Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Morristown Memorial Hospital, a member hospital of the Atlantic Health System, for their receipt of the American Hospital Association's NOVA award. This prestigious award recognizes outstanding commitment to improving community-based health care. The NOVA award honors Morristown's TeenHealthFX.com program, a free interactive Web site, providing teenagers with confidential and anonymous answers for difficult-to-ask health questions. This innovative program has succeeded at breaking down many of the barriers that so often prevent teens from obtaining critical health care information. Created in 1999, through the collaborative efforts of community leaders, teen, and health care professionals, this site has served as a gateway to area health care providers and a source of health care information for more than 100,000 young visitors. I want to thank Morristown Hospital for supporting such an important and effective program. It is not enough to simply make health information available to our young people. That information needs to be made available in a setting that is comfortable for teenagers to access. This is exactly the environment that TeenHealthFX.com has created in New Jersey. TeenHealthFX.com represents the type of creative thinking and collaboration that our communities must undertake if we are going to improve the health and health habits of teenagers and young adults. Again, congratulations to Morristown Hospital and thank you for your continued commitment to improving health care for all New Jerseyans.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. If the Senator from Michigan will give me the grace of making sure my arithmetic is right, if you add a 25-percent cut for people who are now working plus 40 percent in administrative costs, that 65 percent out of the total amount of benefits from Social Security seems to be a big chunk out of how one would have their retirement financed. Certainly it would go a long way to eroding the base of benefits that people have come to expect from Social Security.

Mr. CORZINE. We have a lot to do, if at least my analysis and others of the Social Security benefit cuts that are implied by the privatization process are implemented, for women, obviously, but Americans broadly and, quite frankly, a number of children because Social Security is a program for disability, spouses, and children survivors as well. I was interested to hear the Senator talk about transaction costs and privatization. I remember recently we had a presentation by a Member of Congress at one of our briefings on Social Security. Did I recall hearing that there is a privatization scheme in Britain where 40 percent of the dollars that are allocated for savings in this privatized account go to transaction costs?

Mr. CORZINE. If I am not mistaken--maybe the Senator from Michigan can refresh my memory--with Social Security we have something less than 10 percent of Americans now living out of poverty. That is what the whole design of the program was, to provide a fundamental foundation-- ``social insurance'' I think was the term the Senator used. Is that the way the Senator from Michigan understands both the number and the reality of how it has worked?

Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I know this is an issue that is near and dear to your heart. It is an issue to which it is absolutely essential we pay attention and debate, that we get to a conclusion that supports America's women, making sure they have retirement security commensurate with the rest of Americans. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, this morning I rise to speak on perhaps the most important long-term domestic issue facing our Nation--the future health and security of our Social Security system. Today, I want to focus on proposals to privatize Social Security and the special threat privatization poses to women in America. Last December, late on a Friday afternoon, before Christmas, President Bush's Social Security Commission released its recommendations for changes in the Social Security system. The Commission's report did not get much media coverage because of the timing of its release, and I think that was obviously by design, if you read the report. The recommendations of the Bush Commission are dramatic and damaging, if implemented, for the future of all Social Security beneficiaries but particularly for women. They involve deep cuts in guaranteed Social Security benefits--cuts of 25 percent or so for those currently working and up to 45 percent for future workers. Undoubtedly, these proposals would force millions of Americans to delay their retirement so that they would have the ability to live their senior years with economic security. Few members of the public actually have even heard of the Bush Commission, and they certainly have not talked or debated the recommendations. And fewer have any idea that the Commission is calling for drastic cuts in guaranteed benefits, the type that I outlined. Americans need to know about these plans, and they need to consider them and debate them in a serious way, making sure they know the implications of taking these recommendations to fruition. Unfortunately, so far, the administration says it wants to put off any discussion of these proposals until after the election. That is unfortunate and, frankly, it is wrong. We should be debating this issue openly and publicly before the American people, on the Senate floor and certainly before the voters in this November's elections. To that end, I intend