINE. If the leader will bear with me a second, if we look at the table he has with regard to the second level, it looks as though some of the individuals who will benefit the most from this tax cut--it is almost inconceivable that we are using payroll taxes for men and women at WorldCom and Enron. It is just hard to believe.

Mr. CORZINE. Did I hear the leader suggest that we are talking about taking $2 trillion out of the Social Security trust fund to fund the other things that are going on with regard to economic policy? If I am not mistaken, I think I saw a chart that projected $2 trillion and how we would utilize the Social Security trust fund. I think those are payroll taxes from working Americans from all walks of life. Then, if I am not mistaken, as I looked at your chart where the tax cuts are actually going, it would appear to me that we are using the Social Security trust fund to fund tax cuts for those at the very high end of the marginal tax brackets. Is my analysis from looking at your charts correct? Does the leader have a comment on that?

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the Jewish National Fund as the group celebrates its 100th anniversary on October 6, 2002. Without the efforts of the Jewish National Fund, the nation of Israel might very well not exist. Today, through the efforts of the JNF, Israel not only exists as a Jewish State, but flourishes despite numerous geographic and political changes. The Jewish National Fund was established at the Fifth Zionist Congress in 1901 with the express purpose of allowing Jews from around the world to join together and make the Zionist dream a reality. Jewish communities from around the world participated by collecting donations in signature ``Blue Boxes.'' These donations were used to purchase the land that would one day become the state of Israel. Jews disunited could not achieve their nationalist dream and create a Jewish state in the land of Israel, but together, through the work of the Jewish National Fund, they began to build a nation. JNF purchased the land, developed and built the infrastructure, and planted the forests that made the country green. I am confident that through the dedication and hard work of the Jewish National Fund, Israel will continue to thrive for the next 100 years and beyond. Since 1901, the Jewish National Fund has planted over 220 million trees, built over 120 dams and reservoirs, developed over 250,000 acres of land, created more than 400 parks throughout Israel and educated students around the world about Israel and the environment. The Jewish National Fund is also active in funding arid land research and has partnered with the USDA Forest Service and the Arizona-based International Arid Lands Consortium. This past year marked a great milestone for the Jewish National Fund. The group celebrated a great century and witnessed the birth of their dream: a thriving Jewish homeland. I wish the Jewish National Fund the best of luck as they embark on their second century of service.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 15th anniversary of one of the largest and most successful public/private partnerships in health care in the developing world, the Merck MECTIZAN Donation Program. Today, this program provides hope to millions, and I am proud to pay tribute to Merck & Co., a leading New Jersey corporation, for its work on this critical issue. On October 21, 1987, Merck & Co., Inc. announced plans to donate MECTIZAN, ivermectin, a medicine Merck discovered to combat river blindness, for as long as it might be needed, wherever needed. Onchocerciasis, ``river blindness'', is a leading cause of blindness in the developing world. It is a debilitating and disfiguring disease, affecting millions in sub-Saharan Africa, parts of Central and South America and Yemen in the Middle East. The disease, which has infected 18 million people and has left an estimated one million people visually impaired or blind, is caused by parasitic worms that infiltrate, multiply, and spread throughout the human body. In the global fight against infectious diseases, the lack of public health infrastructure contributes to widespread and needless suffering even when valuable drug treatments are available for use. When Merck made the decision to donate MECTIZAN to treat river blindness, the company understood that while providing the drug for free was necessary, it was not sufficient. They also understood that it was critical to create a reliable, effective distribution system that would ensure MECTIZAN reached the affected millions for as long as necessary. The lack of public health care infrastructure was a tremendous challenge even though MECTIZAN is an easy to administer oral medication that requires only a single annual dose. To that end, a multisector coalition involving Merck, the World Health Organization; the World Bank; UNICEF; the Carter Center; Ministries of Health of endemic countries; more than thirty non-governmental development organizations, and local community health workers was created. The Merck MECTIZAN Donation Program is now considered by many to be the most important model for public/private partnerships for addressing health care issues in the developing world. The success and sustainability of the Merck MECTIZAN Donation Program over the past 15 years demonstrates the power and possibilities in strong and creative public/private partnerships to help address the enormous public health challenges facing developing countries today. As a result of the MECTIZAN Donation Program, more than 30 million people are now receiving treatment for river blindness annually. Since the program's inception, Merck has donated more than 700 million MECTIZAN tablets. Access to MECTIZAN has spared millions of children and their families from the risk of infection and the fear of going blind due to river blindness. Building on the success of the program's fight against river blindness, Merck expanded the program in 1998 to include the donations of MECTIZAN for the prevention of lymphatic filariasis, more commonly known as elephantiasis, in African countries where river blindness and lymphatic filariasis co-exist. It is estimated that 300 million people in Africa are at risk of this disease. On this, the 15th anniversary of the Merck MECTIZAN Donation Program, I offer praise and gratitude to the many partners who have made life better for millions of people in the developing world.