Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Preservation of Federalism in Banking Act, to clarify the relationship between State consumer protection laws and national banks. This legislation responds to a sweeping new rule issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the agency that regulates national banks. The OCC's new rule gives the agency unprecedented authority to pre-empt state laws, thereby shielding national banks and their non- bank and state-chartered bank affiliates from many important consumer protections. It also potentially limits the ability of states to enforce many related laws. The most important immediate consequence of the OCC rule has been the preemption of state anti-predatory lending laws. I feel strongly about the need to address predatory lending, which can trap people in endless cycles of debt and escalating fees. Many States, such as my own state of New Jersey, have enacted tough laws to deal with the problem. Unfortunately, the OCC's ruling substantially undermines these laws by regulatory fiat. That will leave many consumers unprotected, and it shifts too many responsibilities to a single agency here in Washington that is not equipped to handle them. After all, according to its own website, the OCC ``does not have the mandate to engage in consumer advocacy''. Although the OCC has a long and successful record of regulating for safety and soundness, it has little experience dealing with abusive local practices, such as predatory lending. Believe it or not, the OCC actually is proposing to handle all consumer complaints through a single, lightly staffed call center in Houston. This is totally unrealistic. Each year, State officials receive thousands of related complaints, which usually are very local in nature. These officials are at the forefront of the enforcement effort, identifying and combating new practices as they arise. The OCC's system simply could not fill this role without major changes. The OCC rule also raises concerns about regulatory charter competition, the viability of a broad range of State laws, and the ability of consumers and State officials to seek remedies in court. This concern is only reinforced by two other developments. First is a general counsel opinion by the Office of Thrift Supervision that attempts to extend federal preemption beyond a thrift's corporate family. That effort would nullify the application of state consumer protection laws over independent, third-party agents of federal thrifts, and is particularly threatening to state insurance and securities efforts. And second is the FDIC's consideration of a rule that would allow State-chartered banks the same preemptive privileges for out-of-State branches as those of national banks. These two recent developments only reinforce concerns of a ``race to the bottom'' scenario. The OCC rule has provoked strong opposition from governors, attorneys general, banking supervisors, and many consumer advocacy groups, not to mention the public. The OCC received over 2,600 letters in response to its rules, and more than 90 percent opposed them. The Preservation of Federalism in Banking Act is a reasonable response to the OCC rule. The bill will clarify that national banks must comply with certain state consumer protection laws, such as anti- predatory lending laws and privacy acts. While the OCC has long had the statutory responsibility to regulate the activities of national banks, it has never denied the ability of States to protect their citizens. The OCC historically has used its authority under the National Bank Act in a reasonable way to shield national banks from State banking laws that intrude on the OCC's congressionally-granted powers. While we should continue to support the appropriate use of the agency's authority, it is important that we immediately intervene to reverse the OCC's regulatory overreach and prevent the agency from preemption all state consumer protection laws and State authority to enforce related laws. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. This bill, which is the latest version of legislation Senator Brownback and I have been pushing for almost six months, will provide the tools and authorizations and put forth the policies necessary to stop the genocide in Darfur. This bill also has support in the House, where it has been introduced by Representatives Hyde, Payne and others. Sudan is in the news today because of Secretary Rice's trip, and because of the rough treatment her entourage has received. But let's not lose sight of what has happened in Sudan over the last two years, and what is still happening. 2 million Darfurian civilians have been displaced from their homes. 1.8 million have been forced into camps in Darfur. There are 200,000 Darfur refugees in Chad. Hundreds of thousands have died, with some estimates up to 400,000. The Government of Sudan and the janjaweed militias it supports are responsible for systematic, targeted and premeditated violence, including murder and rape. It was one year ago tomorrow that the Senate recognized these atrocities as genocide. One long, horrible, violent, tragic year for the people of Darfur. We can stop this genocide, and we know how to do it. It just takes the will. Three months ago, the Senate passed the Darfur Accountability Act as an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations bill. Despite overwhelming bipartisan support, it was stripped out in conference. Meanwhile, the genocide continued and now we are forced to revisit many of the same issues. First, it is time we put real pressure on the Government of Sudan. While I welcome Secretary Rice's trip to Sudan, and Deputy Secretary Zoellick's two trips, diplomacy only goes so far. When the world threatens sanctions, Khartoum moderates its behavior. This bill calls for a UN Security Council resolution to impose real sanctions on the Government of Sudan. Second, we need boots on the ground. When I visited Darfur in August last year, there were only a couple hundred African Union troops on the ground. There are not more than 3,000. But this number is far from adequate to patrol a region the size of Texas. There are over 50,000 police officers in Texas, yet we are still struggling to deploy 7,000 AU soldiers in Darfur, where genocide and civil war are raging, and where transportation and communications are limited. The AU has been effective where it is deployed and I applaud the AU's leadership on this issue. But we have to be realistic about what they are up against. They need