Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I, too, wish to verbalize my opposition to this amendment that tries to draw in a completely extraneous item which has not been debated in the context of this bill in the 10 committee hearings we had with regard to putting together the Corporate Corruption and Investor Protection Act. It has not been involved in any of the President's discussions about corporate abuse or fraud that we have heard discussed. It is not in any way related to the group of organizations with which we are attempting to deal, which are large, publicly traded corporations, and really ignores the fact that there is already a body of law that deals with union organizations and union officers with regard to their responsibility to their memberships and for their reporting requirements. For a whole host of reasons, I do not understand how this even relates to the issue that is the fundamental part of the underlying bill, and there certainly is not any evidence in the marketplace of ideas and activities across America that would justify pulling labor unions by their actions into the fish net about which we are talking. This is about corporate corruption. It is about investor protection. It is about making sure corporate fraud is properly dealt with in the legal system, one that puts everyone on notice that they have serious responsibilities to certify that what is reported is real, and if it is not real, then people are held accountable. We are off on the wrong track, and if we end up having too many of these diversionary tactics away from the underlying principles of what we are trying to accomplish, which is to have measured, reasonable, and thoughtful progress with regard to corporate responsibility, corporate accountability, accounting reform, and investor protection, public protection, then I think we are going to miss the opportunity to secure our economy, to secure the steps that are necessary for most people to restart this engine of investment that drives our economy. This is completely off point. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will recognize it for what it is and move on, turn this down, and get on with the underlying amendment that Senator Leahy has so appropriately brought to bear in this case. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with Senator Dorgan in introducing legislation, the Social Security Plus Account Act of 2002, that would create new tax-favored Social Security Plus Accounts to supplement the existing Social Security program. Although the Social Security Trust Fund is now projected to remain solvent for almost 40 years, I share the interest of a broad range of leaders in exploring ways to extend solvency further into the future. At this point, it remains unclear when Social Security reform will be debated. However, Senator Dorgan and I are introducing this legislation in the hope that it will be considered when that debate moves forward. As most of my colleagues know, last year President Bush appointed a commission to recommend ways to move toward privatization of Social Security. Last December, that commission issued a report that included proposals to establish privatized accounts into which a portion of Social Security contributions would be diverted. The Bush Commission's proposals included deep cuts in guaranteed benefits, cut that for some current workers would exceed 25 percent, and for future retirees would exceed 45 percent. I strongly oppose these cuts. In my view, they would take the security out of Social Security. That would undermine the central goal of the program. At the same time, I recognize that, by itself, Social Security will not provide sufficient funds for many retirees in the future. That is why it is important that Americans save on their own to prepare for retirement. I therefore support other government initiatives to promote private savings, such as individual retirement accounts and 401(k) plans. The proposal for Social Security Plus Accounts in this legislation takes the concept of an IRA or 401(k) account, and builds on it. These new accounts would provide an additional and more powerful savings incentive for many Americans, especially middle class workers and those with more modest incomes. Under our legislation, the government would match contributions by taxpayers with incomes below certain levels. In addition, all contributions would provide immediate tax relief: a tax cut equal to 20 percent of the contribution. Moreover, when a person takes money out of an account at retirement, the proceeds would be treated in the same manner as Social Security benefits, meaning that some or all proceeds could be withdrawn tax free. A Social Security Plus Account would provide a useful supplement to our Social Security system, without weakening that system in any way. Unlike the proposals of the Bush Social Security Commission, these new accounts would not force a reduction in traditional Social Security benefits. This difference is critical. Senator Dorgan and I recognize that the establishment of Social Security Plus Accounts would require resources that are not presently available. We therefore appreciate that action on our legislation will have to wait until later, when we have more financing. However, we believe it important to put our proposal on the table today, to help ensure that when the appropriate time comes, our colleagues understand that there is more than one way to establish personal accounts. The right way, as proposed in this legislation, is to establish accounts that supplement Social Security, without draining the Social Security Trust Fund, without cutting benefits, and without undermining Social Security's promise to Americans who have paid into the system in good faith. I want to thank Senator Dorgan for his leadership in this effort. I look forward to working with him to ensure that we find new and better ways to promote savings, without undermining the basic guarantees provided through Social Security.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with Senator Dorgan in introducing legislation, the Social Security Plus Account Act of 2002, that would create new tax-favored Social Security Plus Accounts to supplement the existing Social Security program. Although the Social Security Trust Fund is now projected to remain solvent for almost 40 years, I share the interest of a broad range of leaders in exploring ways to extend solvency further into the future. At this point, it remains unclear when Social Security reform will be debated. However, Senator Dorgan and I are introducing this legislation in the hope that it will be considered when that debate moves forward. As most of my colleagues know, last year President Bush appointed a commission to recommend ways to move toward privatization of Social Security. Last December, that commission issued a report that included proposals to establish privatized accounts into which a portion of Social Security contributions would be diverted. The Bush Commission's proposals included deep cuts in guaranteed benefits, cut that for some current workers would exceed 25 percent, and for future retirees would exceed 45 percent. I strongly oppose these cuts. In my view, they would take the security out of Social Security. That would undermine the central goal of the program. At the same time, I recognize that, by itself, Social Security will not provide sufficient funds for many retirees in the future. That is why it is important that Americans save on their own to prepare for retirement. I therefore support other government initiatives to promote private savings, such as individual retirement accounts and 401(k) plans. The proposal for Social Security Plus Accounts in this legislation takes the concept of an IRA or 401(k) account, and builds on it. These new accounts would provide an additional and more powerful savings incentive for many Americans, especially middle class workers and those with more modest incomes. Under our legislation, the government would match contributions by taxpayers with incomes below certain levels. In addition, all contributions would provide immediate tax relief: a tax cut equal to 20 percent of the contribution. Moreover, when a person takes money out of an account at retirement, the proceeds would be treated in the same manner as Social Security benefits, meaning that some or all proceeds could be withdrawn tax free. A Social Security Plus Account would provide a useful supplement to our Social Security system, without weakening that system in any way. Unlike the proposals of the Bush Social Security Commission, these new accounts would not force a reduction in traditional Social Security benefits. This difference is critical. Senator Dorgan and I recognize that the establishment of Social Security Plus Accounts would require resources that are not presently available. We therefore appreciate that action on our legislation will have to wait until later, when we have more financing. However, we believe it important to put our proposal on the table today, to help ensure that when the appropriate time comes, our colleagues understand that there is more than one way to establish personal accounts. The right way, as proposed in this legislation, is to establish accounts that supplement Social Security, without draining the Social Security Trust Fund, without cutting benefits, and without undermining Social Security's promise to Americans who have paid into the system in good faith. I want to thank Senator Dorgan for his leadership in this effort. I look forward to working with him to ensure that we find new and better ways to promote savings, without undermining the basic guarantees provided through Social Security.