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. CORZINE. I appreciate that.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I appreciate the distinguished Senator from Nevada giving me the opportunity to speak on an issue that I am really quite sad about, in all honesty. This is a human issue that I bring to the floor today that I think is an oversight on the part of the Senate and actually all of us in public life. I want to speak about families of lawful noncitizens whose loved ones perished in the World Trade Center. They are about to be put into a position where, on a legal basis, they are deportable as of September 11, 2002, and this at the same time as they are taking on that incredibly difficult task of dismantling their lives here in the United States and returning to their country of birth. This legislation would extend by 1 year the relief we provided in the Patriot Act to allow noncitizens whose parent or spouse was murdered in the terrorist attacks of September 11. Today is September 10, just 1 day shy of the 1-year anniversary of the most significant terrorist attack on the United States in history. The United States lost some 2,800 lives, as you know, but in the past year we have forgotten, in my view, to take into consideration the 504 nationals from 86 foreign countries who were a part of that. Many of these victims were in the United States as guest workers, contributing their technical expertise in helping the U.S. economy be the strongest in the world, be the engine of the world's economy. When they died, their hopes to provide a better life for themselves and their children in the United States died with them. Tomorrow is September 11, and deportation proceedings could very well begin, if the INS were to proceed this way, for the grieving families of those temporary workers. While those families watch the media coverage of the anniversary--coverage that will no doubt extol the bravery and the sacrifice of so many of their family members--their presence in the United States will be in jeopardy. These families were admitted to the United States 100 percent lawfully. They had all of their papers. They were admitted because we invited them here to help drive our economy. They did not sneak across any border or overstay their visas. They are lawfully present in the United States because work visas were provided to their loved ones. They paid taxes and submitted all appropriate paperwork. They were active in our communities in New York and New Jersey and very productive members of our society. Yet on the 1-year anniversary of the death of their loved ones, the INS could begin making arrangements for their removal from this country. Fortunately, the INS said they are going to turn a blind eye. But folks have to live with the risk that this is a possibility. The challenges faced by these brave families were anticipated by those of us in Congress. In fact, the Patriot Act appropriately allowed them an additional year to remain in the United States. But it is becoming quite clear an additional year for families who have had to suffer so much is not adequate. This legislation is a response to the very real challenges of these families. For example, many of these families are participating in September 11 support groups, groups that simply would not exist in the countries to which they may be returning. Many of them are eligible for awards from the Victims Compensation Fund, but, as you know, many of the awards have not been processed, or even begun to be processed in many instances. Much work remains to be done. Although they have been in mourning for nearly a year, many widows and children are waiting patiently for DNA analysis of the remains of their loved ones. Without closure, the grieving process has been prolonged considerably. Because of this delay, many necessary and unfamiliar financial matters have not been adequately addressed. There are homes that need to be sold and other business affairs to be settled before these folks should be returning home. Also, there are children to consider, many of them in American schools, who have begun their lives. Many of them are American citizens, the children themselves. In fact, I think some of these children could potentially be separated from their parents as we go forward with this whole process. So it is a real issue at a human level on the ground, where people are trying to work their way through this tragic series of events. While it is difficult to define the precise number of survivors who would be eligible for relief under my legislation, it is safe to say it is under 200. I think it also reflects some problems in the INS. The books and records are not exactly clear on how many folks there are involved. We have identified, in my office, about 80 of these people with whom we are working to try to provide special attention to them. The thought is, it would be close to 200. Yet despite the fact that this legislation is sculpted very narrowly to address only the most immediate humanitarian considerations for this population, and despite the fact that the number of people included is a narrow 200 or fewer, each time I have attempted to get this legislation cleared, an objection has been raised. Generally, it has been one individual who has used their ability to quietly veto this legislation. So at this time, with September 11 just 1 day away, Mr. President, I think it is time to pass this legislation. I think it is important. I think it speaks to the nature and the quality of who we are as a nation. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate take up and pass S. 2845, legislation to extend for 1 year procedural relief provided under the USA Patriot Act for individuals who were or are victims or survivors of victims of a terrorist attack on the United States on September 11, 2001.