an explicit mandate to protect civilians and they need much more support. It also requires that, 30 days after we learn the names of those the UN has identified as having committed atrocities, the President report to Congress on whether he is sanctioning those people and the reasons for his decision. This is not about the past. Those who have committed genocide are still doing so. While we debate this legislation, brutal killers continue to terrorize the people of Darfur with impunity. They must be named, they must be sanctioned, and they must be brought to justice. Fifth, we need a Special Presidential Envoy. Secretary Rice and Deputy Secretary Zoellick simply cannot devote themselves full time to this crisis. A high-profile envoy will make sustain the pressure on the Government, get the UN Security Council to act, keep tract of what the African Union really needs to be effective and accelerate NATO involvement, and make sure that peace talks with the Darfur rebels don't drift. A Special Envoy will be able to visit all of Darfur, not just the camps that have been cleaned up for visiting VIPs. And a Special Envoy will be able to address related problems, from northern Uganda to Sudan's troubled East. We can do all of this. We just need the political will But, that has always been the problem. From Cambodia to the Balkans to Rwanda, we failed to act or acted too late. And this time, we can't even claim not to know what is happening. We know all too well. We can't claim that we haven't had the time to act. It's been a year since we declared the atrocities in Darfur to be genocide. We can't claim that we are not responsible. What greater responsibility can there be than to stop a genocide? We're out of excuses, and we're out of time. I hope this bipartisan bill and its House counterpart are quickly passed. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. This bill, which is the latest version of legislation Senator Brownback and I have been pushing for almost six months, will provide the tools and authorizations and put forth the policies necessary to stop the genocide in Darfur. This bill also has support in the House, where it has been introduced by Representatives Hyde, Payne and others. Sudan is in the news today because of Secretary Rice's trip, and because of the rough treatment her entourage has received. But let's not lose sight of what has happened in Sudan over the last two years, and what is still happening. 2 million Darfurian civilians have been displaced from their homes. 1.8 million have been forced into camps in Darfur. There are 200,000 Darfur refugees in Chad. Hundreds of thousands have died, with some estimates up to 400,000. The Government of Sudan and the janjaweed militias it supports are responsible for systematic, targeted and premeditated violence, including murder and rape. It was one year ago tomorrow that the Senate recognized these atrocities as genocide. One long, horrible, violent, tragic year for the people of Darfur. We can stop this genocide, and we know how to do it. It just takes the will. Three months ago, the Senate passed the Darfur Accountability Act as an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations bill. Despite overwhelming bipartisan support, it was stripped out in conference. Meanwhile, the genocide continued and now we are forced to revisit many of the same issues. First, it is time we put real pressure on the Government of Sudan. While I welcome Secretary Rice's trip to Sudan, and Deputy Secretary Zoellick's two trips, diplomacy only goes so far. When the world threatens sanctions, Khartoum moderates its behavior. This bill calls for a UN Security Council resolution to impose real sanctions on the Government of Sudan. Second, we need boots on the ground. When I visited Darfur in August last year, there were only a couple hundred African Union troops on the ground. There are not more than 3,000. But this number is far from adequate to patrol a region the size of Texas. There are over 50,000 police officers in Texas, yet we are still struggling to deploy 7,000 AU soldiers in Darfur, where genocide and civil war are raging, and where transportation and communications are limited. The AU has been effective where it is deployed and I applaud the AU's leadership on this issue. But we have to be realistic about what they are up against. They need an explicit mandate to protect civilians and they need much more support. It also requires that, 30 days after we learn the names of those the UN has identified as having committed atrocities, the President report to Congress on whether he is sanctioning those people and the reasons for his decision. This is not about the past. Those who have committed genocide are still doing so. While we debate this legislation, brutal killers continue to terrorize the people of Darfur with impunity. They must be named, they must be sanctioned, and they must be brought to justice. Fifth, we need a Special Presidential Envoy. Secretary Rice and Deputy Secretary Zoellick simply cannot devote themselves full time to this crisis. A high-profile envoy will make sustain the pressure on the Government, get the UN Security Council to act, keep tract of what the African Union really needs to be effective and accelerate NATO involvement, and make sure that peace talks with the Darfur rebels don't drift. A Special Envoy will be able to visit all of Darfur, not just the camps that have been cleaned up for visiting VIPs. And a Special Envoy will be able to address related problems, from northern Uganda to Sudan's troubled East. We can do all of this. We just need the political will But, that has always been the problem. From Cambodia to the Balkans to Rwanda, we failed to act or acted too late. And this time, we can't even claim not to know what is happening. We know all too well. We can't claim that we haven't had the time to act. It's been a year since we declared the atrocities in Darfur to be genocide. We can't claim that we are not responsible. What greater responsibility can there be than to stop a genocide? We're out of excuses, and we're out of time. I hope this bipartisan bill and its House counterpart are quickly passed. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I will be sending an amendment to the desk.

Mr. CORZINE. Certainly.

Mr. CORZINE. I would be happy to yield for that.

Mr. CORZINE. If the Senator from Vermont would yield, I ask unanimous consent for up to 10 minutes for myself, 5 minutes for Senator Kohl, and 5 minutes for Senator Schumer.