to continue to raise this subject and its implications for the American people as much as I can to make sure that the American people understand what the Bush Commission is recommending to the American public. This Senator thinks it is too important to be decided among closeted policy wonks and politicians in the dark of the night. Today, I specifically want to raise those aspects of privatization that are damaging to women. I know this is an issue that is near and dear to the Presiding Officer. Women have a reason to be especially concerned about privatization proposals because they would be among the biggest losers if Social Security is privatized and benefits are cut. As Joan Bernstein, president of the organization known as OWL, notes in her introductory letter to OWL's Mother's Day report, ``Social Security Privatization: A False Promise for Women'': Social Security is a women's issue. I would go so far as to say that it is the retirement security issue for women today. OWL notes that today women represent 58 percent of all Social Security recipients--slightly more than 50 percent. They represent 71 percent of beneficiaries aged 85 and over. Without regular cost-of-living adjusted Social Security benefits, more than half of all older women would be living in poverty. Let me repeat--more than 50 percent. If you look at Hispanic women, it is about 68 percent. If you look at African-American women, it is 61 percent. I note that Social Security is important not just to older women but also to children and nonretired adults who constitute one-third of current Social Security beneficiaries. These include many women and children who benefit from benefits resulting from the death or disability of a family member. For a caregiving mother, cutting these benefits is unthinkable. For these reasons, women have a special stake in Social Security, and their stake in protecting guaranteed benefits should be obvious given women's historic position--sometimes I think unfortunate historic position--in the economic system. First, women earn less than men. There is a wage gap: on average, 73 cents on every dollar a man earns. Also, they are not compensated for the 12 years, on average, they spend on unpaid caregiving, whether for their children, parents, spouse, or other relatives. And when women work as caregivers, they are often in the economic system as part-time workers, so that their average pay is significantly lower. The way Social Security is calculated, you look at 35 years of working level--the highest average--and women come up short. The average payout of Social Security benefits for women is about $756 per year. For a man, it is just shy of $1,000 a year. All this pulls together as women often save less during their working lifetime and are less likely to be eligible for pensions as well. They are denied private pensions. If they do have private pensions, it is often generally less generous, the same way Social Security is less generous for women. In fact, average private pension benefits for women are only about half of those for men. And for most women, their Social Security benefits will also be lower because of those averaged lower earnings that I talked about. It works doubly--in the pension system and also in Social Security. Finally, and most importantly, women tend to live longer than men--6 years longer on average. That makes Social Security especially critical for women, since the program, unlike private savings, protects against the risks of outliving your savings and, certainly, ongoing rising inflation. Privatizing Social Security would undercut many of the program's benefits for women, whether it is retirement security or the social insurance about which we spoke. Taking trillions of dollars out of the Social Security trust fund will force a cut in these guaranteed benefits--25 percent or more, as I noted earlier, for current workers and 45 percent for those who enter the workforce later. That is unacceptable. It will also undermine Social Security's role in the social insurance area, leaving women less protected against a variety of risks in our society. I know many people around here are convinced that we need to cut Social Security benefits to make sure that Social Security meets its long-term financial objectives and its long-term financial needs to deal with those pressures. Most Americans do not believe that. I want you to know, I do not believe that. We can save Social Security without cutting it. The truth is, the American people are right. It is a matter of our priorities. Consider these two figures: First, the long-term Social Security shortfall is $3.7 trillion. It is about $74 billion a year if you factor it out over the 75-year actuarial life we are talking about. The long-term cost of last year's tax cut is $8.7 trillion over the same period. Remember, $3.7 trillion to fix Social Security; $8.7 trillion in our tax cuts. In other words, the tax cut will cost more than twice as much as the entire Social Security shortfall. I don't get it. Where are our priorities? What is important? I hope my colleagues will remember that the next time someone says we have no choice but to cut benefits, that they will put that into the framework of what we need to be thinking about as we deal with fiscal policy in this country. We certainly could, and should, consider--this is a personal view-- postponing some of the remaining tax cuts to deal with Social Security's fiscal needs first. That is a priority. Social Security should come first. Last week, as I said, I attended a press conference with the