Mr. CORZINE. I appreciate the responsibility of the Senator from Wyoming to carry out the objection. I continue to have serious concerns that if the facts of this issue were known broadly, they would not be resisted. I personally sought out the assistance of a number of folks who have typically objected to legislation dealing with immigration: Senator Byrd, Senator Nickles, and particularly Senator Hatch, and they have been very helpful on this--and the Senator from Montana; excuse me. The distinguished Senator from Montana. I apologize. I am tied up in this sense of--

Mr. CORZINE. It is all a beautiful part of the country. But I must say, of all of the issues that get at human interests, I consider it extraordinarily unusual that we have chosen to put a group of people--a limited group of people--at such risk. I think this idea of having people be able to secretly hold legislation is a troubling one. I hope we can move on with it. I think this is an important piece of legislation. I thank the Senator from Montana for his graciousness, and also the Senator from Nevada. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important issue.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I rise today, sadly, to express my sincere disappointment with the passage of the Trade Act conference report. It is deeply troubling to me. I will go through a number of the reasons I have these feelings and why I think they need to be expressed in an explicit nature. I come from a business background, as many know. While I was a very sympathetic and active promoter of the passage of NAFTA early in the nineties, I believe in the principle of comparative advantage and understand that it can work to maintain competition in prices for many goods and services broadly throughout our society, and in certain sectors of our economy it certainly can promote job growth. But on balance, when we look at the nature of a lot of the elements that are a part of this so-called fast-track trade promotion authority given today, I think the costs and the benefits don't align themselves well at all. I feel particularly troubled by the dilution of many of the elements that were in the Senate bill that went to conference that really left us in an even weaker position with respect to where we stand in protecting workers' environmental rights and the ability of America to represents its own interests in negotiations. There are also some fine-print issues that I am very concerned about--the potential for degradation of our antitrust laws and the ability for American law to be represented on a coequal basis with what we see as potentially being dictated by trade laws as we go forward. I will try to itemize some of those. Again, I understand there is a strong theoretical case for comparative advantage. But I think when you put it in the specific context with the fine print of the details we are talking about with regard to this trade law, this is a very troubling piece of legislation. And I hope it is one that I am wrong about and that we will not come to regret over a period of time. Let me start with the reality that anytime something passes, there will be shifts in economic fortunes for sectors of the economy. One of the reasons we fought so hard for trade adjustment authority in the package in the Senate--and that many of us believed we made a little progress thereon--was health care benefits and employment insurance. Some of those stayed. But, in fact, I think we undermined very seriously the conference report benefits that we were applying in health insurance versus the simple elementary move from a 75-percent to a 5-percent tax credit. We undermined the definition of the pool in which workers would be available. While we have the language that we are aiding those who lose their jobs as a result of trade activities and shifts in production offshore, when you look at the details, it will be very hard for those to be applicable, and in the practical context of people's lives it is really a false presentation. By the way, there are no standards with regard to the health benefits people will get. There is no premium protection for individuals. The details just do not match the rhetoric with regard to the hope that I think we promised. There is also talk that coverage is going to be broad. But when you look at the fine print, the fact is that the element of production shifts doesn't include some of the biggest marketplaces--places where production is likely to shift because of the applicability of the law as it stands. For instance, in fact, Brazil and China and Southeast Asia are generally left uncovered. If a factory moves out of the State of Washington or the State of New Jersey and moves to those countries, they are excluded from some of the definitions of how a shift in production would apply and whether there is a need for trade assistance. While countries such as Jordan, Israel, and the Caribbean Basin, and the Indian region are included in those definitions, they make up about 5 percent of the American trade, and large blocks of that are in places left out of the shift in coverage for production. I think it is a real problem. It is a real problem with the reality of matching the language. We talk, particularly in the Senate bill, about substantial resources for workers who lose their jobs. The conference committee report came back $30 million below CBO's estimate and $80 million below what the Senate bill authorized--already a skinny number and one that I think makes the hope of real job retraining something that is a false hope for a lot of folks when you translate it into the reality of how it will work. Continuing. Labor and environmental standards: We all fought for the Jordanian standard, the agreement that was negotiated on a specific trade agreement. It was to make sure that those standards were met in all future trade agreements. When the conference agreement came back, we found that it allows for the preservation of status quo elements with regard to basic protections for children under 14. That means in Burma, if they are truly practicing slave labor, they can maintain the status quo in any kind of trade negotiations. It denies the