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, ``The Round II Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community, EZ/EC, Flexibility Act of 2002,'' to provide funding for the Round II Enterprise Zone/ Enterprise Community program. I want to thank and acknowledge Senators Torricelli, Durbin and Nelson of Florida for their cosponsorship of this bill. This legislation would encourage economic development throughout the EZ/EC program, particularly to the 15 Round II urban and 5 rural empowerment zones that were designated in 1999. Each of those communities has put together strong strategic initiatives to promote economic growth. The legislation would help ensure that these Round II communities will be provided with the funding they have been promised. The bill also would authorize the use of EZ/EC grants as a match for other relevant Federal programs. This would provide the EZ/EC program with maximum flexibility to implement initiatives at the local level. The Enterprise Zone/Enterprise Community program was created to provide Federal assistance over ten years in designated urban and rural communities that would fuel economic revitalization and job growth. The program does so primarily by providing federal grants to communities and tax and regulatory relief to help communities attract and retain businesses. Unfortunately, an inequity now exists between the way Round I and Round II EZs and ECs have been funded. Those communities that won EZ designations in the initial round, in 1994, received full funding from the Congress, which made all grant awards available for use within the first two years of designation. However, EZs and ECs designated in Round II did not receive this same funding authority. Federal benefits promised to the Round IIs included funding grants of $100 million for each urban zone, $40 million for each rural zone and about $3 million for each Enterprise Community over a ten-year period beginning in 1999. In reliance on those ``promised'' funds, Round II zones prepared strategic plans for economic revitalization based on the availability of that funding. However, unlike Round I designees, who received a full funding up front, Round II zones have received a mere fraction of the funding promise. The lack of a certain, predictable funding stream will ultimately undermine the ability of Round II EZs/ECs to effectively implement their economic growth strategies in their designated communities. And that's a shame, because the EZ/EC initiative has produced real results. In fact, I'm proud to say that one of the best Round II EZs is located in Cumberland County, NJ. The Cumberland County Empowerment Zone, a collaborative effort of the communities of Bridgeton, Millville, Vineland and Port Norris, has been a model EZ, and committed all the funds made available to it by HUD. Since the creation of the EZ, Cumberland County has witnessed more than 100 housing units rehabbed, renovated or newly built. A $4 million loan pool has been created to fund community and small business reinvestment. The EZ also has led to the funding for over 60 economic development initiatives, utilizing more than $11 million in funding to leverage $120 million in private, public and tax exempt bond financing. These, are real results. And if the Federal commitment to the EZ continues, over 1,100 new jobs will be created in the County over the next year and a half alone. Cumberland County is just one example of how the EZ/EC initiative has brought hope and promise to communities throughout America. We need to do more to support and build on these initiatives. Now is the time for Congress to fulfill the promise made to Round II EZs and ECs. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation, and hope the Senate will expedite its consideration.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, ``The Round II Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community, EZ/EC, Flexibility Act of 2002,'' to provide funding for the Round II Enterprise Zone/ Enterprise Community program. I want to thank and acknowledge Senators Torricelli, Durbin and Nelson of Florida for their cosponsorship of this bill. This legislation would encourage economic development throughout the EZ/EC program, particularly to the 15 Round II urban and 5 rural empowerment zones that were designated in 1999. Each of those communities has put together strong strategic initiatives to promote economic growth. The legislation would help ensure that these Round II communities will be provided with the funding they have been promised. The bill also would authorize the use of EZ/EC grants as a match for other relevant Federal programs. This would provide the EZ/EC program with maximum flexibility to implement initiatives at the local level. The Enterprise Zone/Enterprise Community program was created to provide Federal assistance over ten years in designated urban and rural communities that would fuel economic revitalization and job growth. The program does so primarily by providing federal grants to communities and tax and regulatory relief to help communities attract and retain businesses. Unfortunately, an inequity now exists between the way Round I and Round II EZs and ECs have been funded. Those communities that won EZ designations in the initial round, in 1994, received full funding from the Congress, which made all grant awards available for use within the first two years of designation. However, EZs and ECs designated in Round II did not receive this same funding authority. Federal benefits promised to the Round IIs included funding grants of $100 million for each urban zone, $40 million for each rural zone and about $3 million for each Enterprise Community over a ten-year period beginning in 1999. In reliance on those ``promised'' funds, Round II zones prepared strategic plans for economic revitalization based on the availability of that funding. However, unlike Round I designees, who received a full funding up front, Round II zones have received a mere fraction of the funding promise. The lack of a certain, predictable funding stream will ultimately undermine the ability of Round II EZs/ECs to effectively implement their economic growth strategies in their designated communities. And that's a shame, because the EZ/EC initiative has produced real results. In fact, I'm proud to say that one of the best Round II EZs is located in Cumberland County, NJ. The Cumberland County Empowerment Zone, a collaborative effort of the communities of Bridgeton, Millville, Vineland and Port Norris, has been a model EZ, and committed all the funds made available to it by HUD. Since the creation of the EZ, Cumberland County has witnessed more than 100 housing units rehabbed, renovated or newly built. A $4 million loan pool has been created to fund community and small business reinvestment. The EZ also has led to the funding for over 60 economic development initiatives, utilizing more than $11 million in funding to leverage $120 million in private, public and tax exempt bond financing. These, are real results. And if the Federal commitment to the EZ continues, over 1,100 new jobs will be created in the County over the next year and a half alone. Cumberland County is just one example of how the EZ/EC initiative has brought hope and promise to communities throughout America. We need to do more to support and build on these initiatives. Now is the time for Congress to fulfill the promise made to Round II EZs and ECs. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation, and hope the Senate will expedite its consideration.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I rise to reinforce some of the dialog we have had on the floor with regard to Amtrak. This is a major economic issue for our Nation--not just the Northeast corridor. We have enormous numbers of interconnected elements of our economy which are dependent on the functioning of inner-city rail transportation, and certainly in the Northeast corridor where I come from, the most densely populated State in the Nation. There are almost 300,000 commuters a day using Amtrak or Amtrak-related facilities that move in and out of Penn Station and the New York metropolitan region. There are 82,000 daily commuters in New Jersey traffic. These folks are involved in the financial affairs of this Nation. We are going to create havoc in operations in our metropolitan regions of New York City if we have a shutdown of this highway transportation. I think it is absolutely essential that we get long-term Amtrak reform. What I want to speak about tonight is that we need not create a crisis with a short-term shutdown, which is going to impact an enormous number of innocent bystanders, to get to long-term reform. The President, the Transportation Department, and the Congress need to sit down and put together a long-term plan with regard to how we are going to reform Amtrak. I don't think it should be done at the expense of a part of our country that is already suffering. It would spread across the country and undermine the confidence of our already shaken economic expansion. We have seen enormous erosion in a whole series of different levels-- the stock market being the most obvious reminder, but at levels that are approaching where we were right after September 11. It strikes me that we don't need to throw another log on the fire and undermine the economic security of our Nation. That is why I think we need to have a short-term solution with loan guarantees, with the administration and Congress working together to implement a solution to keep this railroad running. We don't need a train ride. What we need to do is make sure we are supportive of our economy. I am very fearful that if we don't move forward with this short-run solution, we may never get to the long-run reform of Amtrak, which will be deteriorating substantially in the interim while it is shut down. Let me give you two facts. It costs $50 million to shut this entity down and $200 million to keep it running for the remainder of the year. It would cost almost $1 billion to bring Amtrak back and operating if it were shut down. That is on a nationwide basis. I think that is too much of an investment to make in a risky proposition of getting to reform without the kind of debate we have had. I hope we can do that on a thoughtful, measured basis in the days and weeks ahead in this 107th Congress. I don't think it should be formulated on the basis of a crisis brought about by a temporary shutdown. I want to make sure that I am registered very strongly for the people of New Jersey, for the people of the metropolitan New York region, and for the Nation in support of our economy by making sure that Amtrak continues to run until we have a thoughtful, long-term solution. I thank my colleague from Arizona. I appreciate it. I hope I stayed under 4 minutes. I will come back on another day.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. If the Senator from Arizona would consider it, I would talk no more than 5 minutes, and probably a few minutes less.