leaders of OWL, a grassroots membership organization that focuses on the needs of midlife and older women. OWL developed an excellent report called ``Social Security Privatization: A False Promise for Women.'' I sent copies to every Senator's office, and I hope my colleagues will take a look at it. There are individual stories inside this excellent report. There are details about how the financial structure of Social Security works. It is a composite that pulls together an overview. It makes in clear and compelling terms the case that privatizing Social Security would be extraordinarily bad for women. They do that on a personal level, they do it on an analytical level, and they do it in ways and terms that I believe the American people can understand. That is the message all women and all Americans must understand and debate before the election. We need to understand what is going on with the Bush recommendations. We need to understand what will happen if we follow and implement those recommendations. I believe we ought to be looking for ways of strengthening Social Security. We can deal with some of those from a fiscal policy standpoint, but we need to strengthen Social Security, not cut benefits. We need to deal with how we look at women's participation in the workforce and the calculation of their benefits. We ought to be getting on with that debate now, before the elections. After all, I repeat, the future of Social Security is too important to be decided behind closed doors. This is an issue that affects all Americans--the financial security of all Americans, and particularly the financial security of women. Let's get on with that debate. Let's have that debate. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the executive summary of the OWL report be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE. Will the Senator from Michigan yield for a moment to say, I am very appreciative of the discussion you have had, the contributions the Senator from Minnesota made with regard to raising this issue so we can have a debate about it. This debate ought to be had before the election, not after the election. People ought to have to make a statement about how they feel about these recommendations since it has such an impact on Americans lives, particularly women in America. That is what the OWL report was about. I very much appreciate the contributions my colleagues have made to this discussion.

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, will the Senator from Michigan entertain a question?

Mr. CORZINE. Did I hear the Senator indicate that roughly 51 percent of women would be in poverty if we did not have a Social Security system?

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORZINE. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I want to bring to your attention a true American hero, FBI Special Agent Timothy Latterner. Almost one year ago to the day, Special Agent Latterner confronted an armed suspect in the lobby of a busy Manhattan hotel. But putting his life on the line was nothing new to Tim. After all, he was a decorated army veteran who bravely served as an enlisted infantryman and officer in the 82nd Airborne. However, during the early morning hours of May 11, Special Agent Latterner came face to face with a violent felon and one of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Most Wanted. Following a lead, Latterner and his colleagues entered the hotel lobby taking by surprise a man wanted for sexual assault, kidnaping, armed robbery, and murder. With shouts of ``he's got a gun'' echoing throughout the lobby, bewildered hotel guests sought cover while Special Agent Latterner struggled with the suspect, who had drawn his weapon. Due to Special Agent Latterner's instinctive and heroic actions, the fugitive was subdued without injury to innocent civilians or law enforcement officers. Indeed, Special Agent Latterner's lightening quick reflexes saved the lives of his partners, hotel guests and staff. One year later, Special Agent Latterner continues to be a role model, dedicated to his family, community, country, and the Bureau. On another fateful day, September 11, Tim provided invaluable assistance to the victims of the attack on the World Trade Center, again disregarding his own safety to help others. Today, this honored eight-year veteran of the Federal Bureau of Investigation focuses his indefatigable efforts on a different type of criminal--terrorists who threaten our very way of life. I am proud that such a man is one of my constituents, residing in the bucolic Borough of Allendale. His devotion to duty and professionalism will long be remembered and appreciated. I am pleased that I had the opportunity to bring him to your attention.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the House-Senate conference report on the farm bill. I do so, with deep regret. While I now live in a suburban New Jersey community and have for 25 years, I was raised on a 120-acre family grain farm in central Illinois. I know from experience the rewards of working the soil and tending the fields. And I know, too, the very real experience of living life on the economic edge, as so many of our Nation's farmers do. But this legislation is not the way to help our farmers. I opposed the Senate version of this legislation when it passed the Senate in February because I believed it was fiscally imprudent, hurt consumers as well as many of the farmers it was intended to help, subsidized one sector of the American economy to the exclusion of others, and because it provided relatively little