basic rights of workers to operate with collective bargaining in countries where they don't already have it. There is no change for those countries to which we might want to apply those standards. That is really a quite serious backing away from the standards that were included in the Jordanian agreement which I think most people would embrace. And they would have made for a very serious, positive step forward in our trade negotiations. This is a very serious backing away that I think really does undermine the labor standards. I will not go into details, but there are some provisions that we have backed away from on environmental standards. We have, basically, a status quo standard for anyone who enters into these negotiations. That is a difficult way to approach fair trade, as well as free trade, if you are looking for those kinds of elements in a legitimate movement forward in our trade relationships. With regard to the role of Congress, there was debate on the floor about Dayton-Craig, which we adopted, which had to do with having a real challenge to trade remedies in these packages. We pulled back, and we now have a sense of the Congress. I do not think anybody believes that is going to seriously impact how this process is going to go forward. It may sound good for press releases and sound bites, that we are really being involved in the process, but I do not think it deals with the facts as we see them. I think it is a serious problem. There is another element that I also think is truly important with regard to fast track and an element with regard to the role of Congress. The conference agreement adds a completely new restriction that was not in the House bill or the Senate bill, and that would provide that there is only one privileged resolution per negotiation on any given trade treaty--one. We had no restrictions on those in other situations. We could now see a real weakening of the ability of Congress to have a legitimate role in debate with regard to the elements of trade negotiating. Finally, on this particular piece, one element that troubles me the most is that in many ways we have changed the language, where we are going to provide greater rights for foreign investors than are available to U.S. investors under U.S. law. And that is because we just changed a word in the language to say: Foreign investors should not be accorded greater substantive rights than U.S. investors. The only thing new is that we put in the word ``substantive.'' And ``substantive'' leaves it open to trade negotiators to decide what rights are equal or unequal. By the time we get done applying that, we could very well see substantially different treatment for foreign investors than we would see for U.S. investors. I think it is a definite weakening of what is appropriate as we go through the application of these trade laws and needs to be watched very carefully. I suspect it will lead to an enormous amount of litigation as time goes forward. But a lot of the decisions with regard to that will be taking place behind closed doors and by trade negotiators and trade adjustment bodies. So there are a number of issues that concern me. There are a couple of other issues I want to cite before I yield the floor because I think they are also important. It seems to me, in line with what I was talking about before, we have put ourselves into a position where foreign investors might very well have their international disputes resolved by trade negotiators as opposed to courts. Let me just remind people that when we were debating this on the Senate floor, we used the example of a Canadian company that sued the State of California with regard to the use of MTBE. The elected representatives of the people of California determined that MTBE was not such a good thing for their health and environmental quality of life. We have that same proposition in New Jersey. But the judgment of one of these international trade bodies could overrule that decision made by the people, in legislation that was properly passed, if the language is used that we talked about, that substantive quality principle that was mentioned. I think this is dangerous as we go forward, and it truly concerns me. Mostly, I am concerned that the principle of privatization may very well be subject to rulings from trade bodies making a decision about whether something is appropriate or not, whether privatization is a restraint of trade or not. We had a very close vote with regard to the subject in the Senate, but I think, very possibly, you could see many services that are provided by State and local governments, and even Social Security by the Federal Government, being argued that it is a restraint of or a break in our trade agreements, restricting the ability of the foreign company to come in and provide those services on a private basis. This has been certainly challenged in other countries, and I am very fearful that we have set up a regimen that allows those kinds of processes to happen. Finally, there is an area that also is quite concerning to me, and that deals with some of what I am concerned about with regard to civil liberties. I am pleased that included in the conference report was the Senate provision I authored with regard to the Customs inspection of mail, to make sure you have to get search warrants to look at small letter carrier mail. But I am very concerned that the conference report includes a potentially egregious violation of civil liberties, in my view, and an expansion which is based on the expansion immunity for Customs officials. Quite simply, there is a blank check for Customs officers to engage in illegal behavior, particularly and including racial profiling. I think the Presiding Officer knows I have long been an outspoken opponent of racial profiling. I introduced legislation with Senators Feingold and Clinton and Representative Conyers in the House, the End Racial Profiling Act, which really does work against the kind of action I think we have seen documented with the Customs Service in previous measures. I think that needs to be addressed. The President and the Attorney General have recognized that racial profiling is wrong and must be ended. The