Mr. CORZINE. May I ask the Senator from Arizona how long he intends to speak?

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, my colleague from Arizona is very kind to offer this opportunity.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Unemployment Protection for Low-Income Families on TANF Act, or UPLIFT Act, that will protect low-income families who are transitioning from welfare to work from losing their welfare benefits during periods of high unemployment. Forcing families off welfare during a recession because they cannot find a job lacks commonsense. In fact, during a weak economy, low- skilled workers and recently employed workers are more likely to lose their jobs, and unfortunately, only 30 to 40 percent of former welfare recipients who become unemployed qualify for Unemployment Insurance. A single parent receiving welfare assistance while working 30 hours a week who loses her job during a recession should not be penalized. For families like this, welfare is the only unemployment insurance they have. But, under current law, Federal welfare time limits and work requirements continue to apply during periods of high-unemployment. The Unemployment Protection for Low-Income Families through TANF Act, or UPLIFT Act, would require States to disregard Federal TANF assistance for all recipients when the national unemployment rate reaches or exceeds 6.5 percent or when a State unemployment rate rises by 1.5 percentage points over a three-month period. Every percentage point increase in unemployment results in a welfare caseload increase of 5 percent. In addition to enacting a strong contingency fund for States experiencing high unemployment and increased caseloads, Congress must act to ensure that welfare recipients are not time-limited off of welfare when the economy is weak and jobs are in short supply. In addition to promoting self- sufficiency, TANF programs should be a safety net for low-income families who are unable to find work or meet their needs. My legislation will help parents who are trying to transition from welfare to work, but are unable to find work during a weak economy, to provide for their families without the fear of losing cash assistance. The TANF program is not only about moving people from welfare to work, it is also about reducing poverty and helping families in need. While welfare reform has succeeded at moving thousands of people into work, its success has come in strong economic times. As people reach their 5-year time limits, we can only hope they will be able to find jobs in what is now a more difficult economy. The reality is that many states are experiencing high unemployment right now, making it extremely difficult for welfare recipients to find good paying full- time jobs. We shouldn't penalize people who are trying to transition from welfare to work just because the economy is bad. We need to continue to help these families build their skills and find employment when times are tough. As Congress acts to reauthorize the TANF program I ask my colleagues to support legislation that will protect families transitioning from welfare to work from losing their benefits during a recession. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Unemployment Protection for Low-Income Families on TANF Act, or UPLIFT Act, that will protect low-income families who are transitioning from welfare to work from losing their welfare benefits during periods of high unemployment. Forcing families off welfare during a recession because they cannot find a job lacks commonsense. In fact, during a weak economy, low- skilled workers and recently employed workers are more likely to lose their jobs, and unfortunately, only 30 to 40 percent of former welfare recipients who become unemployed qualify for Unemployment Insurance. A single parent receiving welfare assistance while working 30 hours a week who loses her job during a recession should not be penalized. For families like this, welfare is the only unemployment insurance they have. But, under current law, Federal welfare time limits and work requirements continue to apply during periods of high-unemployment. The Unemployment Protection for Low-Income Families through TANF Act, or UPLIFT Act, would require States to disregard Federal TANF assistance for all recipients when the national unemployment rate reaches or exceeds 6.5 percent or when a State unemployment rate rises by 1.5 percentage points over a three-month period. Every percentage point increase in unemployment results in a welfare caseload increase of 5 percent. In addition to enacting a strong contingency fund for States experiencing high unemployment and increased caseloads, Congress must act to ensure that welfare recipients are not time-limited off of welfare when the economy is weak and jobs are in short supply. In addition to promoting self- sufficiency, TANF programs should be a safety net for low-income families who are unable to find work or meet their needs. My legislation will help parents who are trying to transition from welfare to work, but are unable to find work during a weak economy, to provide for their families without the fear of losing cash assistance. The TANF program is not only about moving people from welfare to work, it is also about reducing poverty and helping families in need. While welfare reform has succeeded at moving thousands of people into work, its success has come in strong economic times. As people reach their 5-year time limits, we can only hope they will be able to find jobs in what is now a more difficult economy. The reality is that many states are experiencing high unemployment right now, making it extremely difficult for welfare recipients to find good paying full- time jobs. We shouldn't penalize people who are trying to transition from welfare to work just because the economy is bad. We need to continue to help these families build their skills and find employment when times are tough. As Congress acts to reauthorize the TANF program I ask my colleagues to support legislation that will protect families transitioning from welfare to work from losing their benefits during a recession. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Murray- Snowe amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill. As the Senate considers this authorization bill of great importance to our military, one that I support, and I think most Members will, it is critical to guarantee U.S. servicewomen and military dependents access to safe and comprehensive reproductive health care services. Current law prevents women in the military from using their own money to access abortion services at overseas Department of Defense facilities, except in the cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest. Frankly, I think it is an outrage that women in the military--who make the ultimate commitment to this county--are in turn denied a freedom protected by the Constitution and afforded all women in this country. It is hard for me to imagine. This ban discriminates against women and their families by restricting their legally protected right to choose simply because they are stationed overseas. Surely we do not believe that American citizens who risk their lives in service to this country deserve fewer rights than other Americans enjoy? Because of the ban on access to abortion services at military base hospitals, women are forced to choose between often-inadequate local health care facilities or sometimes extensive and costly travel. In both cases, the current ban has the effect of severely jeopardizing women's health. Let there be no exaggeration about the scope of the Murray-Snowe amendment. This is not about federal funding of abortion. This amendment would simply allow women to use their own private funds to do what they would have the right to do at home, to access services at overseas U.S. military hospitals. In addition, it will not force providers, doctors or others, to perform abortion services. All three branches of the military already have conscience clauses that will remain intact. Finally, this amendment respects the laws of host countries. I urge my colleagues to support our women in the military by supporting this amendment. Surely, women who serve our country have the same rights as those who are here at home in private life. I thank Senators Murray and Snowe for their leadership on the issue. I think it is extremely important that we respect the right of choice.