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

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

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise once again to speak out on the subject that I have addressed on the floor a number of times and feel passionately about--a number of us do--and that is the continuing genocide in Darfur. I offer an amendment to the Foreign Operations bill to provide funds for the African Union to provide the troops that will protect and stop the genocide if we have the will to take the steps to have the resources made available. Hundreds of people are dying every day, some by guns, some by illness, disease, and a whole host of things. There have been over 300,000 lives lost over the last 2 years and 2 million people displaced. One year ago this Friday, the Senate recognized this genocide and spoke about it. Our Secretary of State testified in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the fact that genocide was taking place. To the President's credit, before he left for the G8, he spoke out again against the genocide that is taking place here and now. There is complete recognition that this is a tragedy that is unfolding, maybe more in slow motion today than it was 6 months or a year ago, but it is very much still taking place. People are losing their lives. Our President, the Congress, and the American people understand it is time to stop this genocide. Last weekend, there was a national weekend of prayer and reflection for Darfur based on a Senate resolution that Senator Brownback and I put forward. It was unanimously accepted by this body. Churches, synagogues, mosques, and other communities of faith, people across this country with conscience and compassion spoke up together that they want this genocide stopped. In New Jersey, I attended services at the B'nai Jeshurun Congregation at the Barnert Temple in Franklin Lakes and the Shiloh Baptist Church and First United Methodist Church in Trenton. People of all backgrounds, all religious faiths, people of conscience want us to act. The people are demanding that we act. We have looked at the history across the last century. We have seen the Holocaust, the genocides in Rwanda, Cambodia, Armenia, and we constantly are saying: Never again. Never again, we say, will we accept the slaughter of our fellow human beings; never again will we stand by while systematic crimes are being inflicted on humanity. Now is the time to put deed with words on ``never again.'' The amendment I am offering provides critical assistance to the African Union and Darfur. My colleagues, Senators DeWine, Durbin, Brownback, and Obama, were seeking to provide the African Union with $50 million. Frankly, that is not enough. It does not meet what the State Department knows is necessary. It does not meet what is necessary to get the proper amount of troops on the ground in Darfur, Sudan. I am disappointed that we cannot figure out how we can declare this emergency funding, whatever it takes, to make sure that we put deeds with words on ``never again.'' The African Union has been deployed. Where it has been deployed, it has been successful. The attacks have stopped. Keep in mind, Darfur is the size of Texas. The current deployment of about 3,300 troops just does not get the job done. There has to be a sustained presence. Civilians are protected one day, they move on to the next spot, and they are no longer. The African Union has a plan to put 7,700 troops there by the end of September. They need the funding. They do not have the resources. The real need is 12,000. There is a plan to have that done by next May. We are working with the United Nations on that. The United States has to step up and help. If we know that genocide is occurring, we have a moral obligation to help. It is tragic that we are not putting our money where our mouth is; we are not putting money for the deeds that match the words that we so willingly put out. Again, I compliment President Bush for speaking out on this and being attentive to it, as well as the State Department, but we need to make sure the resources match the stated policy. The Government of Khartoum is still not doing those things that are necessary. We ought to have a full policy with regard to putting a special envoy on the ground. We need to make sure that we are putting an arms embargo against the state of Sudan, all of Sudan. We need to make sure there is pressure about real sanctions on those who have been responsible for those crimes and that they are held accountable. All of this has been in legislation that Senator Brownback and I have brought before this body and have had passed unanimously at other times. The American people are watching us to see whether we have the will to address the moral challenge of genocide. They are watching to see whether we can make the choices to do something about it. Last weekend, Americans of faith and conscience spoke. I hope we will do that with regard to this amendment, but I hope we will go further and make sure we have all of the resources that are necessary to fulfill this plan of getting 7,700 troops on the ground by September and 12,000 by next spring. This is a moral challenge to the people in this body. It is a moral challenge to our country. I hope we accept it and work together to address something that we all know is necessary. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains on this side?

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Shelby amendment of $1.1 billion. I come even more to express complete frustration with the statements today of Secretary Chertoff on mass transit. This is a national issue. It is one that is connected with interstate commerce. Most importantly, protecting the American people is a primary responsibility of Government. The idea that we would turn our backs on the 228 million riders a year on mass transit in the State of New Jersey and put it at some second-class level of consideration makes no sense at all. Tens of thousands of riders every day ride the trains in and out of New York City from New Jersey, in and out of Philadelphia.

Mr. CORZINE. I support the $1.1 billion Shelby amendment.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for up to 8 minutes from the time of Senator Reid of Nevada.

Mr. CORZINE. I ask the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 1208.