assistance to New Jersey's farmers. Unfortunately, the bill that has come out of conference committee is worse on all these counts. For that reason, I must vote no again. As I stated when I opposed the Senate version of this bill, the current system of subsidies is the wrong way to support America's farmers. These subsidies naturally lead to overproduction which distorts the market, unfairly benefit a limited number of the largest producers and impose excessive costs on all consumers and taxpayers. Furthermore, the system distributes these subsidies in a manner that leaves farmers in many States, including the Garden State, with little assistance. In fact, the amount New Jersey receives is estimated at a fraction of 1 percent. Let me repeat, a fraction of 1 percent of the total. When the Senate first considered the farm bill, it took some steps to make an inequitable system somewhat more fair. It imposed a cap on payments so that no farmer would receive more than $275,000 of subsidies per year. And it took the savings and used them, in part, to increase funding for conservation programs to a record $21 billion, a good thing. These would have been good changes to a system that gives two-thirds of the commodity subsidies to 10 percent of our Nation's farms. Unfortunately even those small reforms were lost in conference. The cap on payments was raised to $360,000, but now includes several loopholes for agribusinesses to get around the limit. It is this provision that may wind up hurting many of those this legislation is intended to help, as family farms unable to compete with heavily subsidized agribusinesses are swallowed up by their very competition. Making matters worse, the conservation funding was cut by $4 billion to $17.1 billion over current spending and is largely deferred until later years, making it less likely that it will be available at all. I also am very concerned that the legislation's large increase in commodity subsidies would undermine U.S. trade policy and make it much harder to win concessions in international trade negotiations. That's because huge U.S. subsidies would drive down global crop prices, and adversely affect the economies of many other countries, especially developing nations. These nations then would be much less likely to open their markets to American companies. The end result would be that generous subsidies to a small handful of agribusinesses would end up undermining a much broader range of U.S. manufacturers and service providers, and would cost American jobs. Another major concern of mine is that this legislation is fundamentally unfair to my State of New Jersey. The bill would perpetuate a system of agricultural subsidies that provides assistance to only 7 percent of New Jersey's farmers. This compares, for example, to other States in which as many as 60-75 percent of farmers receive assistance. The reason why some States do so much better than New Jersey is that producers of row crops, like corn, wheat, grain and rice get the bulk of the support. These commodities, by and large, are not produced in the Garden State to a significant degree. In New Jersey, our farmers grow large amounts of specialty crops, such as blueberries, eggplant and asparagus. In fact, New Jersey ranks second in the Nation for blueberry production, and fourth in the Nation for eggplant and asparagus production. Yet, though New Jersey's farmers meet much of the Nation's needs for these crops, none of our blueberry, eggplant or asparagus farmers receive support under the existing commodity programs. That is one reason that New Jersey got less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the total commodity assistance provided by the Federal Government in fiscal year 2001. Less than one-tenth of 1 percent. The farm bill that the Senate considered in February made a few improvements to the existing system. And I voted in favor of those improvements, as well as improvements to the Food Stamp Program that are badly needed. However, as I have said, many of those improvements were lost in conference with the House of Representatives. As a result, we have a bill that tells New Jersey farmers that they are not equal to the corn, wheat, rice and grain growers in the South and Midwest. That their efforts do not deserve much federal support. I cannot support such a measure. New Jersey ranks 49th in our return on tax dollars paid to the Federal Government. We don't receive enough for our mass transit needs. We don't receive enough for our housing needs. We don't receive enough to clean up our environment, even though we have more Superfund sites than any other state. New Jersey's situation merely highlights the imbalance in support for our nation's competing needs. I cannot support legislation that continues this inequitable distribution of Federal funds. In fact, I wish I could support the excellent nutrition title contained in this conference report. It is outrageous that we subsidize farmers for disposing of surplus food and yet we prohibit low-income working immigrants who live in this country legally from receiving nutrition benefits. This bill would restore benefits for about 380,000 legal immigrants, which while a good first step, is still too little. The food stamp application simplifications and extension of transitional food stamps for families moving from welfare to work are measures that will ensure more children and families receive adequate nutrition and I strongly support these provisions. While there is a significant increase for nutrition programs, this conference report invests only $6.4 billion in nutrition programs, which again is a fraction of one percent of the total cost of this bill. In conclusion, this conference report is flawed in many ways. It perpetuates the existing inefficient and unfair system of farm subsidies and significantly increases subsidies for favored crops. That means we will continue to subsidize a limited number of producers. We will continue to distort the market. We will continue to impose higher costs on consumers and taxpayers. And we will continue to treat my state of New Jersey unfairly. For these reasons, I cannot in good conscience support this conference report.