Mr. CORZINE. Five minutes at the most.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I appreciate this opportunity to, once again, speak on a topic I believe needs to be debated fully in front of the American public and before this fall's elections. That topic is Social Security and the proposals circulating with regard to privatization of Social Security and the reduction in guaranteed benefits for future generations. Yesterday two of our Nation's top experts on Social Security issued a thoughtful and detailed new study on the recommendations of the Bush Social Security Commission to privatize Social Security. The report was prepared by Dr. Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institution and Dr. Peter Diamond of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who is the incoming president of the American Economic Association--two credible, thoughtful researchers who bring objectivity to their work in this area. The report by Drs. Orszag and Diamond objectively confirmed what I and many Democrats in the House and Senate have been trying to say on a regular basis on the floor for some time: The Bush Social Security Commission has developed privatization plans that would force deep cuts in guaranteed benefits. Those cuts for many current workers could exceed 25 percent and for some future retirees up to 45 percent. These cuts would apply to everyone, even those who choose not to risk their benefits in privatized accounts. Cuts would be even deeper for those who do invest in privatized accounts. In fact, actual cuts are likely to be deeper than current estimates, as the Commission's plans depend on substantial infusions of revenues from the General Treasury. Given the current state of our Federal budgetary policies, it is pretty hard to expect that we will put $2.5 to $3 trillion into the Social Security fund from the general revenues over the next 40 years or so, with the major demands we have on our general revenues. Remember, what we actually will be doing is spending Social Security trust fund moneys for those general purposes, as opposed to infusing money into the Social Security trust fund. This year we will run roughly a $300 billion deficit, if you include expenditures out of the Social Security trust fund, taking every penny of that to spend on other things, some quite responsible with regard to national security and homeland security. The fact is, we are using Social Security funds for everything but Social Security. With respect to the basic elements of the Orszag and Diamond report, they spell out in great detail all of the cuts in guaranteed benefits. I urge my colleagues to take a look at it. This is not just political rhetoric. This is about the facts of what this Commission's report is proposing. It is noteworthy. In fact, it is newsworthy. The New York Times today--and I will include the article for the Record--gives a good summary of the report and relates the fact that guaranteed benefits are going to be cut if we follow the propositions included in that report. First, the Orszag and Diamond report provides a lot of detail about how these deep benefit cuts will come about. It finds that, even if you add income that can be derived from the privatized accounts, many seniors would be substantially worse off under the Bush Commission plans than under current law. Let me repeat that, because this is one of the arguments I hear coming back all the time when we talk about Social Security. Even if you add the income that can be derived from privatized accounts, many seniors would be substantially worse off under the Bush Commission plans than the current system. Take, for example, a two-earner couple who claims benefits at age 65 in 2075. Their guaranteed benefits would be reduced by 46 percent. Since the whole point of Social Security is to provide guaranteed benefits, this 46-percent cut is what actually matters. They go through the detail of itemizing how you get to that, but that is the bottom line. There is no argument with the numbers. In fact, they are verified by the Social Security actuaries themselves in the Bush Commission report. Having said that, I recognize it is possible that cuts in guaranteed benefits will be offset in some part by income from privatized accounts. It is possible, but it may not even be likely. The Orszag- Diamond report actually makes that quite clear. As their report explains, if you go back to the couple whose guaranteed benefits would be cut by 46 percent and use assumptions adopted by the Social Security Administration, this couple, on average, would be able to offset about a quarter of their benefits with income from an annuity purchased with the proceeds from their privatized account. However, if my arithmetic is right, that still leaves them with a 21-percent cut in benefits compared to current law. This 21-percent net cut in benefits is not the end of the story because projected income from privatized accounts also comes from increased risk. In the world I came from, we used to assign probabilities about whether events would happen. It is called the risk- adjusted view of what returns would be. These alternative proposals are not guaranteed. They are not locked in. Sometimes they can be great; sometimes they can be poor. Markets move sideways for long periods of time. Sometimes they go up; sometimes they go down. Not only are you getting real cuts that the Orszag-Diamond report itemizes, but you are also taking on the risk with these privatized accounts that you won't have the resources to buy that actuarially presumed annuity that is going to make up for those benefits. After all, the promise of a dollar backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government in your Social Security is a lot better than those risk-adjusted returns in the stock market. That is what the American people are looking for. Drs. Orszag and Diamond decided to make such an adjustment using the risk adjustment approach as advocated by the Bush Office of Management and Budget so they could actually make these things on comparisons that are real. They found, if you adjust those benefits, as I suggested, for the levels of risk, the same two-couple wage earner would face a 40- percent cut in benefits. That is using these statistical adjustments that are reasonable. Madam President, this puts the lie to those who claim it is worth cutting guaranteed benefits in return for a gamble in the stock market. It just doesn't work out. The truth is, even using the assumptions of the administration, privatized accounts are a risky, bad deal and are not likely to compensate for the deep cuts in guaranteed benefits they would require. The next point I want to bring out from this Orszag-Diamond study relates to one of the assumptions of the Bush Social Security Commission--the assumption of large infusions of general revenues from the rest of the budget. They suggest you put that in conjunction with where we are in our budgetary status in the country today, and we have trouble to start with just on a fundamental basis. But the Orszag- Diamond report finds that under model 3--there are three different models the Commission talks about--the present value of the general revenue transfers in 2001 dollars, to flush up the Social Security trust fund and make it actuarially sound, is $2.8 trillion. That is a lot of dough. I have a hard time even understanding what $2.8 trillion is, but I don't think we have that kind of money laying around in our general revenues. If you protect disabled individuals from cuts, since they generally cannot work and make contributions to privatized accounts, you would need $3.1 trillion in general revenues. The totals for model 2 are almost as high. Madam President, $3.1 trillion is such a huge number that I am sure many Americans don't have an idea of what that really means. But it is almost as large as the entire publicly held debt we have, which we have accumulated over 225 years, which is now $3.4 trillion. In fact, it is almost as large as the entire Social Security shortfall, which we are trying to correct in the first place, which is $3.7 trillion over the next 75 years. In other words, if we really will have $3.1 trillion in extra general revenues sitting around doing nothing, we could solve this Social Security problem just flatout. We would not have to move to privatization, or adding risk adjustments to individual accounts to try to get this done; and certainly we would not have to move to these kinds of significant cuts in benefits that are proposed in the commission's suggestions. That sounds pretty good and pretty easy, but is it realistic to assume that we would have that extra $3.1 trillion just available to subsidize privatized accounts? The Bush commission obviously thinks so. But they are hard pressed to find many others who would agree. In fact, now that the Bush tax cuts have been enacted, which by themselves will cost $8.7 trillion in that same period, we are now looking at projections of deficits for years to come. So long as those tax breaks remain in place, the Commission's assumption of large general revenue transfers is pretty much in the world of fantasy. Another point made by the Orszag-Diamond study is that the privatized accounts proposed by the Commission don't just drain money from the Social Security trust fund over the next 75 years; they drain the trust fund permanently. This may surprise some people who think privatization would involve some short-term transition costs. We often hear about a $1 trillion transition cost. But the fact is that these drains are self-sustaining because they have created a program that subsidizes these personal accounts, these privatized