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

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss one of the most glaring vulnerabilities in our Nation's homeland security--chemical plant security. This is an amendment which is agreed to on both sides. At the conclusion of my remarks, I will ask for unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to. It is a very simple amendment. It is a sense of the Senate that Federal standards should be established to protect chemical facilities from terrorist attacks. I understand it is an indication of a consensus that is building across this Senate and across this country and in the Department of Homeland Security that we have a serious issue with regard to the infrastructure surrounding our chemical plants and the danger they present to the population that surrounds them--the neighborhoods, the people who live in these densely populated communities that surround these chemical plants. The State of New Jersey, which is the most densely populated State in the Nation, has seven plants where more than a million people could be impacted by an explosion and the release of toxic chemicals. It is a real danger for our broader community, but it is true across the Nation as well. The Pentagon and the United Nations together spent over $900 million over a 2-year period searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, when in fact those weapons, chemical weapons, anyway, are right in our backyard. Unsecured chemical plants, arguably, are pre-positioned weapons of mass destruction right in the backyards of Americans. That is why I offer this amendment today, to express the sense of the Senate that Congress should pass legislation establishing enforceable Federal standards to protect against a terrorist attack. There is a lot of work going on. The chair and ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee are holding a series of hearings on chemical plants, I believe one even today, and they have done tremendous work. I compliment Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman and others in pursuing full efforts with regard to trying to establish a formula, a format for securing our chemical plants across this country. I will work with them shoulder to shoulder as we go forward on this effort. It is something I have been working on since October of 2001. So I compliment them. I also thank Senators Judd and Byrd for their cooperation in allowing for this sense of the Senate to show there is momentum behind this effort as we go forward. This is something that has been recognized by every expert as we have gone forward, particularly post 9/11. On February 6, 2002, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet testified: [A]l Qaeda or other terrorist groups might also try to launch conventional attacks against the chemical or nuclear industrial infrastructure of the United States to cause widespread toxic or radiological damage. The threat continues to become more apparent almost by the day. On the day before last Thursday's criminal attacks took place in London, the Congressional Research Service released a study saying there were 111 plants in 23 States, such as those 7 in my State of New Jersey, that could kill more than a million people. Preventing such a terrorist attack, especially against plants where they are in these densely populated areas, should be one of our highest priorities. These chemical plants present a clear and present danger to the American people. We have one that sits under a freeway that feeds the Holland Tunnel in metropolitan New York, northern New Jersey. Literally, hundreds of thousands of people transverse right over the top of a chlorine plant. It is open to exposure, surrounded by 12 million people, in that particular case. The GAO reported on April 27, 2005: Experts agree that the nation's chemical facilities present an attractive target for terrorists intent on causing massive damage. Economic damage and loss of life. This is an important recognition. The GAO went on to say: Terrorist attacks involving the theft or release of certain chemicals could significantly impact the health and safety of millions of Americans. . . . In January of this year, Richard Falkenrath, the former Deputy Homeland Security Adviser to President Bush, called the threat of industrial chemicals ``acutely vulnerable and almost uniquely dangerous.'' He said: These poorly secured chemicals, which in some cases are identical to the chemical weapons used in World War I, are routinely present in vast, multi-ton quantities adjacent to or in the midst of many dense population centers. Falkenrath went on to testify: Toxic-by-inhalation industrial chemicals present a mass- casualty terrorist potential. . . . I could go on and on. Expert after expert after expert has testified to this. On June 15 of this year, Thomas P. Dunne, the Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response of the EPA, testified that: [O]nly a fraction of U.S. hazardous chemical facilities are currently subject to Federal security requirements. . . . This is a real problem. We are not doing enough. As a matter of fact, there are investigative reporters who have been able to walk on to many of these plants with unchallenged efforts. We need Federal standards to address a real problem. It needs to be done now. So I hope this sense- of-the-Senate amendment moves us forward. It is right in line with what is being asked for by the Department of Homeland Security. The Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection at the Department of Homeland Security testified that the Department: has concluded that from the regulatory perspective, the existing patchwork of authorities does not permit us to regulate the industry effectively. He further testified: The Department should develop enforceable performance standards. . . . There is widespread agreement on this. I think we need to move forward. I encourage and support the efforts of Senators Collins and Lieberman. It is time we move forward so we are not looking back after the fact on something we have been warned, and warned time and again, is a danger to the American people. I hope this amendment will help us proceed on that. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment at the appropriate time. I do believe the amendment has been agreed to on both sides, but I do not see either of the managers on the floor, so I suppose----