President acknowledged that in his very first State of the Union speech. I think we are taking a step backwards by providing these immunity provisions on profiling for Customs officials that are included in this legislation. Current law provides qualified immunity to Customs agents which is based on the assessment of what a reasonable officer should have done in any given situation. This means that the Customs agent is entitled to immunity from suits if they conduct an unconstitutional search based on a reasonable but mistaken conclusion that reasonable suspicion exists. This legislation expands that protection and establishes a new kind of immunity called good faith immunity. Essentially, a victim of an unconstitutional search would not be entitled to relief unless the officer acted in bad faith, a nearly impossible standard to meet. So I think it is a significant weakening of the protections in our current law, and I find it dangerous. In March 2000, the GAO had a report that found that African-American women were nearly nine times more likely to be subjected to x rays and customs searches than White women, and they were less than half as likely to be found carrying any kind of contraband: The whole point of why racial profiling is not only morally wrong, it is bad law enforcement, and doesn't lead to better results. In fact, under the stewardship of Commissioner Ray Kelly of the Customs Service, they implemented significant changes in policies to stop the racial profiling that was occurring. I think we are taking a step backward here. It is just another one of the fine details that one sees in this conference report that make this not even ideal but, I believe, bad legislation. For a whole host of reasons--the dilution of our trade adjustment authority; the issues with respect to the role of Congress, the role we rightfully should be playing in this process; the role of foreign investors in America and their ability to use trade agreements to supersede U.S. law; some of the civil liberties issues I pointed out and my concern about the use of the new trade laws to undermine public responsibility roles; the challenge to privatization that is a legitimate question that our elected officials should decide, not trade negotiators--I am led to the conclusion that we have the potential for what could be a very seriously flawed piece of legislation. I voted against it in the Senate, and I am even more strongly opposed to the conference report. I hope I am wrong and the majority in the Senate are correct. But there are grave dangers embedded in this. We will need to monitor very carefully the application of this trade law as we go forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, along with my distinguished colleague from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, I am introducing The Wire Transfer Fairness and Disclosure Act, legislation that will protect consumers who send cash remittances through international money wire transfer companies by providing greater disclosure of the fees, including hidden costs, charged for those services. Every year, thirty million Americans send their friends and relatives $40 billion in cash remittances through wire transfers. The majority of these transfers are remittances sent to their native countries by immigrants to the United States. For these individuals, many of whom are in low-to-minimum wage jobs, sending this money only increases their own personal financial burdens--but they do so to aid their families and their loved ones. Unfortunately, these immigrants increasingly find themselves being preyed upon by the practices of some money wire transfer providers who not only charge consumers an upfront charge for the transfer service, but also hit them on the back end with hidden costs. Many of these charges are extracted when the dollars sent by the consumer are converted to the foreign currency value that is supposed to be paid out to the friend of the family member. This exploitation is especially pervasive in Latin American and Caribbean countries. In fact, as many as 10 million Hispanic immigrants in the U.S. send remittances to their family and friends back home. Cumulatively, these individuals send $23 billion annually to some of our hemisphere's poorest economies. This money is used to pay for such basic needs such as food, medicine, and schooling. In most Latin American and Caribbean countries, remittances far exceed U.S. development assistance. In the case of Nicaragua, Haiti, Jamaica, Ecuador and El Salvador, cash remittances account for more than 10 percent of national GDP. These large cash flows have proven to be a powerful incentive for greed in the case of some wire transfer companies. Customers wiring money to Latin America and elsewhere in the world lose billions of dollars annually to undisclosed ``currency conversion fees.'' In fact, many large companies aggressively target immigrant communities, often advertising ``low fee'' or ``no fee'' rates for international transfers. But these misleading ads do not always clearly disclose the fees charged when the currency is exchanged. While large wire service companies typically obtain foreign currencies at bulk rates, they charge a significant currency conversion fee to their U.S. customers. For example, customers wiring money to Mexico are charged an exchange rate that routinely varies from the benchmark by as much as 15 percent. These hidden fees create staggering profits, allowing companies to reap billions of dollars on top of the stated fees they charge for the wire transfer services. While this practice may not be illegal, it is wrong, and it must be stopped. The Wire Transfer Fairness and Disclosure Act requires financial institutions or money-transmitting businesses that initiate international money transfers to disclose all fees charged in an international wire transfer. The legislation also requires these companies to provide consumers with important disclosures regarding the exchange rate used in connection with the transaction; the exchange rate prevailing at a major financial center in the foreign country whose currency is involved in the transaction; or the official exchange rate, if