accounts. The Orszag-Diamond report makes this clear. This should come as no surprise when you remember that people are trading a risk account for one that is guaranteed. So they are going to have to do something to encourage people to do that, and they are draining money from the Social Security trust fund to encourage making that happen. I think that is very dangerous. I really do believe it is a misrepresentation of how this whole process works. I think the study makes this very clear in very detailed, objective language. Finally, I want to highlight the Orszag-Diamond study's conclusions about the depth of the cuts that would be required in benefits for the disabled and for family members who survive the loss of a loved one because these would be especially severe. There would be little recourse for most victims of these cuts. According to the Orszag-Diamond report, disabled individuals would face cuts of up to 48 percent by 2075. These same reductions would apply to the younger children of workers who die prematurely. These are the cuts that would apply to all beneficiaries, even those who do not risk their benefits in privatized accounts. So I think it is important the American people understand that this isn't just political rhetoric. We have an objective study using the numbers of the Social Security actuaries to show that we are talking about real cuts, real cuts in guaranteed benefits, and that we are subsidizing privatized personal accounts to try to encourage something that is going to require a huge infusion of general revenues from the general accounts of the Government. Where that will come from is a mystery to me and to most who look at it. So I think we have a real serious cause for debate in front of this election this fall to make sure that people understand what they are buying into if we go to this Social Security privatization scheme. Personally, I think it is a disaster for our country. I hope, as do the 50 Members of this body who wrote a letter to the President last week urging him to publicly reject these cuts in guaranteed Social Security benefits, we can have this debate before this election so that when we bring this topic to the floor, it will be something the voters have expressed themselves on before we express ourselves. I think it is very productive that we have serious, thoughtful, objective evidence such as the Orszag-Diamond report to help bring light on this debate. I am going to make sure my colleagues have a chance to review this, make sure it is circulated. I thank my colleagues. I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary of the Orszag- Diamond report and the New York Times article be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I second the salute of the Senator from Connecticut. This is a tremendous step forward in protecting our economy, not protecting insurance companies. This is about jobs. It is about making sure we have economic growth going forward. It is a bridge. It is not a long-term creation of an insurance function by the Government, but it is a response that the Government needs to build a bridge to a better marketplace and a more secure economy. This will make a difference to all of America's economic growth, not just regionally. I am really quite pleased we are going to have a chance to vote in a minute to do something that will move our economy forward in the post- September 11 period.

Mr. CORZINE

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

Mr. CORZINE

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

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in support of S. 2600. Let me begin, by applauding the majority leader and Senator Dodd for exerting the necessary leadership, and doing what needed to be done to bring this bill to the floor. Now, it is time for all Members of the Senate to recognize the urgent need before us, and move to act on this bill. The tragic events of September 11 highlighted the enormous exposure that insurance companies would face in the event of future terrorist attacks. In this time, when we receive different terrorist alerts almost weekly, and we are faced with the uncertain nature of future attacks, many insurers and reinsurance firms have concluded that terrorism is no longer an insurable risk. As a result, late last year, many insurers announced that they would no longer provide coverage for terrorism-related losses. Without access to reinsurance coverage, primary insurance companies now find themselves subject to the full exposure of terrorism risk. This issue is not new. Many of us first learned about them in October of last year. And it left many concerned. While we all knew that it would be impossible to predict the true impact of the lack of terrorism insurance on our Nation's economy, there was overwhelming agreement among scholars, economists, and participants in our economy--that this issue had the potential to pose real problems in some economic sectors. The threat that loomed led to hearings in the Senate Banking Committee, and it fueled discussion among Members in the Senate about how to best craft a solution before the end of last year when 70 percent of reinsurance contracts were up for renewal. There was considerable debate about how, and what, that response should be. We debated the proper role of the Federal Government in ensuring that commercial insurers could provide terrorism insurance, knowing that their ability to cede some of that risk to reinsurers had all but vanished. Many Members of this body, people like Senator Dodd, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Gramm of Texas, Senator Hollings, Senator Schumer, Senator Enzi, Senator Nelson of Florida and myself put forth ideas on how to accomplish that. And let's be clear, there was a great deal of difference in the ways members thought we should approach this problem. But behind those differences, there was a singular purpose to solve the problem. I think we all were determined not to engage in partisan politics or to undermine a possible solution by promoting pet policy priorities. Everyone I just mentioned didn't agree on every aspect of the product that was eventually produced. I certainly didn't. But, ultimately, everyone agreed that we should act to bring a proposal to the floor, with an expectation that amendments would be offered, including amendments that dealt with tort and liability issues. The proposal that was presented late last year--late last year was not simply the result of a bunch of Democrats getting in a room and saying ``Voila.'' It was the result of serious discussion and negotiations between Democrats and Republicans and there was considerable input from the State insurance commissioners, this administration and the Treasury Department. In fact, the Federal backstop provisions of this bill had more than input of these folks it had their support. The bill we are debating today is that same proposal. Now we have an opportunity to respond to this growing emergency. If we fail to act, or if this bill becomes stalled by those seeking to pile their pet policy priorities onto a measure that at its core seeks to provide relief to American businesses, then our economy will be harmed. Every day that passes without our action, leaves American businesses, development projects, workers and vital infrastructure exposed to potentially devastating losses, and that's a real threat to our economic recovery. In fact, the lack of terrorism insurance coverage has already begun to create a drag on commercial lending and business activity. In April, the Federal Reserve Board surveyed commercial loan officers regarding their recent lending activity and terrorism insurance. The responses are troubling to say the least. The report indicated that 55 percent of banks had not received applications to finance ``high profile or heavy traffic commercial real estate properties.'' In fact, two national lenders have completely stopped making loans to these types of properties--GMAC Commercial Holding and Mutual of Omaha--altogether. The report also states that 20 percent of banks reported weaker demand for new commercial real estate financing. And while not referenced specifically in the Fed report, we know that some existing commercial borrowers may be in technical default on loan covenants because they lack terrorism coverage. Each of these elements reflects the economic threats that are posed by the lack of affordable, comprehensive terror insurance coverage. The threat that accompanies the decrease in commercial lending and subsequently to development translates to one thing the loss of jobs. But there is more. The lack of terrorism insurance coverage is also affecting our securities and our bond markets. According to the Bond Market Association, to date, $7 billion worth of commercial real-estate loan activity has already been suspended or cancelled due to problems related to terrorism insurance, that is 10 percent of the commercial-mortgage-backed-securities (CMBS) market. And overall, CMBS activity is down a staggering 26 percent in the first quarter of this year. That level of decline in commercial investment activity is disturbing to think of when you consider that that sector was one of the ones that remained strong throughout last years' recession. And there is even more to illustrate the there is an economic consequence that accompanies our failure to act on this issue. Last month, Moody's Investors Service issued an opinion indicating that it is preparing to downgrade billions of dollars of debt of large loan transactions, commercial mortgage-backed securities, particularly on high-risk and ``trophy'' properties in the near future if we fail to pass this