Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I bring up a subject that I have been speaking about frequently. That is our Social Security system, one that I believe the American people deserve to have a debate about before the election in November. There have been many attempts to put off this debate until after the election so we can decide policy that will truly impact the American people for many, many years and decades to come. It is extremely disappointing we have had a hard time engaging in that debate. This week we actually made some progress, at least with regard to debate, not necessarily with regard to the content of the debate. I express my great disappointment and, frankly, my utter amazement about comments made this past week by the President's press secretary, Mr. Ari Fleischer, with respect to the privatization of Social Security. I will read the beginning of an article from the Washington Post on Thursday on the press secretary's remarks, and I will ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record. The article is titled: ``Bush Continues to Back Privatized Social Security.'' It reads: The White House yesterday stood firmly behind President Bush's plan for workers to divert some of their social security payroll taxes into the stock market, despite the dramatic drops suffered in recent months. Basically, for the past 2\1/2\ years. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer took a swing at the existing Social Security Program, calling it ``dangerous'' to let the people pay a lifetime of high taxes for a Social Security benefit that under current projections they'll never receive. Let me repeat: . . . calling it ``dangerous`` to let people pay a lifetime of high taxes for a Social Security benefit that under current projections they'll never receive. Often we hear people talking about trying to scare seniors and all kinds of hyperbolic commentary about Social Security, but this tops it. Yesterday, the Congress, under your leadership, took the leadership with regard to corporate reform to help make sure corporate America, the Nation's accounting profession, those who are responsible for managing corporate America, are more responsible. But after reading Mr. Fleischer's remarks, I think we should consider a similar initiative to make the administration's statements on Social Security equally responsible. It is inconceivable that we would be talking to the American people in terms that, under current projections, they will never receive their benefits. Let me take a moment to review where things stand on this issue of Social Security, which I do believe truly needs a full debate--maybe not in context that Mr. Fleischer is talking about, but we do need a debate in front of the election. Last December, President Bush's Social Security Commission proposed plans to privatize Social Security that would require deep cuts in guaranteed benefits--not eliminate, deep cuts. For workers now in their twenties, those cuts would exceed 25 percent. From younger workers and future generations, those cuts could be much deeper, up to and beyond 45 percent. Unfairly, and in my view inappropriately, these cuts would apply to everyone, even those who choose not to risk their Social Security benefits in privatized accounts. For those who do participate in privatized accounts, the cuts in their guaranteed benefits would even be larger than those I just mentioned. Incredibly, for the disabled and for surviving children and family members, the cuts in their benefits would be especially disastrous, more extreme than the numbers that are cited for retirees. These deep cuts would undermine the fundamental purpose of Social Security, which is about providing a basic level of security to those who have worked hard, contributed to our Nation, paid into the Social Security system, and they did it in good faith that the system would be available, and those resources would be available for their retirement. Social Security promises Americans a basic level of security on which they can count. It is the bedrock of a social insurance program that our Nation overwhelmingly supports, has for generations--70 years--and that retirees can depend on for a rock solid guarantee regardless of what the stock market does or what asset markets of all kinds do, regardless of inflation and regardless of one's lifespan. Social Security will be there and that fundamental guarantee is what the program is all about. By contrast, privatizing Social Security would shred, would break that guarantee, and in my view we must not let that happen. It is one of the most important issues our Nation should be debating as we face this election this fall. The lines are very clearly drawn. Mr. Fleischer suggested they stand firm in their belief that the privatization of Social Security is the direction we should take. The huge volatility in the stock market over the past several months should make clear to all Americans that equity investments by their nature cannot offer the same security that Social Security provides. Being an old market hand, markets go up, they go down, they go sideways. They are volatile through time. Sometimes they have serious erosions in value. In the past 2\1/2\ years, stocks have lost nearly $8 trillion in value. The S&P index has declined by about 45 percent. This year alone, stocks have lost close to $3 trillion. That translates to real undermining of retirement security for those who were dependent on it, primarily focused on a 401(k) in the stock market. Many of those losses have been suffered in our pension systems. They have been suffered in IRAs, 401(k)s, personal savings accounts. Those have truly undermined the security that one might draw from them. But through all of that, Social Security stands firm. The guaranteed benefits are in place. One doesn't have to wonder whether those resources for one's retirement security are going to be available. Basic, critical benefits will be there for the beneficiaries, regardless of the state of the stock market. In light of that dramatic volatility, I had hoped that President Bush would reconsider his support for privatizing Social Security. As I said, Mr. Fleischer was crystal clear. The President's position had not changed. For me, this is extremely disappointing, and I certainly call on the President to rethink his position. On these matters of great national import--whether it was the corporate reform activity that we had a debate about for 3 or 4 months, leading up to yesterday's successful passage of corporate reform; whether it is with regard to the fiscal policy that has seen us move from substantial surpluses, 3 years of surpluses into substantial deficit; and now, on Social Security--we see this continual sense of inflexibility. Leadership is about thoughtful respect for the facts, changing realities that might require a change in one's position. I hope the President will consider that in the context of Social Security, taking into account the kind of market volatility we have seen, taking into consideration the kind of risk that might be brought to bear on those who have had their investments in the stock market over long periods of time. Having said that, my concern about Mr. Fleischer's statement Wednesday goes beyond his reaffirmation of this administration's continuing support for privatizing Social Security. He went much further. Let me just read again from the story I cited from the Washington Post. Mr. Fleischer claimed that Social Security was ``going bankrupt,'' and that it was dangerous to: . . . let people pay a lifetime of high taxes for a Social Security benefit that under current projections they'll never receive. ``Going bankrupt,'' if that is not scare language, I can't imagine how one could otherwise categorize it. This statement is simply outrageous. It is simply outrageous to suggest that people now paying into the system will never receive a Social Security benefit. It is not just misleading, it is absolutely factually wrong. I am afraid it is part of a concerted effort by those advocates of privatization to scare Americans, especially younger Americans, into believing that the only way they are ever going to get a retirement benefit out of Social Security is to invest it in personal accounts, to invest it in privatized accounts, to invest it in the stock market. I am not against investing private funds beyond Social Security in all kinds of assets. But we are talking about a guaranteed benefit for all of Americans. In the 1930s, before we had Social Security, or before 1930, almost 50 percent of senior Americans lived in poverty. Because of the benefit of Social Security, now we are down to about 10 percent. It is a fundamental, solid program. People know that our Government has created a situation where they can have security in their retirement. It is a sacred trust with the American people. It is based on a promise that if you work hard and contribute to your country, you will enjoy a very basic level of security in retirement. By the way, this is not exactly a princely sum that people get out of Social Security. I wish we could make it better. Last year, the average retiree benefit was about $10,000--not exactly what some of the salaries of big corporate executives are about--and about $9,000 for women. That is not exactly a princely sum, as I suggested, in my part of the country. In New Jersey, the average rental payment for an individual is about $1,200 a month. I don't think $10,000 matches up with what you even have to pay for rent in many parts of the country. It is not exactly as if our Social Security system is providing excessive amounts of resources for individuals in their retirement. But it does provide that bedrock safety. Unfortunately, I guess there are those who seem to think $10,000 is too much. They want to break Social Security's promise to seniors in the future by cutting those benefits by 25 percent, or 45 percent. Those are big numbers. That is hard to put together against the cost of retirement for most Americans. One way they justify such claims is by arguing that the current system will leave today's workers high and dry. We heard Mr. Fleischer's remarks. They seem to be hoping that will be a self- fulfilling prophecy, that somehow or another they can scare people into believing we ought to undermine Social Security. I stand here today quite confident that folks on this side of the aisle, if we have anything to say on the matter, are not going to let that happen. That is why we need to have this debate about Social Security privatization before people go to the polls this November. It is one of those defining issues for the American people to express themselves about. It is very clear: Do you want privatization of Social Security that puts the responsibility and the risk on the shoulders of Americans or do you want a guaranteed system that provides benefits if you have paid into that system when you retire? It is very clear, it is not a complicated concept--guaranteed benefits versus risk. For those concerned about the future of Social Security, let me remind my colleagues that Social Security benefits are established in the United States Code and represent a legal commitment--I think we call it an entitlement--by the Federal Government and with the full faith and credit of the United States. Unlike many other programs, Social Security is not subject to a yearly appropriations process. The entitlement and benefit is not dependent on future congressional action. Mr. Fleischer is just flat out wrong. As a purely legal matter, this entitlement would remain a binding obligation of the Government even if Congress were to allow the Social Security trust fund to become insolvent. However, as a practical matter, the point is moot. First, the nonpartisan actuaries at the Social Security Administration project that the trust fund will be fully solvent for 40 years; that is, 2041. After that, there still would be enough funding for three-quarters of the benefits to the actuarial life on which they are making the calculations. But there is nothing in the law to prohibit Congress from replenishing the funds or changing some of the terms and conditions. We can do a number of things to establish the security of that trust fund. We ought to start by balancing our budget so we are not spending the Social Security trust fund on everything under the Sun other than for what it is intended. But we could take actions here on the floor of the Senate with the Congress and the President