any, of the government or central bank of that foreign country. The bill would additionally require disclosure to the consumer who initiates the transaction of any fees or commissions charged by transfer service providers in connection with any transaction and the exact amount of foreign currency to be received by the recipient in the foreign country, which shall be disclosed to the consumer before the transaction is consummated and printed on the receipt given to customer. This legislation does more than merely provide better information to consumers--it should also help them financially. Consumers will see increased competition among wire transfer companies because they are better-informed and more knowledgeable. That competition will result in lower fees for the wire transfer services that will free up a greater portion of these cash remittances to go to the friends and families that they were originally intended for. In short, this is sound public policy that empowers those who do their part to help America's economy move forward. I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the FHA Multifamily Housing Loan Limit Improvement Act, to expand the supply of affordable housing by increasing the Federal Housing Administration's multifamily housing loan limit to account for inflation. Providing access to decent, safe, affordable housing for individuals and families remains an enormous challenge for our Nation. Throughout the country, rising construction costs have resulted in shortage of affordably priced rental units. In fact, the shortage of affordable housing should be considered nothing short of a crisis. After all, housing is among the most basic of human needs, and it is critically important for all American communities. The Federal Housing Administration, FHA, was established as part of a national commitment to providing affordable housing, particularly for those most in need. Overall, the FHA, through its various initiatives, has been successful in providing increased access to housing. But as the crisis of affordable housing has grown, so has the need for Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to promote increased production of affordable housing. That is why I am pleased to join with Senators Carper, Ensign and Schumer in introducing this legislation to increase the production and availability of affordable housing for American families. The bill would improve upon legislation I introduced last year, ``The FHA Multifamily Housing Loan Limit Adjustment Act,'' which Congress approved last year as part of the VA-HUD Appropriations bill. That legislation increased by twenty-five percent the statutory limits for multifamily project development loans that are insurable by the FHA. The change reflected the increased costs associated with the production of multifamily units since 1992, the last time those limits were revised upwards. In other words, it had taken Congress ten years to modify the underlying statute to account for rising prices and simply maintain the effectiveness of the program. That is too long. The legislation we are introducing today would ensure that it does not take another decade or longer to assist those who need affordable housing. This bill is simple, it ensures that the insurable FHA loan limit amounts, as adjusted under ``The FHA Multifamily Loan Adjustment Act,'' would keep pace with economic growth by indexing them each year to the Annual Construction Cost Index, issued annually by the Census Bureau. This bill also promotes the production of affordable housing in another important way, by promoting the development of affordable housing in high-cost cities like Newark, NJ, New York, Philadelphia and San Francisco. Currently in those communities, the cost of living is so high that the FHA insurance program is rendered largely ineffective. This bill improves the FHA multifamily program by adjusting its statutory limits to promote increased housing production in high-cost, primarily urban, communities. There is a very real need for Congress to address the shortage of affordable housing. A report released last year by the Center for Housing Policy, ``Housing America's Working Families,'' documented the severity of this need. The report found that more than fourteen million people faced severe housing needs because of the lack of affordable housing. That number may well be higher now. This bill will provide the proper incentive for public/private investment in affordable housing in communities throughout America and spur new production of cooperative housing projects, rental housing for the elderly, new construction or substantial rehabilitation of apartments by for- and non-profit entities, condominium developments and refinancing of rental properties. In short, this bill is good housing policy. That is why the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Realtors and the Mortgage Bankers Association endorse the legislation, along with other housing and community advocates. I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Angie Drumm, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of today's session.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, along with my distinguished colleague from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, I am introducing The Wire Transfer Fairness and Disclosure Act, legislation that will protect consumers who send cash remittances through international money wire transfer companies by providing greater disclosure of the fees, including hidden costs, charged for those services. Every year, thirty million Americans send their friends and relatives $40 billion in cash remittances through wire transfers. The majority of these transfers are remittances sent to their native countries by immigrants to the United States. For these individuals, many of whom are in low-to-minimum wage jobs, sending this money only increases their own personal financial burdens--but they do so to aid their families and their loved ones. Unfortunately, these immigrants increasingly find themselves being preyed upon by the practices of some money wire transfer providers who not only charge consumers an upfront charge for the transfer