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution designating May 1, 2002 as National Child Care Worthy Wage Day. On May 1 each year, child care providers and other early childhood professionals nationwide conduct public awareness and education efforts highlighting the importance of early childhood education. I hope these efforts will bring attention to early childhood education and the importance of attracting and retaining qualified child care workers. Every day, approximately 14 million children are cared for outside the home so that their parents can work. This figure includes six million of our Nation's infants and toddlers. Children begin to learn at birth, and the quality of care they receive will affect them for the rest of their lives. Early child care affects language development, math skills, social behavior, and general readiness for school. Experienced child care workers can identify children who have development or emotional problems and provide the care they need to take on life's challenges. Through the creative use of play, structured activities and individual attention, child care workers help their charges learn about the world around them and how to interact with others. The dedicated individuals who nurture and teach our Nation's young children are undervalued despite the importance of their work. The average salary of a child care worker is approximately $16,000 annually. According to the Department of Labor, in 1998, the middle 50 percent of child care workers and pre-school teachers earned between $5.82 and $8.13 an hour. The lowest 10 percent of child care workers were paid an hourly wage of $5.49 or less. Only one third of our Nation's child care workers have health insurance and even fewer have pension plans. This grossly inadequate level of wages and benefits for child care staff has led to difficulties in attracting and retaining high quality caretakers and educators. As a result, the turnover rate for child care providers is 30 percent a year. This high turnover rate interrupts consistent and stable relationships that children need to have with their caregivers. To address this issue, Senator Dodd and I have introduced the ``Focus On Committed and Underpaid Staff for Children's Sake Act,'' a bill that would establish a grant and scholarship program for child care providers. I encourage my colleagues to join me in recognizing the importance of the service that child care workers provide and the need to increase their compensation accordingly. The Nation's child care workforce, the families who depend on them, and the next generation of children that they care for deserve our support.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak about a troubling and increasingly apparent problem that I think concerns the fiscal affairs of our great Nation. Each passing month, each passing quarter, we become more certain in our recognition that the fiscal strategy of our Nation is one that is undermining our future capacity and security as a nation. I believe we have a failed fiscal strategy as a result of the overreaching tax cuts that we had last year, along with, obviously, the very significant changed circumstances--economically and with our war on terrorism. We have seen a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion over the succeeding 10 years virtually evaporate. As I say, each passing month and each passing quarter we get new verification of that. Today, I read in the newspapers across the country that the latest indication of this is becoming even more apparent. Today's reports indicate that revenue is coming into the Government at a rate much lower than earlier projected. There is now a reason to believe we will have a $70 billion revenue shortfall from the projections that occurred as recently as a month and a half ago, 6 weeks ago. It is about a $70 billion revenue shortfall, which will push our budget deficit for this year, by many estimates, up to $125 billion. A unified budget deficit of that magnitude is hard to believe in the context of where we have come from, and I certainly believe that requires rethinking our fiscal strategy if we are to be responsible about how we manage the fiscal affairs of this Nation. That is a doubling of the previous estimates of the unified deficit and, frankly, it doesn't even count the new spending that is expected from President Bush on requests that will deal with antiterrorism and homeland defense. For individual spending, whole life, trying to manage budgets, I consider this a stark and dangerous problem that could undermine the fiscal and, ultimately, the economic health of the Nation. They highlight a fact that is equally disturbing to me and to a lot of my colleagues, which is that this year we are going to use Social Security payroll taxes that people had thought would be put in place to build up the Social Security trust fund almost completely, if not entirely, to fund these deficits. I think