working together to flush that up. As a matter of fact, we have a legal obligation to do that. I think it is absolutely essential that Mr. Fleischer review the context in which he says we are going to have a bankruptcy because we have written into law that that is not going to happen. I am confident that long before 2041, the Congress and the White House will come together in a bipartisan way, as they have in history in different periods of time, move beyond privatization proposals which would actually worsen the Social Security financial system, and work together to solve the program's long-term funding needs. It can be done. It is not beyond the realm of a lot of reasonable people. We ought to talk to the American public about that. But the reality is that privatization is not the direction that is going to provide the kind of security that I think most Americans are looking for in their retirement. I think we ought to get away from giving blatantly false and misleading arguments and scaring people about the solvency of Social Security, as Mr. Fleischer did on Wednesday. I think we need to stop the scare tactics for young people and talk about real solutions for a real problem, that I think can be addressed if we are thoughtful, in the way we have addressed a number of issues in the Senate. I conclude by again urging the Bush administration to reconsider their position on privatization, particularly in light of the dramatic events of recent weeks. Just as September 11 led to fundamental changes in Americans' perceptions about the risks of terrorism, I think the recent volatility of this market has captured the reality of what markets can provide as far as undermining security is concerned, and we have developed a much greater appreciation as a nation about the uncertainties of the market. I hope the Bush administration will face up to that reality and readjust its attitude and its views on its policies accordingly. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the article to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business and that the time I use be charged against the time allocated for debate on the amendment. I expect to use up to 15 minutes.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address the serious national problem of drunk driving. The bill, entitled ``John's Law of 2002,'' would help ensure that when drunken drivers are arrested, they cannot simply get back into the car and put the lives of others in jeopardy. On July 22, 2000, Navy Ensign John Elliott was driving home from the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis for his mother's birthday when his car was struck by another car. Both Ensign Elliott and the driver of that car were killed. The driver of the car that caused the collision had a blood alcohol level that exceeded twice the legal limit. What makes this tragedy especially distressing is that this same driver had been arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, DUI, just three hours before the crash. After being processed for that offense, he had been released into the custody of a friend who drove him back to his car and allowed him to get behind the wheel, with tragic results. We need to ensure that drunken drivers do not get back behind the wheel before they sober up. New Jersey took steps to do this when they enacted John's Law at the State level. I am pleased to offer a Federal version of this legislation today. This bill would require States to impound the vehicle of an offender for a period of at least 12 hours after the offense. This would ensure that the arrestee cannot get back behind the wheel of his car until he is sober. Further, the bill would require States to ensure that if a DUI offender arrestee is released into the custody of another, that person must be provided with notice of his or her potential civil or criminal liability for permitting the arrestee's operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. While this bill does not create new liability under Federal law, notifying such individuals of their prospective liability under State law should encourage them to act responsibly. John's Law of 2002 is structured in a manner similar to other Federal laws designed to promote highway safety, such as laws that encourage states to enact tough drunk driving standards. Under the legislation, a portion of Federal highway funds would be withheld from States that do not comply. Initially, this funding could be restored if States move into compliance. Later, the highway funding forfeited by one State would be distributed to other States that are in compliance. Experience has shown that the threat of losing highway funding is very effective in ensuring that States comply. I believe that this legislation would help make our roads safer and save many lives. I hope my colleagues will support it, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address the serious national problem of drunk driving. The bill, entitled ``John's Law of 2002,'' would help ensure that when drunken drivers are arrested, they cannot simply get back into the car and put the lives of others in jeopardy. On July 22, 2000, Navy Ensign John Elliott was driving home from the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis for his mother's birthday when his car was struck by another car. Both Ensign Elliott and the driver of that car were killed. The driver of the car that caused the collision had a blood alcohol level that exceeded twice the legal limit. What makes this tragedy especially distressing is that this same driver had been arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, DUI, just three hours before the crash. After being processed for that offense, he had been released into the custody of a friend who drove him back to his car and allowed him to get behind the wheel, with tragic results. We need to ensure that drunken drivers do not get back behind the wheel before they sober up. New Jersey took steps to do this when they enacted John's Law at the State level. I am pleased to offer a Federal version of this legislation today. This bill would require States to impound the vehicle of an offender for a period of at least 12 hours after the offense. This would ensure that the arrestee cannot get back behind the wheel of his car until he is sober. Further, the bill would require States to ensure that if a DUI offender arrestee is released into the custody of another, that person must be provided with notice of his or her potential civil or criminal liability for permitting the arrestee's operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. While this bill does not create new liability under Federal law, notifying such individuals of their prospective liability under State law should encourage them to act responsibly. John's Law of 2002 is structured in a manner similar to other Federal laws designed to promote highway safety, such as laws that encourage states to enact tough drunk driving standards. Under the legislation, a portion of Federal highway funds would be withheld from States that do not comply. Initially, this funding could be restored if States move into compliance. Later, the highway funding forfeited by one State would be distributed to other States that are in compliance. Experience has shown that the threat of losing highway funding is very effective in ensuring that States comply. I believe that this legislation would help make our roads safer and save many lives. I hope my colleagues will support it, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am honored today to stand before the Senate to express my strong support and appreciation for the conference report that I suspect, within an hour or so, we will adopt, and, hopefully, unanimously, as we did the original bill that came out of the Senate. I think it is historic. I think it is truly critical in bringing about the kind of important reforms that will make a real difference to our financial system, not just today but I think as a standard it will be very much an important part of the structure of our financial system for decades to come. I have said often, since we have talked about this legislation, that it really does, in my mind, fill a large gap that has been missing in our securities laws that were written 70 years ago. I think it very well may be the most important step we will have taken in that interim period, to make sure we have a measured but strong securities and reporting structure in our Nation that makes for the depth and breadth and beauty and effectiveness of our financial markets. This legislation, as has been noted, comprehensively deals with reform of our accounting profession, enhances corporate accountability, improves transparency, moderates conflicts in a number of parts of our financial world, deals with the transparency of corporate financial statements, strengthens the SEC, tightens penalties and more securely sets the law, and ultimately, I believe, will restore the trust, the needed trust, and investor confidence in the integrity of America's capital markets. This was an absolutely necessary step at this time in our Nation's history. There has been an enormous betrayal of trust, demonstrated, certainly, by the headlines and the litany of corporate abuses. Let me say, it goes deeper than just the headlines. There have been 1,100 corporate earnings restatements in the last 4 years. There is a basic loss of more than just the simple sense of trust that people get from the headlines. It is hard for people to make investment decisions when they don't have good facts, good numbers, and the ability to draw good conclusions about where the investor dollar should go. It has led to a misallocation of capital. And there was a serious need for people to have reform in this area because this betrayal really went at the heart of why people were employees of various firms, why investors put their trust in investing in companies, and why the American system, which so relies on trust, has been called into question with respect to the integrity of our financial markets in recent days. It is an extraordinary step. I am pleased to have been a part of it. I see the chairman just left the Chamber. I want to take a few moments to make sure he knows how strongly I feel about the leadership he played. For those who were not a part of this measured process that Chairman Sarbanes put forward--I have said this to him personally--the 10 hearings we had were the moral equivalent of a graduate finance program. I suspect that very few times in congressional history have we seen the breakdown in the detail and presentation of sophisticated information, complicated topics, presented with the security and integrity that were presented in our hearings that led to the creation of this legislation. He did an incredible job of putting together a bill. I get a little nervous when I hear people say this was a rush to justice, a rush to an answer. This was one of the most thoughtful and measured programs of review put in place before the legislation was written that absolutely could ever have been conceived. He deserves enormous credit for making sure we were thoughtful in the process. Like Senator Enzi, I compliment all the staffs who were involved in this. This was an incredible effort on all of their parts. From the bottom of my heart--and I am sure all those others who were involved in this process--I truly appreciate the thoughtfulness and care they all gave to it. I also would be remiss if I did not mention Senator Dodd for his great help in originally putting together our initiatives with regard to accounting reform, corporate oversight, and resourcing the SEC, which I think are fundamental parts of the legislation. We feel good about that. I think Senator Dodd has taken an extraordinary step in leadership. Once again, I say to the Senator from Wyoming, this is about making America better. It is fundamentally about doing the right thing at the right time. His leadership on that, to make sure we stayed constrained, as he says, thoughtful, and measured about how we addressed the problem, has been most appropriate, and I have appreciated the opportunity to work with him. I compliment him for that effort. I would say the same about the Presiding Officer. The addition of a number of the amendments that have come, particularly with regard to bringing in the responsibility that is associated with lawyering in America, as important as it is for accountants and CFOs and CEOs, I think was an important step. There