Mr. CORZINE. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORZINE. Let me go back to the start of my comments. I support the Shelby amendment of $1.1 billion for mass transit and rail. It is absolutely essential that we think of our Nation as one, where all aspects that pull us together and provide for the services of the people of this country are protected. We are not dividing up those who fly on airlines versus those who drive on highways. When Americans are at risk, Americans are at risk. The concentration of risk can be different in different places at different times. I suggest anybody who wants to see large concentrations of people at any moment in time come with me to Hoboken train station. Every workday you will see literally tens of thousands of people transferring from one train track to subway system or bus system. It is hard for me to conceive, frankly, that we can get ourselves to believe that the only exposure of the American citizenry is to air travel. Two hundred twenty-eight million riders per year in New Jersey use mass transit. Many of these congregate in large areas. It is absolutely essential that we enhance our security, and this is what the Shelby amendment is about. I hope my good friend, Secretary Chertoff--and I do consider him a good friend and someone for whom I have great respect--will reconsider the thought that was expressed today that somehow or another this is a lower priority. It certainly is not a lower priority on the terrorists' minds. It wasn't in Madrid or Moscow and, unfortunately, it was not in London most recently. Not only is this a mistake with regard to our homeland security policy, but it is like putting a bull's-eye on a certain sector of our infrastructure where people and the economy come together. It is to say that we are going to lay all this responsibility on already budget- strained State and local governments who have not been able to provide the security and say: Come get us. We don't want to give the emphasis to an area where there are many people and where our economy moves back and forth and through which it functions. The principle that we are not going to focus on rail and mass transit protection makes no sense whatsoever. The way to stand up to that is to vote for the Shelby amendment, put $1.1 billion into mass transit, rail security. I hope my colleagues will follow that path. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help ensure the safety of the Nation's oldest nuclear power plants before they receive a renewed license to operate. The Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in Lacey, NJ, has operated for 35 years and is the oldest nuclear facility in the country. It provides approximately ten percent of New Jersey's electricity, powering 600,000 homes. Oyster Creek also provides high paying jobs for 450 New Jerseyans. While the plant is an important source of energy and jobs for New Jerseyans, serious environmental, health, and safety concerns must be taken into account before the plant is relicensed. Three and a half million Americans live within a fifty- mile radius of this plant. Congress must recognize that it is imperative that the safety, performance and reliability of this plant be assessed by an independent entity before it is relicensed. I have been very clear about my support for an independent review of Oyster Creek's safety and security as part of the relicensure process. Such an assessment would have to go beyond what is currently studied by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) when it reviews a license renewal. Unfortunately, when the NRC decides whether to renew a plant's license, it does not subject that application to the same thorough analysis that would be applied to a new power plant's application. In particular, a plant's emergency plan is not evaluated by the NRC when it considers a license renewal. This is surely unacceptable. The legislation I am introducing would require the NRC to withhold relicensing of the Oyster Creek Station until the National Academy of Sciences provides an independent assessment of safety performance, along with recommendations for relicensing and relicensing conditions. The assessment must identify health risks, vulnerability to terrorist attacks, evacuation plans, population increases, ability to store nuclear waste, safety and security records, and the impact of a nuclear accident. The NRC would not be allowed to grant the license until it gives appropriate consideration to the recommendations in the report. This is important not just for New Jersey as it applies to Oyster Creek, but for all nuclear plants across the country. In addition, the bill requires NAS to review and recommend what the life expectancy of nuclear plants should be that are designed like Oyster Creek. Most public officials do not have the training or knowledge base needed to make an independent assessment regarding the safety and security of a nuclear power plant. This is why it is so critical that policymakers solicit the independent and unbiased opinion of experts who are able to thoroughly assess whether the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant would be able to operate without fail throughout the duration of a new license. This Nation needs a plan for a sound energy future. Such a plan must address the increasing role for clean, renewable energy. The plan, however, must ensure that nuclear power plants such as Oyster Creek operate safely and only as long as they are needed. If New Jersey's energy future is left up to chance, it could leave my State more reliant on coal-fired energy imported from other States over a regional grid that is unable to handle bulk power transfers of such a magnitude. The obvious end result of such reliance on distantly generated and transported energy is more air pollution and more blackouts. Considering that New Jersey already suffers from the health effects of out-of-State air pollution and is still smarting from the 2003 blackout, we should know better than to let this happen. A mistake in this matter has devastating potential consequences for New Jersey. An independent assessment of the safety of Oyster Creek is a significant step to ensure the safety of the 3.5 million residents who live in the vicinity of the plant. This additional layer of safety will help ensure that if Oyster Creek is relicensed, it will have passed a stringent, independent assessment of its safety. New Jersey should not expect anything less when it comes to the safety of its citizens. I urge my colleagues to support this crucial piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for risk-based homeland security funding. This concept is as urgent as it is simple. Homeland security grants related to terrorism prevention and terrorism preparedness should be allocated based strictly on an assessment of risk, threat, and vulnerabilities. The best approach is to ensure that all homeland security funds are allocated to States based on the vulnerabilities of each State. Earlier this year, Senator Lautenberg and I introduced a bill to ensure that the distribution of Homeland Security funds would be 100-percent risk based. This is the right way to ensure that our homeland is truly protected. It is not an issue of believing that larger, more populous States deserve more funding; it is simply a question of believing that the places with the greatest need deserve the most resources. The Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill on the Senate floor includes a 70-percent risk-based formula that would ensure that $1.3 billion in funding would be allocated based on risk. Senators Feinstein and Cornyn have proposed an amendment to improve this and ensure that 87 percent of the funds--$1.9 billion--would be allocated based on risk. While I would still prefer 100 percent, I support the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment. New Jersey and the rest of the country will be much safer under the Feinstein-Cornyn proposal than under the Collins-Lieberman amendment, which would only allocate 60 percent of the funds based on risk. Under the Collins-Lieberman amendment, all of the homeland security grant money would be combined into one fund; of that, 40 percent would