service, but also hit them on the back end with hidden costs. Many of these charges are extracted when the dollars sent by the consumer are converted to the foreign currency value that is supposed to be paid out to the friend of the family member. This exploitation is especially pervasive in Latin American and Caribbean countries. In fact, as many as 10 million Hispanic immigrants in the U.S. send remittances to their family and friends back home. Cumulatively, these individuals send $23 billion annually to some of our hemisphere's poorest economies. This money is used to pay for such basic needs such as food, medicine, and schooling. In most Latin American and Caribbean countries, remittances far exceed U.S. development assistance. In the case of Nicaragua, Haiti, Jamaica, Ecuador and El Salvador, cash remittances account for more than 10 percent of national GDP. These large cash flows have proven to be a powerful incentive for greed in the case of some wire transfer companies. Customers wiring money to Latin America and elsewhere in the world lose billions of dollars annually to undisclosed ``currency conversion fees.'' In fact, many large companies aggressively target immigrant communities, often advertising ``low fee'' or ``no fee'' rates for international transfers. But these misleading ads do not always clearly disclose the fees charged when the currency is exchanged. While large wire service companies typically obtain foreign currencies at bulk rates, they charge a significant currency conversion fee to their U.S. customers. For example, customers wiring money to Mexico are charged an exchange rate that routinely varies from the benchmark by as much as 15 percent. These hidden fees create staggering profits, allowing companies to reap billions of dollars on top of the stated fees they charge for the wire transfer services. While this practice may not be illegal, it is wrong, and it must be stopped. The Wire Transfer Fairness and Disclosure Act requires financial institutions or money-transmitting businesses that initiate international money transfers to disclose all fees charged in an international wire transfer. The legislation also requires these companies to provide consumers with important disclosures regarding the exchange rate used in connection with the transaction; the exchange rate prevailing at a major financial center in the foreign country whose currency is involved in the transaction; or the official exchange rate, if any, of the government or central bank of that foreign country. The bill would additionally require disclosure to the consumer who initiates the transaction of any fees or commissions charged by transfer service providers in connection with any transaction and the exact amount of foreign currency to be received by the recipient in the foreign country, which shall be disclosed to the consumer before the transaction is consummated and printed on the receipt given to customer. This legislation does more than merely provide better information to consumers--it should also help them financially. Consumers will see increased competition among wire transfer companies because they are better-informed and more knowledgeable. That competition will result in lower fees for the wire transfer services that will free up a greater portion of these cash remittances to go to the friends and families that they were originally intended for. In short, this is sound public policy that empowers those who do their part to help America's economy move forward. I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the FHA Multifamily Housing Loan Limit Improvement Act, to expand the supply of affordable housing by increasing the Federal Housing Administration's multifamily housing loan limit to account for inflation. Providing access to decent, safe, affordable housing for individuals and families remains an enormous challenge for our Nation. Throughout the country, rising construction costs have resulted in shortage of affordably priced rental units. In fact, the shortage of affordable housing should be considered nothing short of a crisis. After all, housing is among the most basic of human needs, and it is critically important for all American communities. The Federal Housing Administration, FHA, was established as part of a national commitment to providing affordable housing, particularly for those most in need. Overall, the FHA, through its various initiatives, has been successful in providing increased access to housing. But as the crisis of affordable housing has grown, so has the need for Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to promote increased production of affordable housing. That is why I am pleased to join with Senators Carper, Ensign and Schumer in introducing this legislation to increase the production and availability of affordable housing for American families. The bill would improve upon legislation I introduced last year, ``The FHA Multifamily Housing Loan Limit Adjustment Act,'' which Congress approved last year as part of the VA-HUD Appropriations bill. That legislation increased by twenty-five percent the statutory limits for multifamily project development loans that are insurable by the FHA. The change reflected the increased costs associated with the production of multifamily units since 1992, the last time those limits were revised upwards. In other words, it had taken Congress ten years to modify the underlying statute to account for rising prices and simply maintain the effectiveness of the program. That is too long. The legislation we are introducing today would ensure that it does not take another decade or longer to assist those who need affordable housing. This bill is simple, it ensures that the insurable FHA loan limit amounts, as adjusted under ``The FHA Multifamily Loan Adjustment Act,'' would keep pace with economic growth by indexing them each year to the Annual Construction Cost Index, issued annually by the Census Bureau. This bill also promotes the production of affordable housing in another important way, by promoting the development of affordable housing in high-cost cities like Newark, NJ, New York, Philadelphia and San Francisco. Currently in those