has been a lot of really great effort here. Now that the chairman is back in the Chamber, I want to say again, this is a classic example of quality leadership, of thoughtful leadership, and getting to a result that will make a difference in the lives of Americans in the years ahead. This is a little more personal for me because for the 5 years before I came here, I was a CEO. Sometimes you want to hide from that moniker these days since it is not so popular. I think these days about the words of Andy Grove, who said that he was ashamed and embarrassed by some of the actions and many of the actions that are associated with the abuse we have seen. I stand with Andy Grove on that. This is not one of our prouder moments in our financial system. But what does make me proud is that we could work together in a bipartisan way to come to a thoughtful, measured response that will make a difference, that really will move our securities laws in a direction that will give the American people confidence in how they read an income statement, when they look at a balance sheet and when they judge where they want to work, that they will have the necessary information. I am not going to go into detail on the bill. Senator Sarbanes and Senator Enzi did that. It is a great piece of legislation. I don't think it went too far at all. In fact, I think it is about spot on. I am sure there will be things we will need to review in time, tweak with, but this is a good set of initiatives which will make a difference in America's financial system. When we address these issues, it does beg to recognize that there are additional tasks that need to be addressed. I heard the chairman talk about it is not good enough to authorize; we have to appropriate the funds to go with the necessary obligations we put on the SEC; we need to make sure our new advisory board actually has the resources. I think we do. But their independence, their ability to function, will come because they have the resources. The same as the SEC; we have to do our job in the second part of this to make sure those resources are available. We do need to make sure the SEC Commissioners are in place so that we can have a credible process of looking at enforcement and review of laws and making sure that as we structure the SEC in the days going forward, we have the best of minds brought to bear there. I hope we can vote on these Commissioners very quickly. For myself--I know there are differences of views about this--there are other unmet items on the agenda. Not necessarily do they apply to this bill, but in my view we should, as a nation, deal with the stock options issue. I don't think Congress should write the accounting rules, but I believe to recognize that stock options are an expense is relatively self-evident to those who have operated in business. They are used as a substitute for compensation. Compensation is an expense. That is why you see Chairman Greenspan and all of what I think is the critical weight of those who have observed on this issue speaking out that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. The Bermuda registry of companies, derivatives regulation are also issues. Could I have 1 additional minute?

Mr. CORZINE. We need to address these issues. There are missing gaps in other parts of our oversight of our securities markets and financial markets that need to be addressed. Finally, I believe there is a gaping hole in our oversight of what our investors and employees and the public need to see addressed, and that is pension reform. I know working their way through Congress right now are a number of initiatives on it. Fewer than 50 percent of Americans have pensions. We have a major need to address this. We should pull it together in as thoughtful a way as Chairman Sarbanes has led our Senate to this conclusion, led this debate to a positive conclusion. I hope we will address that in the future. So, once again, I express my great gratitude to all those involved. I particularly thank Chairman Sarbanes for his strong leadership.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I rise today to support passage of a Medicare prescription drug benefit and express my strong belief that the time has come when a Medicare prescription drug benefit that provides affordable and meaningful coverage for all our Nation's seniors should be implemented. We have a historic opportunity to reform our Medicare programs and put in place something that I think we all know is necessary and important for our Nation's well-being. I particularly also thank Senator Stabenow, the Presiding Officer, for her extraordinary leadership in raising the level of awareness, the level of concern and consideration, not only inside the Chamber but across the country. She has done a remarkable job of elevating the quality of debate on the subject. Furthermore, and equally so, I thank my colleagues, Senator Bob Graham, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Miller, for their efforts to bring forward a real and meaningful prescription drug program. It is one that I think all of us should get behind and support. It is measured but certain. I have yet to speak out on specific programs. As the Chair knows, the industry which you just so eloquently spoke about is an important part of the community which I represent. It has been important, in my view, to find a response to this great need in our Nation that also does not undermine all the elements that I think make the industry so important to our Nation and so entrepreneurial. In fact, I think the Graham- Kennedy-Miller program has found that balance. It is for that reason I also want to make sure I am on record expressing my support. All of us know it is time to act. We need to ensure that seniors can afford their prescription drugs. We have heard the refrain that we should not be forcing people into these hard choices, and it is a reality. Anyone who is in public life, who interfaces with our senior citizens around our country--just as much in New Jersey as anyplace else--knows that these are real world choices for people: Whether they can afford their lifesaving, quality-of-life-producing prescription drugs or whether they have to choose between that and other aspects of quality of life, including the simple things such as house and home, and their ability to have quality of life in general, which our Nation can afford, absolutely, including putting food on the table. The fact is, this is a choice far too many of our seniors are having to make, and it is time for us to move to make these costly drugs available so our seniors can lead that independent, productive life that I think all of us hope for, for our families, our parents, and certainly we want for our generation as well. That is why I support this bill. I will be very aggressive in getting out and trying to promote it, not only here in the Chamber but actually among those in the industry so we can move forward. This effort truly does guarantee prescription drug coverage for every senior--it is universal--rather than relying on the private insurance industry to provide that coverage. That is what the alternative House bill is all about. I think many of us think that is going to leave a lot of folks out of the system. The Democratic package also ensures that seniors will have coverage all year. It does not have to deal with so-called doughnut holes, or black holes, two-thirds of the calendar year where people are left out of any kind of coverage. That is certainly the case with the proposal that is coming out of the House, the Republican proposal. Under that proposal, a senior would pay $400 a month for her or his prescriptions, but they would essentially be out of coverage for nearly two-thirds of the calendar year. I think that is a major flaw that needs to be addressed. I think it is very effectively done in the Graham-Kennedy proposal. Furthermore, the Republican proposal threatens to undermine the private insurance market. This is really a perverse economic impact. Their proposal would have the effect of encouraging employers to drop prescription drug coverage from employer-provided health plans. In 10 minutes I am not going to go through this, but the fact is, individual workers facing catastrophic drug costs would not have their drugs provided by the Government if their employer paid for some portion of those drug costs. It is a really serious flaw about which I think almost anyone who has analyzed the proposal coming from the House is concerned. It needs to be addressed under any circumstances. I also ask those who have criticized the cost of the Democratic package that they consider the high cost of not providing comprehensive drug coverage. They call that a cost-benefit analysis. It is well known that prescription drugs reduce the number of hospital admissions, surgical procedures, and doctor visits. They also can reduce costly admissions to nursing homes, helping seniors to stay home longer. Those are real savings that will come. I do not think we have fully appreciated that or explained those or factored those into our thinking. Needless to say, this is not just about saving money, it is about improving the quality of life for our seniors, allowing them to lead longer, healthier, and more productive lives. This is reform that Medicare needs. It is one we cannot afford not to address, not to deal with, not to move on. In my own State of New Jersey, we recognized this need about 25 years ago when we created a pharmaceutical benefit for seniors--probably the best in the Nation. By the way, we have to make sure that as we legislate here, we engineer this legislation in a way that it is supportive of the prescription drug program we have in New Jersey, which is designed to serve the low- and middle-income seniors in an extraordinary way. But I have to say it is almost unconscionable that States such as New Jersey and Pennsylvania--I think it has a similar program--have stepped to the plate to provide this important health care benefit to seniors while the Federal Government has failed to do it. As a matter of fact, it makes New Jersey a magnet for seniors--a positive element in our society. But people have recognized this fundamental need and have voted with their feet with respect to the follow-through on this. The Democratic plan will help States such as New Jersey expand, if we are careful about how we write this legislation, and improve that prescription drug program for everyone. By contrast, the Republican proposal does nothing. As a matter of fact, it will increase--if we are to meet the constraints that are put down in the bill--co-pays and coverage under our PAAD Program, which is what our benefit program is called. That is simply unacceptable and will require a lot of resistance from those of us who care about our seniors--in New Jersey specifically. Last year, the Senate passed a Patients' Bill of Rights to ensure that Americans with private health insurance have access to prescription drugs and medical procedures they need to maintain their health. Should we not offer the same protection to our seniors, millions of whom currently lack access to essential medicines? It is a fundamental flaw of Medicare. It is one we need to deal with, particularly because Medicare was designed before the explosive growth of medications, so the use of medicines is not covered where they are now being applied. We have an opportunity and a responsibility to correct this flaw by enacting a prescription drug benefit. I want to work with my colleague in the Chair, my friend from New York, and all of those who truly care about making our society one where access to quality of life that America can offer is made available to all citizens. It is absolutely essential that we move forward. Lastly, it concerns me that we are willing to spend $4 trillion to make last year's tax cuts permanent, which essentially goes to a lot of those people the Chair was talking about who are making $70 million and $40 million, the well off in our society, and we don't think we have the resources to pass a $100 billion prescription drug benefit for senior citizens in our Nation. It is time for us to act. Those people have worked hard, paid their taxes, and supported our Nation in all kinds of ways. It is time to get a prescription drug benefit, get it through this Chamber, get it to the House and to the President's desk. I thank the Chair. I look forward to working with you and all my colleagues to make sure this comes to pass as soon as possible.