be allocated as guaranteed funding for the States and would be distributed either on the basis of .55 percent per State or on a sliding scale baseline allocation, which would be determined by a State's population and population density. Even given the enhanced funding allowance for densely populated States, New Jersey and other high-risk States would still fair worse under the Collins-Lieberman amendment. That is because the amendment combines all funding sources into one fund and allocates too much funding, 40 percent of the total allocation, as minimum, guaranteed grants to each State. Under a more risk-based formula, New Jersey would receive greater homeland security funds to handle the substantial risks that face my State. Mr. President, those of us who live in high-risk areas are acutely aware of the threat of terrorism. But protecting our homeland is not something that can, or should, be looked at as an exclusively ``local'' issue. Experts throughout the Nation support a risk-based approach. Protecting America, in the places where we are most vulnerable, in places where we know that terrorist want to inflict the greatest harm, is in fact a national issue--which is why the 9/11 Commission recommended pure risk-based allocation. To quote the Commission: Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. . . . [F]ederal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. It should supplement state and local resources based on the risks or vulnerabilities that merit additional support. Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel. Mr. President, one of the reasons this is such a national priority is because of the economic issues at stake. An attack on our Nation's economic assets, our capital markets, or our financial institutions would have a ripple effect throughout the country and have a serious long-term effect on our Nation's economy. Protecting these assets has to be part of our national strategic considerations. In my State, New Jersey, we have many such targets. We have areas like the Port Newark. Eighty percent of the cargo containers that come into the east coast arrive at that port. Then there is the 2-mile stretch, from the port to Newark Airport, a stretch of terrain the FBI has called the ``most dangerous 2 miles in America.'' And Mr. President, Newark Airport is not only the busiest airport in the tristate area, it is, depending on the time of year, the third or fourth busiest airport in America. A terrorist attack on Newark Airport, or on any of these other possible targets, would have a wide- ranging, long-term effect on our national economy. Protecting these critical national assets must be a national priority. Regrettably, the current homeland security grant system results in funding allocations that fail to adequately consider the risk, vulnerability and threats posed to specific communities. And that is just plain wrong. To understand why, we need to look at the practical realities of homeland security. My home State of New Jersey is on the front lines of terrorism. We lost 700 people on September 11, 2001. Two of the 9/11 terrorists were based in New Jersey and the anthrax that hit this institution originated in New Jersey. In addition to Port Newark and Newark Airport, the Ports of Philadelphia and Camden are critical vulnerabilities. New Jersey is home to rail lines, bridges, and tunnels to New York City, as well as chemical plants and nuclear facilities. Atlantic City has the second highest concentration of casinos in the country. Wall Street and other financial services firms house important front and back office operations, including clearance and settlement services, and other operations essential to functioning of America's capital markets in Newark, Jersey City, and Hoboken. To underscore those risks, in the summer of 2004 Newark was one of three locations--including New York City and Washington, DC--that was put on Orange Alert for a possible terrorist attack as intelligence suggested that the Prudential building in downtown Newark could be a target. And Mr. President, the costs associated with protecting Newark during that period of heightened security alert were very real. Last year wasn't the first time that New Jersey has incurred substantial costs because of its unique vulnerability. The post office in Hamilton, NJ, where the anthrax was sent, has had to be cleaned up. The costs are expected to be $72 million for decontamination and $27 million for the refurbishment of the facility. Yet despite these growing threats to New Jersey--from anthrax to the Orange Alert, and the ever-expanding costs associated with protecting the most densely populated State in the country, remarkably homeland security grants to New Jersey were cut in 2005. Funding was reduced from $93 million in 2004 to $61 million in 2005. Newark has seen a 17-percent reduction in funds, from $14.9 million to $12.4 million. And, incredibly, Jersey City's homeland security funds have dropped by 60 percent, from $17 million in 2004 to $6.7 million in 2005. These cuts leave New Jersey--home of countless businesses and people that keep our economic engine moving; home of one of the most active and exposed ports in the country; home of one of the busiest airports in America; home of our Nation's new Homeland Security Secretary--36th in the Nation in per capita homeland security funding. That, Mr. President, is a travesty. We must allocate assistance to cities, municipalities and communities according to risk and vulnerability. Mr. President, it is hard for the people of New Jersey to live through what they have and then see cuts in homeland security. This is an extremely important issue to them and they want and expect change. I am not seeking to deprive other parts of the country of the homeland security funding they need. But I believe that we must leave it to the Department of Homeland Security to make the determination of what States should receive funding based on need, vulnerabilities, and threats. The Department of Homeland Security was created to stop terrorism. It is responsible for analyzing intelligence on threats to our Nation and for protecting our people and our infrastructure. Mr. President, directing our homeland security funding toward those areas that are most at risk is especially critical in times of shrinking budgets. And let me note that the President understands the need for risk-based funding and suggested an approach similar to the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment in his budget for 2006 when he proposed the allocation of $251 million to each State and $1.7 billion, or 87 percent of total funds, for higher risk areas based upon need. By passing the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment, we will continue the critical work of post-9/11 reform that included the creation of the Department of Homeland Security itself, the establishment of the 9/11 Commission, and the passage of the intelligence reform bill. Mr. President, we need to deal with homeland security as we do national security. That means directing our resources toward making us safer by targeting need, vulnerability, and threat to address the Nation's homeland security funding needs.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. If the chair will be so kind to let me know when I have 2 minutes left?