this is a misuse of the Social Security contributions. I think it is one that the American people would be troubled with if they understood what was happening. I think it would require us to truly rethink our overall fiscal strategy. We should not be using Social Security funds to pay for anything other than Social Security, let alone financing these tax cuts that are a misallocation of resources relative to our Nation's needs--particularly, at a time when we are asking people to sacrifice on a whole series of issues regarding our national security. I think I speak for many, if not most, Democrats in emphasizing this point, particularly as it relates to the Social Security trust fund. In the long term, raids on Social Security threaten the security of hard-working American families. But there is also a second danger with regard to Social Security that is equally as important as the fiscal danger, and I think that is very important, quite obviously. Last December, President Bush's Social Security Commission prepared privatization plans that call for deep cuts in Social Security benefits. In fact, it talks about taking $1 trillion out of the Social Security trust fund for transitionary costs to a privatization program. Under these proposals that are on the table, some of the cuts in Social Security may be as much as 25 percent for those who will be retiring in about 20 years and could be as much as 45 percent for later retirees. Think about that: 25 percent to 45 percent. The average Social Security benefit for an American is $10,000. We ought to put that in context. If we are going to take 25 percent, or $2,500, away from that $10,000 or, God forbid, the 45 percent, or a $4,500 cut, and apply it to the $10,000, one wonders how our seniors are going to meet their financial obligations with this poor social safety net. Mr. President, $10,000 is not lavish, but the idea of a $5,500 benefit seems pretty scary in a world where one can spend that much on prescription drugs in a given year, before even paying for rent and other needs. Certainly in New Jersey--and I am sure this is the case in Vermont--nobody is going to be living high on the hog on $10,000, and certainly not $5,500. We have a real issue with privatization of Social Security, as well as with this fiscal problem. They come together, and this is what I wish to talk about. I know a lot of people believe we have to fight these cuts, and we probably will over the long run, because most people think they are just wrong. But we also need to make sure Social Security has the resources to maintain the benefits structure that is in place. The entire Social Security shortfall, according to the Social Security actuaries--that is the administration itself--is $3.7 trillion over the 75-year measured period. That may sound like a lot of money, and I guess it is. I sit at Everett Dirksen's old desk, and he used to say: A billion here, a billion there is a lot of money. Mr. President, $3.7 trillion is a lot more money, but it is not a lot in the long-term fiscal potential of our Nation. In fact, last year's tax cuts alone will cost the Nation, over that 75-year period, $8.7 trillion. So we have $3.7 trillion to secure Social Security, and there is an $8.7 trillion tax cut. We can put those two together and say: Where are our priorities? What should we be emphasizing? The Social Security shortfall is less than a half of the cost of last year's tax cut. Some tax cut was very good, and most of us would argue that is very much the case. It is just a matter of whether it is overreaching and whether it is, in the context of today's world, something we should continue to pursue. Like most Democrats, I am fully committed--I actually think most of us in this Chamber are committed--to protecting and defending Social Security. This is an issue that deserves full and complete debate. Unfortunately, a number of folks, for political strategy reasons-- particularly the leaders in the House and also President Bush, I suspect--have been trying to push this issue to the back burner. I do not think we can do that in this context of the deteriorating fiscal health of the Nation. We need to have this debate about the future of Social Security in front of the elections this year so that the American people can express their points of view. Interestingly, the chairman of the Republican National Committee just this week, Gov. Mark Racicot, said Congress should debate Social Security privatization this year. I embrace that statement and think he is right. As a matter of fact, Mr. Levin, the distinguished Senator from Michigan, and I have sent a letter commending Governor Racicot for making his statement and encouraging that debate. Social Security is going to impact every American--those retired today but, more importantly, those who will be retiring in the future. I call on my colleagues in the House and Senate to get on with this privatization debate so that the public can make its choice whether they believe we ought to privatize, whether we ought to pull out and undermine guaranteed benefits that the American public has come to expect. I do not think they are aware of the nature of some of the recommendations that have come out of the Commission, so-called ``Save Social Security,'' that President Bush put together and came up with its report that would lead to 25- to 45-percent cuts in Social Security benefits. I come here today to make two points. We have a serious reason to have a debate about the changed conditions of our fiscal policy. They are going to put pressure on a whole series