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I ask to speak for 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to urge Congress to support full funding for the National Farmworker Jobs Program. Zeroing out funding for the National Farmworker Jobs Program as proposed in the Bush Administration's Fiscal Year 2003 budget would be wrong for our country and wrong for New Jersey. Close to 600 migrant workers make Cumberland County in southwestern New Jersey their permanent residence, with another 6,500 migrant workers estimated to arrive in the county for farm work each year. If the proposed cut is ultimately enacted, I am convinced that the quality of life for these workers and workers throughout the State and country will fall substantially. The National Farmworker Jobs Program was created in 1964 to address the specific problems migrant workers face. By the very nature of their employment, migrant workers often find themselves unemployed or underemployed, scraping by on an income well below the poverty line. Language and educational barriers often prevent these workers from receiving permanent employment or attaining economic self-sufficiency. Because their work takes them across various State and municipal borders, only a national program can address the problems faced by the migrant farmworker population. The National Farmworker Jobs Program provides housing, healthcare, and childcare assistance to workers they can remain employed and provide for their families. Considering that many of these hardworking families are not fluent in English, obtaining these services would otherwise be a daunting if not impossible task. The National Farmworker Jobs Program has assisted migrant workers with education and job training since its inception. It has also played an active role in job placement, minimizing the amount of time migrant workers remain unemployed. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 2000, 85 percent of the National Farmworker Jobs Program enrollees received services that enabled them to retain or enhance their agricultural employment or secure new jobs at better wages. And that is with a budget of just $80 million. The National Farmworker Jobs Program services a vital social role, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. The Senator is certainly right.

Mr. CORZINE. I hope we take real action soon to stop this crisis of confidence from continuing.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the unspeakable, as far as I am concerned. I picked up the paper this morning and I read House GOP leaders fight audit plan, an audit plan that passed this body 97 to 0. There are rumors circulating out among those on the Hill that a procedural process called blue-slipping has been applied to the Senate- passed corporate responsibility act, more formally known as the Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act, which our Nation is crying out for, in response to corporate malfeasance and the deterioration of the quality of financial reporting corporate governance in this Nation. If we have ever seen a situation where politics is an overwhelming necessity, where the politics of a given issue is undermining the needs of the American people, investors across this country, retirees, people who are dependent on our financial system having integrity and how it responds to information presented from companies, it is demonstrated by these actions with regard to trying to stop or hold back something that is absolutely essential for making sure that our economy and our markets function properly. In case people had not noticed, we have lost over $2.5 trillion in our financial markets this year alone with respect to what is going on in corporate governance, corporate malfeasance. Yesterday we heard a positive statement out of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board about the underlying fundamentals of the economy. Productivity is up; inflation is down. There is plenty of reason for why our market should be moving forward, why the marketplace should feel comfortable with itself, but what is standing in its way is the integrity of corporate responsibility, the integrity of our financial statements, the integrity of how our marketplace works. We are refusing to deal with this on a straightforward and expeditious manner. The President has asked for it to be placed on his desk in less than 3 weeks, and now we are being stopped cold dead by the House leadership.

Mr. CORZINE. The reason we have had responses like we have had in the marketplace in the last 2 weeks is that people are hot on rhetoric and low, low, low with regard to results and doing anything that is proper action to deal with the problem.

Mr. CORZINE. Absolutely.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Cochran amendment to allow reimportation of drugs from Canada with important safety protections, and in opposition to the Dorgan amendment, which would allow such reimportation without these important precautions. As so many of my constituents, I am very concerned about increasing drug costs. Spiraling costs have a real impact on not just seniors but all Americans and health care costs generally. That is why we need to find ways to contain costs. And Congress needs to enact a Medicare prescription drug benefit that will ensure that all seniors have access to the medicines they need. Reimportation would allow American consumers to benefit from lower priced drugs available in Canada. It would provide much needed relief for seniors, and it would also provide assistance for the 39 million Americans who have no health care coverage at all. Reimportation is not without risks, however. I feel strongly that opening our borders without ensuring that adequate protections are in place puts in danger our national security and the health and safety of our citizens. That is why I supported the Cochran amendment, which would enable the Secretary of Health and Human Services to fully assess and determine the safety of drug reimportation before allowing it to go into effect. I opposed the Dorgan amendment because it lacked these safety precautions and could result in Canada becoming the portal for dangerous counterfeit drugs. In fact, this concern is only heightened now that we face bioterrorist threats, which we witnessed firsthand in New Jersey, where we found ourselves on the front lines of the anthrax attack. The bottom line is that without a prescription drug benefit seniors will continue to struggle to afford all of their drugs--be they brand name, generics, or reimported drugs. Before us now, we have the opportunity to pass a prescription drug benefit that ensures the safety of our pharmaceuticals and provides access to affordable medicines for our seniors For those who are watching this debate, let me share some figures. I want to tell the cancer patients who are watching this debate that, as a result of the pharmaceutical companies abusing the Hatch-Waxman Act and what is called the evergreening of payments, we have seen a 19 month delay of the generic drug Taxol at a cost to consumers of $1.2 billion. Families watching and those affected with breast cancer should know they paid $1.2 billion, because the pharmaceutical companies abused the Hatch-Waxman bill. For those families affected with epilepsy, the 30 month delay of Neurontin has cost them $1.4 billion. For patients with depression, six evergreened patents have delayed the generic drug Wellbutrin for 31 months, at a cost to consumers of $1.3 billion. For the many seniors with high blood pressure, collusive agreements have delayed generics for months, costing them hundreds of millions of dollars. For Americans who are watching now, let me say that we are going to do something about it. That is, the underlying bill will do something about it. And we are committed to doing something about it, in spite of all the opposition we have heard this afternoon from those on the other side. We have the Dorgan amendment, which will make a difference for all the reasons that have been outlined by Senator Dorgan, Senator Durbin, and others. It will help to put pressure on the drug companies. Now we are anticipating that, after this vote we will consider the Stabenow amendment. The Stabenow amendment will permit States to bargain with drug companies in order to make available to low-income, uninsured seniors and needy people, necessary drugs at the lowest possible prices. With all these measures we are trying to give some assurance to the American people that we will make every possible effort to see a damping down on the high costs of prescription drugs. There are other amendments which we will have an opportunity to debate through tomorrow and into Friday. Hopefully, next week we will have the opportunity to ensure the American people that they are going to have access to prescription drugs that will be dependable and affordable. I was here in the Senate when we passed the Medicare bill in 1965. I was here in 1964 when it failed by 16, 18 votes, and about 8 months later it passed with 4 or 5 votes to spare. There was a switch of 22 votes in the Senate. In 1965, the Senate went on record. What we did was to give an assurance to the American people that, if they played by the rules and paid their share, that when they turned 65 they would have health security. We have provided that in terms of hospitalization and physician care. Prescription drugs are just as important as hospitalization and physician care. Can anyone believe that if we had left out physician care or hospitalization and instead included prescription drugs in 1965, that we would not be debating including hospitalization or physician care tonight in the Medicare system? Of course we would. When we achieve it, people will say: Why did it take so long? What was the big deal about it? It is absolutely essential to our senior citizens. Finally, I think this is also a moral issue. When we find that we have prescription drugs that can be life sustaining for our fellow citizens--the elderly and the sick, the men and women who fought in World War II and lifted this country out of a depression and sacrificed for their children--and they can't afford them, that we must act. We have the ability to help improve their quality of life and to reduce their suffering, and we are talking about sending bills to subcommittees and committees? And it is out of order? It is about time we address this issue. That is what the American people want us to do. That is what they are challenging us to do. That is what the Democratic leader pledged we will do. And we will continue to battle and fight in the days ahead. I believe our time has expired and under the previous order a roll call vote has been ordered.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today along with Senator Torricelli, Schumer, Clinton, Dodd and Lieberman, I am introducing the Highlands Stewardship Act of 2002. I am proud to be joining my colleagues from the New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut delegations in the House of Representatives, who have introduced identical legislation in the House. This legislation would help to preserve one of the last open space treasures in this country, the Highlands forest region that stretches from northwestern Connecticut, across the lower Hudson River valley in New York, through my State of New Jersey and into east-central Pennsylvania. This region encompasses more than two million acres of forest, farms, streams, wetlands, lakes and reservoirs and historic sites. It includes the Green, Taconic and Notre Dame Mountains. It also includes such historic sites as Morristown National Historic Park and West Point. The value of the ecological, recreational and scenic resources of the Highlands cannot be overstated. 