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, let me say from the start, I have thought about this long and hard. I believe in the seriousness and the potential for free-trade agreements. But after looking at this particular one, and looking at it in the context of our overall macroeconomic policy, I am unfortunately going to have to vote against this proposed Dominican Republic-Central America-Free Trade Agreement. I have supported other agreements: Australia, Jordan, and Morocco. I believe in comparative advantage. There are lots of good reasons why free-trade agreements that are fair are ones we ought to promote. But they need to preserve and protect important labor, environmental, and security interests as well. I do not think this one does that. As a matter of fact, a trade agreement between the United States and Central America with the proper safeguards I think is a good thing. I just do not believe that we have embedded those in this particular agreement. American workers justifiably feel insecure in today's economy, particularly with the outsourcing or exporting of American jobs that comes from so much of our trade policy. People are concerned whether those American jobs are going to stay at home. The increasing trade deficit puts an exclamation point on ``there is something afoul'' with our trade policy. All I have to do is point to this chart. Since 1993, when we started with NAFTA to where we are today, we have seen nothing but red ink flow from the trade agreements and trade arrangements that we have. Something is not working. I would like to understand how this agreement is not just another piece, another one in a long line of bad trade agreements. Before we rush forward with this, I would like to understand what is happening that has brought about this kind of problem. We have a $617 billion trade deficit on an annualized basis this year. I believe we have a lot of evaluation that needs to be taken before we step forward on this. We are clearly on the wrong track, based on the policies that we have. On a parochial level, since NAFTA was implemented back in 1994, New Jersey has lost 130,000 manufacturing jobs. We used to have about 25 percent of our workforce in the mid-1980s in the manufacturing industry. Today it is below 9 percent. We have seen the textile industry in New Jersey absolutely decimated. From the economic calculations that I have seen, 46,000 of those 130,000 manufacturing jobs lost were due to NAFTA. We had great companies--Allied Signal, American Standard. All of Patterson's textile industry left our State. We have had enough of it. I think we need to understand what we are doing and what the implications are for working men and women of this country of another free-trade agreement. If you put this into a context that the gross metropolitan product of the city of Newark is $103 billion, and this is only $85 billion for all these countries--I don't understand why this is such a priority, particularly given all the other issues that we have in this country and particularly while we are thinking about it in the context of a $617 billion trade deficit. I don't think we have our priorities ordered right here. I particularly think we do not have them ordered right when you compare this issue with our trade deficit with China, which is $162 billion. This, I am told, is the No. 1 priority of the administration with regard to trade policy. Where does that come from, when we have all of these difficulties in our trade arrangements? China has had a fixed currency pegging versus the dollar since the late 1990s, not working to protect intellectual property rights between our two countries, and there are all kinds of enforcement issues with the WTO. I don't get it. Where are our priorities? We have a $617 billion trade deficit. We are talking about something that will be a minuscule piece of that. And we are doing it with a blind eye to major problems in our trade policy. That is the major reason I am voting against it. There are a whole host of other issues that need to be considered. What happens to labor rights and what happens to environmental rights not only with regard to our workers but in those countries themselves? Where are we going to go, when we look at the lack of enforcement with regard to labor principles in those individual countries? The same thing goes for environmental issues. I don't understand why we are ceding the ground on these issues. Believe me, we have enforcement standards with regard to commercial rights and investment rights, but when it comes to working men and women, when it comes to our environmental protection-- which, by the way, is a global issue--we just say it is up to them with regard to their own standards. That is not the way to do business, in my view, and I think this is a failed piece of legislation. It is a step back from what we did with Morocco and Jordan and other trade agreements that had positive enforcement responsibilities with regard to labor and environmental rights. This harms workers in those countries, not only harming workers in the United States. There is a very clear example. I want to talk a little bit about it. NAFTA's liberalization, so-called, was supposed to promote job growth in Mexico. It lost 1.7 million rural farmers their access into the agricultural sector in Mexico, with the only increase, of about 800,000 new jobs, in the industrial sector. Some of those are now leaving because they are losing out to other parts of the world that have even lower labor standards and environmental standards and lower costs of labor. There is something wrong with this vicious cycle of eroding jobs here at home, even in some of the places that we think we are promoting them, through these free-trade agreements, and we have to get this settled out. I do not understand why we continue to stay on the same track--and I am an old, washed-up businessman. I believe in making sure the comparative advantage follows in the proper way. If it turns out you go from a balanced trade arrangement to a $617 billion trade imbalance in a given year, and you have seen almost nothing but a straight line fall off in our ability to export our goods on a relative basis to the rest of the world, we are making a big mistake, and we have a lot to reevaluate. It is time for a change with regard to our trade policies because they are not working economically and we are losing our ability to control our own destiny in our foreign reserves in other countries. It is not working because we are losing jobs at home and undermining working men and women's ability to have a high-quality standard of living, and we are not particularly helping others overseas. It is not a net boom for the countries we think we are trying to support. If we are not going to have strong labor, strong environmental rights, if we are not going to get some kind of benefit, a major macroeconomic benefit, I don't understand why we are approving all of these trade agreements. That is why I will be voting no on this CAFTA legislation before the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, after serious deliberation, I will be voting against the United States-Dominican Republic Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA. While I support the principle of free trade, free trade must also be fair. I have supported our trade agreements with Australia, Jordan, and Morocco because these agreements reduce or eliminate barriers to American exports while preserving and protecting important labor, environmental and security interests around the globe. A trade agreement between the United States and Central America with the same safeguards has the potential to serve as an important tool for promoting development and advancing meaningful socioeconomic reform in the region. That said, the agreement before us takes a significant step back from previous agreements with respect to both labor and environmental protections, and will only exacerbate the outsourcing of American jobs and aggravate an already dangerous world trade imbalance. American