communities, the cost of living is so high that the FHA insurance program is rendered largely ineffective. This bill improves the FHA multifamily program by adjusting its statutory limits to promote increased housing production in high-cost, primarily urban, communities. There is a very real need for Congress to address the shortage of affordable housing. A report released last year by the Center for Housing Policy, ``Housing America's Working Families,'' documented the severity of this need. The report found that more than fourteen million people faced severe housing needs because of the lack of affordable housing. That number may well be higher now. This bill will provide the proper incentive for public/private investment in affordable housing in communities throughout America and spur new production of cooperative housing projects, rental housing for the elderly, new construction or substantial rehabilitation of apartments by for- and non-profit entities, condominium developments and refinancing of rental properties. In short, this bill is good housing policy. That is why the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Realtors and the Mortgage Bankers Association endorse the legislation, along with other housing and community advocates. I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Graham-Smith amendment. I believe that this compromise represents an important victory for all our Nation's seniors, and particularly for seniors in my State of New Jersey. Let me be frank: this is not the proposal I would have preferred and is not the proposal I have talked about with my constituents for the last few years. I have gone around New Jersey and have heard from my constituents about how they struggle to deal with rising drug prices, how they fear being bankrupted in their last years, and how they worry about burdening their families. That is why I strongly support a comprehensive Medicare benefit, and that is why I supported the Graham- Miller-Kennedy-Corzine amendment last week. But, I am also a pragmatist, and I know that the Graham-Smith amendment is a good and necessary start, upon which we can build. It will provide critical relief to the neediest of seniors, and provides comfort to all seniors that castatrophic drug costs will not ruin them. And I know that if we can get this enacted, next year I will be back here fighting to expand its reach. The Graham-Smith amendment will ensure that no senior spends more than $3,300 to buy their prescription drugs. It also provides comprehensive coverage to our Nation's neediest seniors, those with incomes up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level. In addition, it provides a thirty to forty percent discount on prescription drugs for all seniors. At a cost of $390 billion over ten years, the Graham-Smith amendment will guarantee all seniors much-needed prescription drug coverage at a reasonable price. My State of New Jersey and many other States around the Nation have responded to the glaring need for prescription drug coverage for our Nation's seniors by creating state pharmacy benefit programs. In New Jersey, we have the PAAD and Senior Gold programs. The PAAD program currently provides comprehensive drug coverage to seniors up to 220 percent of the Federal poverty line, and the Senior Gold program provides more limited coverage to certain higher income seniors. I am pleased that the Graham-Smith amendment preserves and reinforces State pharmacy benefit plans like New Jersey's. I worked with Senators Graham and Smith to ensure that the amendment enables States with prescription drug programs to wrap their programs around the Medicare prescription drug benefit, to create more generous and more extensive benefits for all seniors. This is a crucial provision that will enable New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Minnesota and the other 20 States that have State-funded prescription drug programs to expand and supplement their existing programs. I also worked with Senators Graham and Smith to ensure that state pharmacy program spending counts toward a beneficiary's out of pocket limit. This will ensure that New Jersey seniors reach catastrophic coverage as quickly as possible. I want to thank Senators Graham and Smith for their assistance with these provisions. Let me outline how the Graham-Smith amendment would benefit New Jersey seniors: 1,189,000 New Jersey senior citizens and disabled Medicare beneficiaries would be eligible for coverage under the Graham- Smith plan; 568,000 Medicare beneficiaries, 48 percent, would be eligible for low-income assistance and will receive all needed drugs in return for nominal copayments; 621,000 senior citizens and disabled Medicare beneficiaries, 52 percent, who are not eligible for special low-income assistance would benefit from discounts of 25-30 percent on each prescription. I know many of my colleagues have raised concerns that this amendment does not provide comprehensive coverage for all seniors. But the basic fact is that this amendment provides prescription drug insurance for all our nation's seniors and disabled. It provides a thirty to forty percent discount on prescription drugs for all Medicare beneficiaries and would provide full prescription drug coverage to every Medicare beneficiary who spends at least $3,300 per year for their prescription drugs. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that by 2005, the year that this amendment would take effect, at least half of all Medicare beneficiaries will have annual prescription drug expenditures that exceed $4,000. And, don't forget that the eighteen million Medicare beneficiaries with incomes below 200 percent of poverty would receive all the prescription drugs they need, for a small copayment of $2 for generics and $5 for brand name drugs. At a time in which this Congress has voted to give billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country, it is wrong and hypocritical to tell seniors that we simply don't have the funds or the will to pass an amendment that will provide them access to affordable, essential medicines.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask to speak on another subject.