170 million gallons are drawn from the Highlands aquifers daily, providing quality drinking water for over 11 million people. 247 threatened or endangered species live in the Highlands including the timber rattlesnake, wood turtle, red-shouldered hawk, barred owl, great blue heron and eastern wood rat. There also are many fishing, hiking and boating recreation opportunities in the Highlands that are used by many of the one in twelve Americans who live within 2 hours of travel of the Highlands. Unfortunately, much of Highlands is quickly vanishing. According to a study issued by the United States Department of Agriculture we lost 3,400 acres of forest and 1,600 acres of farmland between 1995 and 2000 to development. This legislation would designate a Stewardship Area amongst the four States in order to protect the most important Highlands projects. It would create a source of funding for conservation and preservation projects in the Highlands to preserve and protect the open space that remains. $7 million a year for seven years would be provided for conservation assistance projects in the four Highlands states. This funding could be used for items such as smart growth initiatives and cultural preservation projects. $25 million a year over ten years also would be provided for open space preservation projects in the four Highlands states. The source of this funding would be the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I am proud to introduce this legislation to ensure that we to protect this resource, which is so critical to our quality of life. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today along with Senator Torricelli, Schumer, Clinton, Dodd and Lieberman, I am introducing the Highlands Stewardship Act of 2002. I am proud to be joining my colleagues from the New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut delegations in the House of Representatives, who have introduced identical legislation in the House. This legislation would help to preserve one of the last open space treasures in this country, the Highlands forest region that stretches from northwestern Connecticut, across the lower Hudson River valley in New York, through my State of New Jersey and into east-central Pennsylvania. This region encompasses more than two million acres of forest, farms, streams, wetlands, lakes and reservoirs and historic sites. It includes the Green, Taconic and Notre Dame Mountains. It also includes such historic sites as Morristown National Historic Park and West Point. The value of the ecological, recreational and scenic resources of the Highlands cannot be overstated. 170 million gallons are drawn from the Highlands aquifers daily, providing quality drinking water for over 11 million people. 247 threatened or endangered species live in the Highlands including the timber rattlesnake, wood turtle, red-shouldered hawk, barred owl, great blue heron and eastern wood rat. There also are many fishing, hiking and boating recreation opportunities in the Highlands that are used by many of the one in twelve Americans who live within 2 hours of travel of the Highlands. Unfortunately, much of Highlands is quickly vanishing. According to a study issued by the United States Department of Agriculture we lost 3,400 acres of forest and 1,600 acres of farmland between 1995 and 2000 to development. This legislation would designate a Stewardship Area amongst the four States in order to protect the most important Highlands projects. It would create a source of funding for conservation and preservation projects in the Highlands to preserve and protect the open space that remains. $7 million a year for seven years would be provided for conservation assistance projects in the four Highlands states. This funding could be used for items such as smart growth initiatives and cultural preservation projects. $25 million a year over ten years also would be provided for open space preservation projects in the four Highlands states. The source of this funding would be the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I am proud to introduce this legislation to ensure that we to protect this resource, which is so critical to our quality of life. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today along with Senator Torricelli I am introducing legislation, the Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area Act of 2002, to establish the Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area in the State of New Jersey. I am proud to be joining my New Jersey colleagues, Representatives Rodney Frelinghuysen and Rush Holt, who have introduced this legislation in the House of Representatives with the support of the entire New Jersey delegation. This legislation recognizes the critical role that New Jersey played during the American Revolution. In fact, New Jersey was the site of nearly 300 military engagements that helped determine the course of our history as a nation. Many of these locations, like the site where George Washington made his historic crossing of the Delaware River, are well known and preserved. Others, such as the Monmouth Battlefield State Park in Manalapan and Freehold, and New Bridge Landing in River Edge, are less well known and are threatened by development or in critical need of funding for rehabilitation. To help preserve New Jersey's Revolutionary War sites, this legislation would establish a Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage, linking about 250 sites in 15 counties. This designation would authorize $10 million to assist preservation, recreational and educational efforts by the State, county and local governments as well as private cultural and tourism groups. The program would be managed by the non-profit Crossroads of the American Revolution Association. A National Heritage Area would bring many benefits to New Jersey. First, it would help our communities and state preserve our history and educate our citizens. It would also encourage the protection of open space within the area, which is so critical to our quality of life. Finally, National Heritage Areas create significant economic opportunities, providing local communities with incentives and resources to work together to increase tourism in the region by highlighting historic sites and cultural events. Simply put, we are the Nation that we are today because of the critical events that occurred in New Jersey during the American Revolution and the many who died fighting there. By enacting the Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area Act of 2002, we will pay tribute to the patriots who fought and died in New Jersey so that we might become a Nation free from tyranny. I am proud to introduce this legislation to ensure that we properly honor New Jersey's pivotal role in our Nation's history as the true crossroads of the American Revolution.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I want to talk about the corporate scandals and financial problems we have been experiencing, and discuss how these problems highlight the importance of keeping the ``security'' in Social Security. Last week, American financial markets plunged dramatically in response to the ongoing litany of corporate scandal and earnings restatements. The New York Times called the current 2\1/2\-year slide in the stock market the ``worst bear market in a generation.'' For ordinary investors, retirees, and near-retirees--last week, and certainly the year--the post-bubble environment has been a financial nightmare. What felt like a hard-earned, secure retirement for many became an open question filled with uncertainty for many Americans. People are feeling compelled to go back to work and evaluate when they will retire, continue their careers, or cut back on their standard of living. They are experiencing a real sense of economic insecurity. U.S. equity markets have lost nearly $7.5 trillion since the peak of the market--that is a mind-boggling number, frankly--and roughly $2.5 trillion in market value has been lost this year alone. That loss has created a profound sense of insecurity among American families. We are seeing it in the real economy, we are seeing it in consumer confidence, and in a whole series of measures. Trees don't grow to the sky. We sometimes lost track of that in the 1990s. Markets will not fall to zero either. But markets pose real risk and real challenges to the economic security of all Americans. That is, of course, why we must pass the accounting reform measure before the Senate, the Investor Protection Act. I hope we will do that today. We must also stand firm on the principles and elements of this legislation as we continue in the conference committee, which will try to piece together this strong piece of reform legislation with a fairly weak and tepid response in the House. Obviously, investors are deeply affected by the wave of corporate scandals and financial restatements that infect too much of the corporate world: The so-called Enron Syndrome, WorldCom, Global Crossing, to Adelphia--the litany goes on, and, unfortunately, appears to be lengthening. I think we may just be at the head of this wave. What we have is not merely a few bad apples but a systemic breakdown--a breakdown in our accounting system, a breakdown in our auditing structures, and, more fundamentally, a breakdown in the trust that is the foundation of our entire market-based economic system-- trust in our corporate leadership and trust in the truthfulness of their word. As a former businessman and a CEO, I must say I am ashamed of this wave of corporate corruption. As a Senator, I am appalled at the continuing attempt of some lobbyists and too many in public office to substitute a token response for a strong and effective governmental response. Frankly, I was disappointed with President Bush's response last week, which was long on rhetoric and short on reform. Nothing was really said about the accounting industry conflicts, the conflicts with regard to research in investment banks, as Attorney General Spitzer has brought to light, the expensing of options, or about many other serious steps that will be needed to restore public confidence. The President also failed to face up to the urgent need for major strengthening of the SEC, which today is drastically outgunned in the battle against corporate fraud. We need not define the SEC by who is leading the SEC, but we need to make sure we speak to the scope of the resources they have and the tools they have to deal with the issues that are involved in problems that have led to the crisis of consumer confidence that we have today. Many of my colleagues have expressed similar concerns in recent days, and I believe the American people are watching us closely today, and will see how this process unfolds as the 107th Congress proceeds to completion, and whether we can put this strong reform legislation on the President's desk not