legislation. The American Academy of Actuaries reports that ``there is a reluctance to finance [development] projects of $100 million or more, and some investors are reluctant to buy bonds tied to individual office towers, apartment building and shopping malls.'' And a report issued last month by the Joint Economic Committee offers data illustrating the economic drag that higher insurance costs, for terrorism and non-terrorism related coverage, is having on American business. The report calls these factors ``a one-two punch'' that is proving harmful to America's economy. That report cites data from the Commercial Insurance Market Index, which indicates that premiums for commercial insurance policies have increased by 30 percent in first quarter of this year. And those increased costs are in addition to the increased costs of obtaining terrorism insurance, a real cost burden to our businesses. The report cites the example of a building in my state, New Jersey, which prior to 9/11 had an $80 million insurance policy that included terrorism coverage at a cost of $60,000. The new policy for that building has a premium of $400,000 for property-casualty insurance and another $400,000 just for terrorism insurance. That's a dramatic increase for the same coverage. And that building's lucky at least they got fairly comprehensive coverage. Many others find themselves facing similar cost increases for half the coverage. In either case, these costs undermine productivity and any growth or investment opportunities that the owners could possibly take on. And it is nationwide trend. I want to reiterate that point. Because this is more than a Northeast, an urban, or a ``big city'' issue. The inability of business and organizations to obtain terrorism insurance coverage is truly a national problem. Consider this: In Cleveland, the insurer for the Cleveland Municipal School District has notified the district that its new policy will exclude losses due to terrorism. In Seattle, the Seattle Mariners baseball team had difficulty securing $1 million in terrorism insurance coverage for their $517 million stadium. The St. Louis Art Museum's insurer informed that museum that it would no longer be covered for terrorism losses. That could well prevent touring shows, and undermine tourism in that city. And a collection of Midwestern airports reported that their aviation liability premium increased close to 300 percent post 9/11 and those policies excluded terrorism losses. Last year, when this issue first surfaced, we tried to move a bill forward, but that process didn't take hold. Many members believed this issue wasn't a problem for them that it wasn't in their back yards. We know better than that now. At least I hope we all do. The impact of the lack of terrorism insurance is being felt in cities and towns all throughout America. And so I say to all my colleagues this is an issue that affects your state and your constituents. If there's a port in your state, your affected. If there's a bridge or a tunnel in your state, you are affected. If you have an airport or railway system in your state, you are affected. If you've got an NFL, NBA, NHL or Major League Baseball stadium or arena in your State, you're affected. If you've got a college football stadium in your State, where tens of thousands of people gather on Saturdays to root for their team and sing their alma mater, you're affected. It is time to stop the stalling, stop the games and time for us to pass an interim federal backstop to ensure against future acts of terrorism. It is time for us to pass this bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support it. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his efforts and persistence in this endeavor. I look forward to helping him as this process goes forward. Again, I thank my colleague from Florida for being generous and respectful, giving me the opportunity to present my remarks.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, I have over the last few weeks been speaking regularly with regard to Social Security and proposals to privatize Social Security. I think this is one of the most important debates we as the Senate and Americans need to have. It needs to be done before elections, not afterwards, because I think we need to hear from the American people about what it is they want. To many Americans, certainly to whom I talk, and many of my constituents in the State of New Jersey--and I certainly hear it from my colleagues, and I feel strongly--these proposals that are circulating with regard to private takings of Social Security are not the mindset of most Americans. That is particularly true when people become aware that they will involve deep cuts in guaranteed benefits and that, by implication, is going to force many Americans to work longer, delay their retirement, and develop a level of insecurity in a program that was really designed to promote security among senior citizens in our Nation. The fact is that we have seen developing an undermining of retirement security for a whole host of reasons, whether it is the diminishment of the number of Americans who are covered by defined benefit programs or the insecurity of 401(k)s which we have seen in light of some of the elements that have come out of Enron. It is very hard for me and for most of the people with whom I have conversations to understand why we should be taking the security out of Social Security. President Bush's Social Security Commission proposed privatization plans--there were three of them--that would cut guaranteed benefits for current workers by more than 25 percent. Those cuts would exceed 45 percent for those who would be retiring long in the future. They would apply even to those who choose not to invest in privatized accounts, and they would be even deeper for those who did not make such investments. In fact, actual cuts are likely to be deeper still. This is an important part. There is a high probability the cuts will be deeper since the Commission's plans--all three of them--are dependent on significant infusions of general revenue funds to accomplish the transition from the current system we have, the pay-as-you-go system, to the privatized system. This is arithmetic. It is not something that is political or partisan. The only way to get from one place to the other is by taking roughly a trillion dollars from general revenues to make it supportable, if the same benefit payment schedule is going to be held to that which we have now for most future retiring American citizens. It is hard to understand how we can talk about taking funding from general revenues in the current circumstance when we passed a debt ceiling limit yesterday of another $450 billion, and that is only expected to take us for 18 months. We have a growing deficit problem in this country. Put that together with a need to be able to provide general revenues to support this initiative towards privatization and I think we have a real problem. We have a train wreck coming. To me, that is not the direction in which we should go. So I hope we will look at these in a serious way. The Commission's report itself talks about these 25-percent cuts and 45-percent cuts. The Social Security actuaries are the ones who present them. While they did not speak to it directly, those cuts will even be more serious and more immediate for surviving beneficiaries and disabled beneficiaries from the Social Security Program. We are basically taking a program that has worked, has reduced the poverty level for senior citizens in America, and really putting it at great jeopardy. That is why I feel so strongly about speaking out on a repeated basis to develop this debate. Despite the very clear proposals developed by the Bush Commission, my fear is that few Americans have any real idea what is at stake in regard to what I have described. I am afraid a lot of this is not on people's radar screens because there has not been a lot of debate about it. There has not been a lot of talk about it. There is a point of view that this ought to be put off until after the election. I think it is important that those of us who believe in protecting Social Security as we basically know it--there will have to be some changes but basically as we know it--should be talking about the true nature of the kinds of cuts that are being talked about. A little bit of this dialogue on the Senate floor has developed into some debate, at least inside the beltway. I would like to take it outside the beltway because that is where the real impact will lie. But there has been a continuing dialogue between the Cato Institute and myself. A minority of members of the Bush Commission have responded to some of the commentary I have tried to make. We have both exchanged long and relatively detailed treatises that are translated into explaining each other's positions, and I think that is all healthy. I think that is good. Hopefully, there will be more debate in the future. This past weekend, a new player entered the debate, at least as reported by the Washington Times. The Commissioner of Social Security, Ms. Anne Barnhart, went on the record to criticize Democrats--at least one Democrat--for using false charges and for what the article calls incendiary rhetoric. I hope people do not presume the kind of language I am using today is incendiary. It is trying to get to a healthy debate about how Social Security should work and how it will impact seniors, survivors, and disability beneficiaries in America. The article quotes Ms. Barnhart as stating: The most important message I want to send out is that benefits are not going to be affected. Let me repeat, ``benefits are not going to be affected,'' according