workers justifiably feel insecure in today's economy, and the outsourcing of American jobs at home is a major reason. The increasing trade deficit puts an exclamation point on their concerns. I would like to understand how this agreement is not just another in a long line of bad trade agreements that exacerbate our trade problems. Before we rush forward with policies that on the surface are failing, I would like some assurances that this won't be just another punch to the stomach of American industry and American workers. What we have been doing obviously has not been working. Why do we continue down this misguided path? The American trade deficit over the past ten years demonstrates we're on the wrong track. At a more parochial level, since NAFTA was implemented in 1994, New Jersey has lost 130,000 manufacturing jobs--46,000 as a direct result of NAFTA. New Jersey was once a center for manufacturing. In 1996, Allied Signal in Eatontown sent 230 jobs to Mexico, and required the laid off workers to train their Mexican replacements. American Standard in Piscataway and Hamilton sent 495 jobs to Mexico. Patterson's textile industry disappeared. I could go on and on about town after town in New Jersey that lost jobs after NAFTA--from Millville to Elizabeth, from Woodbridge to Pennsauken. Another bad trade agreement is the last thing New Jersey needs. It is clear this is part of the Bush administration's misguided strategy with respect to U.S. trade policy. The Bush administration has made CAFTA, not China, is its No. 1 trade priority. Yet trade with Central American countries represents only 1.5 percent of U.S. trade. The Gross Metropolitan Product, GMP, of the city of Newark is $103 billion, larger than the GDP of all of these countries combined, $85.2 billion. Compare that with the fact that, just last year, the United States ran a $162 billion trade deficit with China. Our trade deficit alone with China is nearly double the GDP of the entire Central American trade region. This is a much more pressing issue for our economic security, and we should be focusing our attention on where the risks to imbalances are. Where is the pressure for currency adjustment with China or the protection of intellectual property rights? But this administration insists we first take up CAFTA, and so I feel compelled to discuss my opposition to this agreement. Free trade agreements must protect the rights of workers, both at home and abroad. When NAFTA was passed by Congress more than eleven years ago, there was great hope that the agreement would create thousands of new jobs in America and promote labor rights abroad. Yet, as we stand here 11 years later, we know that the U.S. Department of Labor has certified more than 525,000 workers for NAFTA trade adjustment assistance because their jobs were lost due to NAFTA imports or shifts in production to Canada or Mexico under NAFTA. Those same numbers reveal that, through 2002, more than 46,000 New Jersey workers had similarly lost their jobs. And the numbers are actually more serious, because since 2002, the Department of Labor has refused to release these sobering statistics--some estimates suggest it is closer to one million jobs lost. The U.S. International Trade Commission, ITC, predicts that CAFTA will actually increase the U.S. trade deficit with Central America because American companies will relocate their workforces and export their products back to the United States, just as companies did under NAFTA. This can continue to decimate communities across the country, as local plants shut down and the jobs moved overseas. NAFTA established the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, TAA, to help thousands of manufacturing workers receive retraining, keep their health insurance, and make a new start. But service sector jobs were left out. During the past several years, nearly half a million service jobs have moved offshore to other--mostly low-wage--countries. Senator Wyden's bipartisan amendment to extend TAA to service employees was accepted by the Finance Committee. Yet, when President Bush sent the CAFTA legislation to Congress, this amendment had been stripped from the bill. This amendment was sensible, it was fair, and it should have been included in this legislation. For all of the harm CAFTA would cause U.S. workers, I am equally as concerned about the harm the agreement could do to the rights and protections of workers in Central America. A fair trade agreement must require each nation to improve domestic labor laws to meet basic workers' rights. And it should discourage our trading partners from weakening or eliminating entirely their labor laws in order to gain an unfair trade advantage. But CAFTA does neither. CAFTA's lone enforceable workers' rights provision requires only that these countries enforce their own labor laws--laws that our own State Department has said fail to meet recognized international standards. This not the standard for commercial or investment standards. This failure to include an enforceable requirement that labor laws meet basic international standards represents a significant step backwards from the labor rights provisions of our agreement with Jordan, a country with significantly stronger labor protections. In our shared goal at improving labor standards around the world, trade agreements like CAFTA should be both the carrot and the stick. CAFTA is neither. CAFTA proponents have argued that this agreement is the principle means to lift Central America out of poverty and promote these shared principles. But this agreement will not do that, and the consequences of NAFTA are evidence of why. Since NAFTA was implemented more than eleven years ago, real wages in Mexico have fallen, the number of people in poverty has grown, and the number of people illegally migrating to the United States to seek work has doubled. NAFTA's liberalization in the agriculture sector displaced more than 1.7 million rural small farmers, overwhelming the 800,000 number of new jobs created in the export processing sectors. Rather than learn from these sobering failings by negotiating a trade agreement that creates good jobs, guarantees worker rights, and lays the groundwork for a strong middle class, the Administration has cloned NAFTA. Unfortunately, the results are likely to be the same. What is also likely to be the same is the devastating impact on the environment that CAFTA is likely have on Central America. Central America is one of the most biologically diverse areas of the world. The region faces daunting environmental challenges that threaten its potential for sustainable development. Yet CAFTA would undermine hard- won environmental protections by allowing foreign investors to challenge environmental laws and regulations in all of the countries, including the U.S., that are parties to the agreement. We have not learned the lessons of the past. This is another bad trade agreement that fails to address the real economic issues our nation faces today. We should be addressing our trade imbalance. We should be promoting job growth here in the United States, instead of further encouraging companies to move jobs elsewhere. I oppose CAFTA because it fails to preserve worker rights, protect the environment, or promote economic development at home and abroad. It is wrong for New Jersey, and it is wrong for America.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, being the junior Senator from New Jersey, I must say that of all of the people I have watched live the American dream and then believe that it is their obligation to give back--the distinguished minority leader itemized the life of Frank Lautenberg--no one cares more about that American dream and making sure it is available for his children and all the children of America. I have to say as a colleague but, more importantly, as a friend, I am honored to serve with you every day, and I appreciate very much what you have done for the State of New Jersey. I know the people of the State of New Jersey care very deeply about Frank Lautenberg.