only by passing a strong bill in the Senate but by making sure that when we get to conference, we put the public's interest ahead of special interests. With that said, there is another very important question that is reinforced by these events. It is really where the dots connect and what I will focus on today. That is something I have been speaking about often here on the floor--the implications of a market meltdown and the President's drive to move toward the privatization of Social Security. For anyone who has any doubt about the importance of providing a guaranteed safety net--a bedrock safety net--for America's retirees, recent events prove how that is absolutely necessary. In just the past week, millions of Americans have seen the value of their 401(k)s plunge dramatically. For some, this decline will mean their retirement will have to be delayed. For others already retired, it will bring a real decline in their standard of living. I have read about and talked to people who will have to return to work. And for millions of Americans, recent events have highlighted the risk of relying on the stock market as the primary guarantor of retirement security. We have always talked in this Nation about a three-legged stool to support people in their retirement: Certainly, individual savings, and some of that undoubtedly is well spent in the stock market; then there are pension benefits that are provided by employers; and then there has always been this bedrock of Social Security. That is the three-legged stool. I think we need to make sure we reinforce that fundamental leg, Social Security. The purpose of Social Security is to ensure, despite the inherent uncertainties of the marketplace, that retirees who have contributed to our Nation will be guaranteed a basic level of retirement income. In other words, the Social Security system guarantees a degree of certainty, a certainty that will give people that sense of security. Privatizing the program, as the Bush Social Security Commission has proposed, will undermine that security and tear apart a program that has been successful--enormously successful--for the American people for over 70 years. In fact, we have gone from where we had more than 50 percent of the American population retired and living in poverty down to almost 10 percent in recent years. In my view, moving away from that would be a mistake. For 50 percent of working Americans, the whole of their retirement security is Social Security; they have no other means of retirement security. And for about 70 percent, the primary means of their retirement security is Social Security. So we are really talking about putting at risk something that I think is very vital for most Americans. Ever since Franklin Roosevelt signed it into law, Social Security has been critically important for our Nation's seniors. Its importance has grown even more in recent years. That is because fewer and fewer Americans now have access to traditional defined-benefit pension plans. Those plans have declined from 175,000 programs in 1983 to just about 50,000 programs today. There has been a dramatic decline in these defined-benefit programs--ones that were secure. Increasingly, companies have switched from traditional plans, under which the company bears the investment risks, to defined-contribution plans, under which workers and retirees are themselves the risk takers--market risk takers. Proponents of privatizing Social Security would compound those defined-contribution or 401(k) market risks by making Social Security benefits equally dependent on the uncertainties of the stock market. In my view, that would be a cruel betrayal of America's senior citizens and a denial of the promise of Social Security. Consider what has happened to the employees at MCI. MCI is another telecommunications company that was merged into WorldCom about 2\1/2\ years ago. Before the takeover by WorldCom, MCI maintained a traditional defined-benefit plan; that is, the retirement security risks were borne by MCI and guaranteed by a Government institution called the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. But that plan was abolished after WorldCom merged, except, by the way, for senior management; they continued to have defined-benefit programs for their retirements. Instead, MCI employees, as most WorldCom employees, were offered only one type of retirement program, a 401(k) plan. I am not against 401(k) plans. They are a great idea for an additional element, on top of Social Security, a guaranteed benefit. But I think when we mix apples and oranges, we undermine economic security for Americans. By the end of 1999, over 103,000 workers and retirees participated in this WorldCom 401(k) program. Their accounts at that time held more than $1.1 billion of WorldCom stock, about one-third of the plan's assets. At that time, the stock was worth $54 a share. Today, that stock and their retirement funds are almost worthless. And we read in the paper today that WorldCom is about to file its bankruptcy petitions. After WorldCom's massive accounting scam, the stock is not at $54 a share but 3 cents a share. The WorldCom stock in WorldCom 401(k) plans is not worth $1.1 billion, but it is now worth $20 million. By the way, the 401(k) plan isn't guaranteed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. It is actually imposing a cruel reduction in the security of all those 104,000 folks. I say, as an aside, this situation certainly argues for diversification in pension plans as well. The WorldCom plan started with about one-third concentration in WorldCom stock. It now has less than 1 percent in the WorldCom stock, but that is just because of the loss of value. It is really a very difficult situation for a lot of working Americans. These are not just numbers or abstract entries on a corporate balance sheet or somebody's notification of what their 401(k) plan returns are, they represent the destruction of people's hopes and dreams for a secure retirement life, after working responsibly and contributing responsibly to their retirement. Last week we had one WorldCom employee say: I put all my money in WorldCom stock, and I'm pretty sure I've lost everything. I knew what happened at Enron, but I thought we [at WorldCom] were different. Management told them they were different, and, as most people, employees trusted the executives they worked for and wanted to be proud of their company and its leadership. The experience of WorldCom employees, and those of hundreds of other companies--some of them, by the way, not falling prey to the whims of fraud but just simply market realities--shows that diversification is an absolute essential in pension reform. I hope we have that debate also on the floor. When retirees lose all their money through no fault of their own, when nothing is left in their retirement portfolio, one thing, and one thing only, stands in the way of total economic devastation. Social Security. Because no matter the state of the stock market, Social Security is always there--not with enough to live in luxury but enough to make a real difference for millions who have little or no savings on which to rely. Social Security is the ultimate safety net. We must not let the administration shred it. Privatization schemes would irresponsibly gamble with the guarantee of security for retirees, present and future. The average Social Security benefit last year was only about $10,000 a year--not the princely sums received by executives who have failed their companies-- and not enough in some parts of our country to have a secure retirement. In New Jersey, for instance, $10,000 a year can only get you so far given the high cost of living in our part of the country. Yet President Bush's Social Security Commission called for substantial cuts in guaranteed benefits. Cuts for some workers would amount to 25 percent and future cuts could exceed 45 percent. If anyone wants to apologize for privatization by disputing these numbers, I just encourage them to read the report of the nonpartisan actuaries at the Social Security Administration themselves. For more evidence, let me refer you to the recent economic analysis by Professor Peter Diamond of MIT and Dr. Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institution. The Bush Commission parades its proposals as promoting choice. But if the Bush privatization plans were ever approved, seniors would have no choice. Their benefits would be cut. They would be cut if they shifted to privatized accounts, and they would be cut if they did not. The only choice is this: If they opted for privatized accounts, their guaranteed benefits would be cut more deeply. The effective destruction of Social Security's guaranteed benefits recommended by the Bush Commission is bad economics and bad social policy. Fifty Senators have written the President urging him to publicly reject his Commission's proposals. So far, his response has been the same kind of silence we heard for months after the corporate scandals first broke with Enron. Sometimes facts and reality ought to bring about a change in thinking for individuals, for corporations, and for an administration on important topics of the day. Cutting guaranteed Social Security may have sounded like a good idea when the stock market was only going up, but now the fallacy of that assumption is clear to everybody. I hope the Bush administration will reconsider its plans to privatize and cut Social Security. Let's not take the security out of Social Security. Mr. President, before I leave the floor, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss a different matter but one that I believe is fundamentally important as we seek to address the structural problems facing our economy and what we need to face in the financial world to straighten out some of the problems we have. We need to better account for employee stock options. This, too, is an issue that regardless of where one may have been historically, facts and reality ought to bring about a change in reasonable folks' thought with regard to options. While the depth of liquidity and efficiency of our markets is still unrivaled, our markets need to make sure they are based on a presumption of integrity and accuracy in the information provided to the country. Our entire financial system depends on the broad availability of timely, truthful and transparent information. To secure that and restore the confidence of investors, it is absolutely urgent that we address this treatment of employee stock options. The fact is, in many instances where we continue to allow this without an acknowledgment of what is going on, two things are happening: Earnings are overstated, and there is an enormous amount of dilution going on to the ownership of shares. People may argue that you can derive this from financial statements and footnotes that are highly complicated even for the most sophisticated investor to read. But I argue that there is no common sense in making it as difficult to understand what the earnings statements of a company state and, more importantly, protecting investors from the dilution that comes from the whole premise of issuing more stock without having an understanding of when that is going to happen. This needs to be put in the context of the asymmetrical incentives it gives management that has undermined confidence in our corporate executives. To be brief: We have a chance to address this issue in a very serious manner in the next few hours before we take our final vote on this legislation. I compliment Senator Levin and all those who stand to straighten out and put into responsible format what needs to be done with option accounting. We should do that not by writing option rules, at which I do not think the Senate has the capacity to be effective, but making sure that an independent body, which we will independently finance, has the ability to deal with a very complicated issue. I hope with the help of all my colleagues, we can get around to straightening out something that, as we saw today in news reports, even corporate executives understand can lead to misallocation of resources and certainly misunderstanding of the performance of companies. We ought to get to real economic performance being reflected, not accounting performance. I am glad to see Coca-Cola take the steps they did. We need to move firmly and surely by passing the Levin amendment which would facilitate a solution that would make this permanent for everyone. All three of these are important issues--accounting reform and corporate responsibility, the treatment of stock options, and protecting Social Security and rejecting privatization. The stakes are high for our economy. I hope we will move swiftly and certainly to reform and provide economic security to all Americans.