to Ms. Barnhart. Ms. Barnhart then seemed to back off in the article--again, I did not see the full text of her remarks--and adopt a little less absolute approach. That is hopeful because that cannot be an absolute condition of the interpretation of the President's proposals, offering assurances only to retirees, current retirees, near-term retirees. In any event, I was very disappointed by these reported statements which, in fact, I have tried to respond to in a number of venues, which I believe are highly inaccurate in themselves. The truth is, as I said before, President Bush's Social Security Commission proposed privatization plans that call for deep cuts in guaranteeing benefits. This is by the Social Security actuaries themselves. I do not happen to have the pages, but I can cite it in the report that the Commission put forward. As I said, these cuts apply to even those who do not choose to invest in privatized accounts. It seems to me we ought to have this on facts at least as they are talked about. I do not want to go back through the point, but if we are to avoid these cuts, even for near-term retirees, or certainly for survivors and disability beneficiaries, we will have to have significant transfers from the General Treasury to be able to sustain Social Security benefits even for those groups. I think that is going to be an increasing challenge for this body, for public policymakers in general, because we are running deficits. Arguing that benefits are not going to be affected seems precisely the kind of false charge for which Ms. Barnhart reportedly was criticizing Democrats. This is a debate we need to have. We need to have it on substance. We need to make it balanced, thoughtful, very public. I will work to that end. There is not a more important issue--perhaps prescription drugs, as the Presiding Officer is articulately making the case to the American people. This gets at retirement security, things that make a difference in real people's lives. I was in the chair several weeks ago when the Presiding Officer made the case that he went to a diner and heard what was on people's minds. Prescription drugs are on people's minds, and making sure that Social Security is there as people have expected, as they have paid into the system. It is right in the gut to most Americans, at least those diners I go to in New Jersey. This is something we have to be attentive to, we need to debate, we need to come to a conclusion, and get on with the process. I am hopeful Ms. Barnhart was misquoted in the Washington Times. I have been misquoted once in a while, as I am sure all Members have. I do not think engaging in incendiary commentary is helpful, nor do I think many of my colleagues do. I hope she will write to the editor of the paper and clear up the matter. I would love to get into a very serious debate about the substance of how we will finance Social Security as we go forward. That is an important element of our necessary debate to get to long-term solutions that make a difference in people's lives. I hope she will review the facts involved in the President's commission's report when we are talking about these deep cuts in guaranteed benefits. They are there in black and white. I ask unanimous consent a copy of the Washington Times article and my response to Ms. Barnhart be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE. I hope we continue this dialog in a thoughtful, balanced matter. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from North Carolina for his remarks with regard to his views on probation and the deteriorating situation with regard to how we are moving and progressing with regard to crime. I am also glad to hear the Senator from North Carolina speak about estate tax in the context of Social Security. In fact, I will be speaking in a minute with regard to the Social Security issue. It seems inconceivable to me that the roughly 3,000 people the Senator is talking about in our Nation, those who have benefited most from the power and the success of our Nation economically and done so well, should put at jeopardy the universal program that is such an important part of retirement security for so many Americans. It does not seem right in the context of the national security, but truly it seems misplaced when one thinks about Social Security for the breadth of Americans. So I commend the Senator for his remarks, and particularly the tying together and juxtaposition of those efforts.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to speak strongly in opposition to the Gramm amendment. I am in the group of folks who believe we need reform, not repeal. There are some positive things we should do with respect to the estate tax. However, I find it terribly difficult knowing the meritocracy of America that I think provides opportunity to all, that we are voting to create something that is against the principles and buildup of aristocracy, contrary to at least the America I understand. I believe that is why we have seen many people who have benefited so much from our society because they have been able to live in a free America where they had access and equal opportunity and a public educational system, infrastructure that worked positively for folks, that they feel very strongly there is a responsibility to give back by those who have been blessed with their lives. Quite frankly, it is one of the things that helped in my own life. I think about the schoolteachers in the rural community in which I grew up who gave me the access to the American promise. I believe America is about meritocracy, not aristocracy. It is about community, and community-wide interests--not just the interest of the few. We have heard the statistics about how narrow a slice of America benefits from this action. This is a period of sacrifice in America, when we are asking men and women to go overseas to protect us. We are asking others to sacrifice on our investments in education and our protections in the environment and all kinds of things that make sense in a choice situation, to go in a direction where the few are benefited to the exclusion of the many. This is very difficult. I would be remiss if I did not bring it up in the context of something about which I deeply care; that is, protecting the integrity of our Social Security and Medicare systems. People will say there are other choices on spending. But we have a very clear choice where we provide for those who benefited the most from the American system to be able to use our Social Security funds and Medicare funds that we raise and directly expend it on something that, in a period of sacrifice, is hard to understand--why our priorities and why our choices are here. This is a moral issue about priorities in this Nation, making sure we are funding special education.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the 2001 National Medal of Technology Laureates, Dr. Arun N. Netravali of Murray Hill, NJ and Dr. Sidney Pestka of Piscataway, NJ. Dr. Arun Netravali is a leader in the field of communications systems. As the chief scientist of Lucent Technologies and past president of Bell Labs, he is being cited for his pioneering contributions that transformed television from analog to digital. His innovative algorithms have enabled the switch from analog to digital in numerous services, including broadcast television, CATV, DBS, and HDTV. Furthermore, his work has facilitated an entirely new set of products and services for the multimedia revolution over the Internet. Important communication services such as video conferencing and streaming over the Internet could not be done economically without Dr. Netravali's compression algorithms. He has also been singled out for this prestigious honor for his leadership. During his tenure, Dr. Netravali created, inspired and motivated teams to innovate, keeping Bell Labs at the forefront of revolutionary developments in technology. I would also like to recognize Dr. Sidney Pestka for his groundbreaking achievements that led to the development of the biotechnology industry. During his career, Dr. Pestka has made a remarkable series of discoveries and developments, often bucking prevailing beliefs and designing innovative solutions to problems along the way to success. His efforts have led to the development of the first recombinant interferons for the treatment of many viral diseases, cancers, and multiple sclerosis. Creating the foundation for more than 100 U.S. and foreign patents, Dr. Pestka's work prepared the pathway for the development of many other biotherapeutic agents now used and stimulated the development of today's extensive biotechnology industry. He has fostered new industries in multiple area, developed new medicines for previously untreatable diseases, and brought new hope to those afflicted. Indeed, his achievements in innovation and translation provide a role model for this and future generations. These two New Jerseyans embody the spirit of American innovation and have advanced our nation's global competitiveness and standard of living. Their groundbreaking contributions have commercialized technologies, created jobs, improved productivity and stimulated the nation's growth and development. I commend them for their remarkable achievements and am honored to bring them to your attention.