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Maine for her courtesy in allowing me the opportunity to say a few words about my friend and minister who led us in prayer this morning. I say to my colleagues in the Senate, it is an honor that we were able to have Rev. David Jefferson from the Metropolitan Baptist Church in Newark with us today. I assure my colleagues, from my own life experience, this is a remarkable man of tremendous energy, leadership, and moral character. He leads the largest Baptist church, a very dynamic community of believers, in Newark, NJ. Not only are they active in their religious life, but they make an enormous contribution to redevelopment and the support of the community, reaching out to all who are part of the community who sometimes have been left behind. Through their example, they are demonstrating that access to the American promise is true for everyone. In his spare time, he is a senior executive at AT&T where he brings both great skills as a business person and moral character and leadership to his efforts in the business world. We need examples of people who are able to both recognize that our free enterprise system needs to be strong and powerful and have brilliant people who care about producing good services, good products at the right price but on an honorable basis. Reverend Jefferson is one who I think demonstrates we can do that, and he does it with great grace. Most importantly, he is a moral leader for a broader community by demonstrating with all aspects of his life how important it is to recognize that we all live under a greater power than what I think we sometimes think we live under in our own lives. Sometimes we are too focused on what we are about, and he is a great teacher about the importance that we are one nation under God. I am honored and privileged he has joined us today. I am honored and privileged that he is my friend. I thank the Presiding Officer for the opportunity to welcome Rev. David Jefferson to the Senate Chamber.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I rise to speak on both the amendment proposed by Senator Leahy and also to the underlying bill which I feel quite strongly about. I am quite pleased to support Senator Leahy's amendment. It creates tough new securities fraud penalties and punishes corporate wrongdoers we have just heard the Senator from Arizona speak to. It is a meaningful and appropriate response to the kind of corruption we have seen and makes sure that punishment meets the nature of the act. It also protects corporate whistleblowers, prohibits corporate executives who violate securities laws from hiding behind the bankruptcy code. In summary, this is more than mere lip service with regard to enforcement and punishment of corporate fraud. It is real reform. It is real response as a methodology to deter criminal conduct. It will go a long way toward providing incentives that are necessary to protect investors and pensioners and others who operate in the marketplace, in contrast to strong rhetoric from some with regard to what we need to do about punishment but not putting reality into place to deal with the issues. I am proud to cosponsor the Leahy amendment, and I urge all colleagues to do so as well. Mr. President, we need to speak clearly and directly in the Senate about restoring and sustaining the trust in America's capital markets, trust in America's economic security going forward. For several days leading up to yesterday morning's Presidential speech on Wall Street, there was a buzz of anticipation that we would see a real embracing of change. Some went so far as to suggest the President's speech might lead to a Roosevelt moment, an embrace, a change in policy, a change in direction, maybe counterintuitive to the history of the man because it was in the Nation's best interests. In retrospect, it is safe to say, while the President's speech was good with respect to rhetoric, it was hardly Rooseveltian or a Ruthian moment in the home of the New York Yankees. Unfortunately, it was far from a home run, in my view, and did emphasize rhetoric as a substitute for reform. Its lack of specifics or detail I found unfortunate. It is not to say that the President's speech did not include some important themes, or, by the way, embrace an initiative that is quite important; that is, the corporate fraud task force in the Justice Department which will be a strong step in carrying out pursuit of wrongdoers. However, stating the commitment of his administration pursuing these folks, while an important message, needs to be more substantive. We need specific undertakings to protect investors and shareholders. It was what the President did not say in terms of offering specifics, particularly specifics with regard to structural changes that will solve the problems, deal with the problems, provide checks and balances to the problems that we have seen from the Enrons, WorldComs, Global Crossings, et cetera. That is why the speech fell short of what many expected. The best way, in my view, the President could have accomplished that simple important message would have been to acknowledge the comprehensive structural reform that needs to be put in place and is expressed most clearly, most effectively, by the legislation we are considering on this floor right now, the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act. The Sarbanes bill, the bill we are talking about on this floor, comprehensively reforms our accounting profession. It is detailed, it is specific, and it is quite a strong element with regard to accounting professionals' responsibilities. It enhances corporate accountability, improves transparency of corporate financial statements, truly strengthens the ability of the SEC to operate as an enforcement agency, and as a regulatory agency to a significant degree. In combination, all those factors together will go a long way to restore investor confidence in American capital markets and, more importantly, restore faith in our economic system. I think this is the direction it should take. But before I discuss the merits of the legislation in specific, I take a moment to pay tribute to the leadership of the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Sarbanes. In shepherding this bipartisan legislation to the floor of the Senate, he has really done an outstanding job of bringing together a lot of disparate views on a very difficult and complex problem, synthesized into a terrific response to a real problem. I see Senator Enzi in the Chamber. I also congratulate him for his help in making sure we have a bipartisan effort in this process. His contributions have been enormous. There are a number of people on staff who I think have done a terrific job to make sure this happens. But Paul Sarbanes, chairman of the Banking Committee, has done an incredible job, a thorough job, making sure we have measured, balanced, deliberate steps to be taken to meet a crisis of confidence. I think the American people will be grateful that we have responded in a proper way. It has been a privilege for me to work with all my colleagues in the Banking Committee, but particularly the chairman. Particularly as a freshman, I learned so much of how this legislative process works. I must say, after 30 years in business, working my way up, the 10 days of hearings we had with respect to this particular subject, with exhaustive testimony, thoughtful testimony provided from a large range of perspectives, was one of the best graduate seminars I have ever had in business. I hope actually somebody will take the time to try to publish these, and they will be used as an example both of how the legislative process should work but also how the structure and nature of public policy debates with regard to business policy will occur. It is extraordinary. I think it forms an enormously positive foundation for the kind of thoughtful legislation the chairman has brought to bear. With that as backdrop, we all know that there are serious problems in our system. The list of companies involved is way too long and way too important--many of them supposed models of the new economy. But I want to move a little bit away from just some of the simple concepts we talk about, the most headlined, the name concepts or companies, to focus on the fact that we are going to have almost 300 restatements of earnings this year, this year in our economy--300 restatements. There have been almost 1,100 restatements since 1997 of company earnings reports. This is a problem. It is not just the individual headline companies, it is the fact that this is going on every day in our marketplace. It is no wonder that investors--institutional, retail, foreign, pensioners--do not have a sense of where we should be or how they should make their commitments to markets. That is because they cannot trust the numbers. There have been broken retirement dreams, lost jobs, and companies shut down. This really needs to change. Roughly 10 percent of major companies--of the 12,000 actively traded companies, almost 10 percent of them have had statements of change in the last 4 years. That is just bad. That is why investors worldwide have developed some skepticism about our markets. Some might even say that is why our dollar has depreciated as sharply as it has in the last 2 or 3 months. Confidence is shaken--it is real. American financial markets have been a tremendous engine for economic growth. We have had a highly efficient capital market, and that has fueled our economy. We need to act. While the depth and breadth of efficiency of our markets is still substantial, if we continue to have this kind of erosion of confidence, we are going to be missing one of the important drivers of America's great success in leadership in the world. While I will not go through every detail of this bill, if we do not come up with a strong oversight of our accounting industry, make sure the information that people make their decisions and take their decisions to the marketplace with is sound and secure, then we will not have those strong capital markets and strong economy. I think we can all agree upon that, in the nature of a bipartisan initiative, to make sure we are moving in the right direction. I hope we can focus on the reality that some of the conflicts of interest that exist in our practices in the accounting world have been part of the cause and the focus. Some of the conflicts of interest in the investment banking business, the world I came from, with regard to our analysts, have undermined our security with regard to how people analyze and understand where companies fit. Other issues that need to be dealt with are the ``revolving doors''-- executives from accounting firms going to companies they worked for-- and the lack of independence of audit committees. All of these factors underlie a growing public distrust in the corporate financial information. It really needs to be acted upon. While these things are real, I think we need structural response. We cannot just identify a few bad apples. This is more than that. Remember: 1,100 corporate restatements in the last 4 years. There is a structural problem, a systemic problem that is undermining the health security of our economy. I hope people will realize that in the context of the kind of debates we are going to have with regard to this bill-- but maybe even more important, when we get into a conference and try to put it together with the House response, and get it to the President. Unfortunately, I think the other elements of proposals on the table just do not meet the kind of standards that the Sarbanes proposal, the Banking Committee proposal, brings to bear. I hope we will be able to deal with that going forward. I would be happy to talk about the specifics as we go forward. I know others need to get into this aspect. Other than we need to have a real reform of the accounting industry, we need a strong oversight board. We need to really deal with the corporate accountability issues, which I think the Leahy amendment goes a long way to strengthen in this bill. There are many elements inside it. We need to give the SEC the kinds of resources so it can actually do the job it is expected to do. The President talked about giving them $100 million additional resources. Even the House has talked about $300 million increments. We do not provide for pay parity. There are just so many weaknesses in some of the proposals that are watered down relative to what we have on the table before the Senate. I can only say I hope we can keep this bipartisan effort together because I think what we need is a final product that will deal with the reality of the undermining of confidence we have across the board, in a whole host of ways with regard to our financial markets, with regard to our accounting statements and with regard to the economy itself. This is too important to make a political issue. This is one to make sure we move forward in a way that we secure America's economic future. The continued vitality of America's markets is at stake. We need to make this a priority. We need to move quickly. We need to understand it is systemic, it is not just anecdotal, it is not just a few bad apples. I think the bill we have on this floor will go a long way. Some of the amendments that are brought forward can strengthen it. We need real reform. We need it now. We do not need rhetoric. We need to be able to restore the confidence the American people want to see, move away from the era of Enron and WorldCom, and get to an era where we have markets that are balanced and fair, where they have the checks and balances in them to give people the confidence that when they make an investment, that investment is what they thought it was when they entered into it. I thank the chairman for an extraordinary effort in bringing together an exceptional bill. I am proud to be part of this effort. I look forward to continued debate and hopefully bringing it to the President's desk as soon as possible.

Mr. CORZINE. Yes. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, first, I am proud to have worked with Senator Edwards and Senator Enzi on this amendment on lawyer responsibility in corporate practice. It is an exceptional piece of additional effort in dealing with corporate fraud, corporate crime, and corporate abuse. I am very happy to have participated with him, and I particularly compliment Senator Edwards on bringing this important issue to the attention of the Senate and for making sure that we propose this strong amendment, to ensure corporate lawyers' ethical responsibilities. I, too, with the Senator from Wyoming, am disappointed. We are mixing apples and oranges when we are talking about lawyer's fees. This is dealing with corporate actions of lawyers. I don't understand why we are trying to move to a completely different subject when what we are trying to deal with is corporate responsibility. Lawyers play a role in that as much as accountants and management. Again, I thank Senator Enzi for his cooperation and leadership, not only on this effort but with regard to the core bill, which is going to make a big difference in the marketplace. People talk about weakness in the market and are fearful of what we do in Congress, but they are really fearful of what we will not do or what we might do in addressing some of the quite obvious needed reforms. We have talked a lot in the wake of Enron and WorldCom about the responsibility of accountants and corporate managers. Rightly so, as we have seen far too much bending of the rules, breaking of the rules in pursuit of profit, pursuit of personal gain. In their wake, shareholders, employees, and frankly the whole economy, has suffered from the selfishness that we have seen demonstrated by the actions of many--the criminal actions, in some instances. It is not insignificant that even before this week, before there was so much focus on this issue, this year there had been roughly $2 trillion worth of damage, value lost in the stock market, which is reflective of the discomfort that investors across the globe, as well as here at home, feel about where we stand. As a former corporate leader, I tell you I am disgusted with many of the actions I have seen taken by some corporate managers when they betrayed shareholders' trust, employees' trust, and the public confidence in general. I think they have basically betrayed our whole Nation's economy. That is why I have been pleased to work on this critical legislation that Senator Sarbanes has proposed regarding the accounting industry's corporate responsibility. But I do not think that is enough. I think, as Senator Edwards said when he brought this to our attention, executives and accountants do not work alone. In fact, in our corporate world today--and I can verify this by my own experiences--executives and accountants work day to day with lawyers. They give them advice on almost each and every transaction. That means when executives and accountants have been engaged in wrongdoing, there have been some other folks at the scene of the crime--and generally they are lawyers. This is not a new issue. The SEC had an unambiguous view about this more than 10, 15 years ago. More than 10 years ago Judge Stanley Sporkin, while commenting on the criminal actions of Charles Keating, noted that Keating had: . . . surrounded himself with literally scores of accountants and lawyers to make sure all the transactions were legal. In a now famous refrain, Sporkin lamented: Where were these professionals . . . when these clearly improper transactions were being consummated? . . . Where, also, were the outside accountants and attorneys when these transactions were being effectuated?'' That sounds a little familiar in the current circumstance. The bottom line is this. Lawyers can and should play an important role in preventing and addressing corporate fraud. Our amendment seeks to ensure that. It seeks to go back to the old way: When lawyers know of illegal actions by a corporate agent, they should be required to report the violation to the corporation. Let me be clear. The same as I feel about most accountants and most business leaders, the vast majority of lawyers discharge their duties with integrity and in an ethical manner. This is not an effort to blame corporate lawyers. But we cannot overlook the role corporate lawyers, the lowest common denominator, can play in addressing abuses and ensuring that our markets have integrity. We need to clarify that corporate lawyers have a duty to the shareholders, not just to the management that hired them. That is why Senator Edwards, Senator Enzi, and I have crafted an amendment that will clarify that lawyers who know of wrongdoing by a corporation must report that wrongdoing to the client so it can be corrected. The client is more than just the person who hired them. The lawyer's client is the corporation's shareholders, not the manager. As we have seen far too often this year, when management is engaged in fraud it harms the shareholders. That is why we need to ensure that lawyers who know of illegal acts report those acts to the board of directors which represent those shareholders. Our amendment would require the SEC to establish rules in the public interest and for the protection of investors, setting forth minimum standards of professional conduct for attorneys appearing and practicing before the Commission. Those rules would include--shall include a requirement that lawyers who have evidence of a violation of law would be required to go up the ladder of corporate management and report the violation. It is a simple principle--very much common sense. If a manager doesn't respond appropriately, including remedying any violation, the lawyer would then be required to report the violation to the board of directors which represents the shareholders. We should recognize that in some instances where there may be evidence of a violation, it may become apparent after a more complete investigation that there is not an actual violation. But when lawyers are aware of a potential violation, they do have a duty to investigate. And if they determine there is a material violation of law--not some small violation, some insignificant rule--that violation should be remedied by the corporation. If it is not remedied, it is the duty of the lawyer, under our language, to report it to the board. I am pleased that Senator Edwards and Senator Enzi and I have been able to craft an amendment that will firmly establish the ethical duty of corporate lawyers to report wrongdoing to their client, including, if necessary, to the board of directors that represents a company's shareholders. Addressing the role of corporate lawyers is just as important a step as it is with accountants and with corporate officers. If we want to truly address this breakdown in corporate responsibility, it is a critical piece of the puzzle that cannot be overlooked. I urge my colleagues to support this sensible amendment. Once again I say I am disappointed with the McConnell amendment. I suggest we move to table that, in light of its irrelevance with respect to the underlying matter. I will withdraw that motion, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.