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act of 2002, to limit medical resident work hours to 80 hours a week and to provide real protections for patients and resident physicians who are negatively affected by excessive work hours. This is a companion bill to legislation introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative John Conyers. It is very troubling that hospitals across the Nation are requiring young doctors to work 36 hour shifts and as many as 120 hours a week in order to complete their residency programs. These long hours lead to a deterioration of cognitive function similar to the effects of blood alcohol levels of 0.1 percent. This is a level of cognitive impairment that would make these doctors unsafe to drive, yet these physicians are not only allowed but in fact are required to care for patients and perform procedures on patients under these conditions. While the medical community has been aware of this problem for many years, the issue has largely been pushed under the rug. Only recently has the medical community taken a more serious look at the problem. In the last couple of months, my office has worked with the Association of American Medical Colleges and teaching hospitals in New Jersey and New York to address this problem and to try to find a workable solution. As a result of these efforts and increased public pressure on the medical community to address this quality of care and labor issue, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, ACGME, announced today new work hour recommendations. This is an important first step. But while some of their recommendations are commendable, they would still require residents to work in excess of 80 hours a week and 30- hour shifts. I look forward to working with the Council to adapt strong standards that are not only recommendations, but are enforceable requirements that truly protect patients and residents. Today, I am introducing legislation that not only recognizes the problem of excessive work hours, but also creates strong enforcement mechanisms. The bill also provides funding support to teaching hospitals to implement new work hour standards. Without enforcement and financial support, efforts to reduce work hours are not likely to be successful. Let me again emphasize that the Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act of 2002 will limit medical resident work hours to 80 hours a week. Not 40 hours or 60 hours. 80 hours a week. It is hard to argue that this standard is excessively strict. In fact, it is unconscionable that we now have resident physicians, or any physicians for that matter, caring for very sick patients 120 hours a week and 36 hours straight with fewer than 10 hours between shifts. This is an outrageous violation of a patient's right to quality care. And, for many patients, it is literally a matter of life and death. In addition to limiting work hours to 80 hours week, my bill limits the length of any one shift to 24 consecutive hours and limits the length of an emergency room shift to 12 hours. The bill also ensures that residents have at least one out of seven days off and ``on-call'' shifts no more often than every third night. Finally, my legislation provides meaningful enforcement mechanisms that will protect the identity of resident physicians who file complaints about work hour violations. The guidelines that the ACGME released today do not contain any whistleblower protections for residents that seek to report program violations. Without this important protection, residents will be reluctant to report these violations, which in turn will weaken enforcement. My legislation also makes compliance with these work hour requirements a condition of Medicare participation. Each year, Congress provides $8 billion to teaching hospitals to train new physicians. While Congress must continue to vigorously support adequate funding so that teaching hospitals are able to carryout this important public service, these hospitals must also make a commitment to ensuring safe work conditions for these physicians and providing the highest quality of care to the patients they treat. In closing I would like to read a quote from an Orthopedic Surgery Resident from Northern California, which I think illustrates why we need this legislation: I was operating post-call after being up for over 36 hours and was holding retractors. I literally fell asleep standing up and nearly face-planted into the wound. My upper arm hit the side of the gurney, and I caught myself before I fell to the floor. I nearly put my face in the open wound, which would have contaminated the entire field and could have resulted in an infection for the patient. This is a very serious problem that must be addressed before medical errors like this occur. I hope every member of the Senate will consider this legislation and the potential it has to reduce medical errors, improve patient care, and create a safer working environment for the backbone of our Nation's healthcare system. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act of 2002, to limit medical resident work hours to 80 hours a week and to provide real protections for patients and resident physicians who are negatively affected by excessive work hours. This is a companion bill to legislation introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative John Conyers. It is very troubling that hospitals across the Nation are requiring young doctors to work 36 hour shifts and as many as 120 hours a week in order to complete their residency programs. These long hours lead to a deterioration of cognitive function similar to the effects of blood alcohol levels of 0.1 percent. This is a level of cognitive impairment that would make these doctors unsafe to drive, yet these physicians are not only allowed but in fact are required to care for patients and perform procedures on patients under these conditions. While the medical community has been aware of this problem for many years, the issue has largely been pushed under the rug. Only recently has the medical community taken a more serious look at the problem. In the last couple of months, my office has worked with the Association of American Medical Colleges and teaching hospitals in New Jersey and New York to address this problem and to try to find a workable solution. As a result of these efforts and increased public pressure on the medical community to address this quality of care and labor issue, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, ACGME, announced today new work hour recommendations. This is an important first step. But while some of their recommendations are commendable, they would still require residents to work in excess of 80 hours a week and 30- hour shifts. I look forward to working with the Council to adapt strong standards that are not only recommendations, but are enforceable requirements that truly protect patients and residents. Today, I am introducing legislation that not only recognizes the problem of excessive work hours, but also creates strong enforcement mechanisms. The bill also provides funding support to teaching hospitals to implement new work hour standards. Without enforcement and financial support, efforts to reduce work hours are not likely to be successful. Let me again emphasize that the Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act of 2002 will limit medical resident work hours to 80 hours a week. Not 40 hours or 60 hours. 80 hours a week. It is hard to argue that this standard is excessively strict. In fact, it is unconscionable that we now have resident physicians, or any physicians for that matter, caring for very sick patients 120 hours a week and 36 hours straight with fewer than 10 hours between shifts. This is an outrageous violation of a patient's right to quality care. And, for many patients, it is literally a matter of life and death. In addition to limiting work hours to 80 hours week, my bill limits the length of any one shift to 24 consecutive hours and limits the length of an emergency room shift to 12 hours. The bill also ensures that residents have at least one out of seven days off and ``on-call'' shifts no more often than every third night. Finally, my legislation provides meaningful enforcement mechanisms that will protect the identity of resident physicians who file complaints about work hour violations. The guidelines that the ACGME released today do not contain any whistleblower protections for residents that seek to report program violations. Without this important protection, residents will be reluctant to report these violations, which in turn will weaken enforcement. My legislation also makes compliance with these work hour requirements a condition of Medicare participation. Each year, Congress provides $8 billion to teaching hospitals to train new physicians. While Congress must continue to vigorously support adequate funding so that teaching hospitals are able to carryout this important public service, these hospitals must also make a commitment to ensuring safe work conditions for these physicians and providing the highest quality of care to the patients they treat. In closing I would like to read a quote from an Orthopedic Surgery Resident from Northern California, which I think illustrates why we need this legislation: I was operating post-call after being up for over 36 hours and was holding retractors. I literally fell asleep standing up and nearly face-planted into the wound. My upper arm hit the side of the gurney, and I caught myself before I fell to the floor. I nearly put my face in the open wound, which would have contaminated the entire field and could have resulted in an infection for the patient. This is a very serious problem that must be addressed before medical errors like this occur. I hope every member of the Senate will consider this legislation and the potential it has to reduce medical errors, improve patient care, and create a safer working environment for the backbone of our Nation's healthcare system. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.