of choices we make. As we go deeper and deeper in debt, and as we erode that $5.6 trillion that was the basis of how we made our judgments over the last 18 months, and certainly with regard to that tax cut, we need to understand that the world is different today, and it is particularly different as to how we are going to fund and secure Social Security in the months, years, and decades ahead. I, for one, think we need to get on with that debate, a fair debate, because it is important for the American people to participate in that process. I hope all of us will stand up for those issues in which we believe. I certainly do, and I believe my colleagues on this side of the aisle believe strongly that Social Security should be placed first in our fiscal priorities, right after securing our national security and national defense. Those are the points I wanted to make because I believe the numbers are real, they are telling, and they make it very clear that we need to have this overall review of our fiscal strategy in the context of a very seriously deteriorating situation. I thank you, Mr. President, for this opportunity. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three bills to temporarily suspend duties on the importation of certain chemicals used by manufacturers in my State. According to informational provided to my office, none of these chemicals are produced in the United States. Therefore, the suspension of the duties will not hurt any domestic chemical companies. In addition, suspension of these duties will not cost the US government more than $500,000 in revenue annually. It is my understanding that the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission will verify that each of the chemicals for which I am requesting duty suspension meets these standards. Mr. President, it makes little sense to impose duties on chemicals that are needed by American producers and that are not available from domestic sources. Such duties only hurt American businesses and consumers. In the case of these chemicals, companies in my State of New Jersey rely on these chemicals, and employ many New Jerseyans. The suspension of duties should strengthen these New Jersey businesses and the State's economy, and reduce costs to consumers. I hope my colleagues will support the legislation.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would reduce the retirement age for members of the National Guard and Reserve from 60 to 55. This change would allow 93,000 reservists currently aged 55 to 59 to retire with full benefits and would restore parity between the retirement systems for Federal civilian employees and reservists. In the interests of fairness, the United States must act quickly to restore parity between the retirement age for civilian Federal employees and their reserve counterparts. When the reserve retirement system was created in 1947, the retirement age for reservists was identical to the age for civilian employees. At age 60, reservists and Government employees could hang up their uniforms and retire with full benefits. However, since 1947, the retirement age for civilian retirees has been lowered by 5 years, while the reserve retirement age has not changed. The disparate treatment of Federal employees and reservists would have been serious enough had the nature of the work performed by the reserves not changed substantially over the past five decades. But America has never placed greater demands on its ready reserve than it does now. Today, some 80,000 reservists are serving their country in the war on terrorism, both at home and abroad. America's dependence on our ready reserve has never been more obvious, as reservists are now providing security at our nation's airports and air patrols over our major cities. With call-ups that last several months and take reservists far from home, serving the Nation as a reservist has taken on more of the trappings of active duty service than ever before. Before the war on terrorism began, reservists were performing about 13 million man-days each year, more than a 10-fold increase over the 1 million man-days per year the reserves averaged just 10 years ago. These statistics, the latest numbers available, do not even reflect the thousands of reservists who have been deployed since September 11. There is little doubt there will be a dramatic increase in the number of man-days for 2001 and 2002. In my view, with additional responsibility should come additional benefits. The Department of Defense typically has not supported initiatives like this. The Department has expressed concern over the proposal's cost, which is estimated to be approximately $20 billion over 10 years, although CBO figures are not yet available. However, I am concerned that the Department's position may be shortsighted. At a time when there is a patriotic fervor and a renewed enthusiasm for national service, it is easy to forget that not long ago, the U.S. military was struggling to meet its recruitment and retention goals. In the aftermath of September 11, defense-wide recruitment and retention rates have improved. However, there is no guarantee that this trend will continue. Unless the overall package of incentives is enhanced, there is little reason to believe that we will be able to attract and retain highly-trained personnel. Active duty military personnel have often looked to the reserves as a way of continuing to serve their country while being closer to family. With thousands of dollars invested in training active duty officers and enlisted soldiers, the United States benefits tremendously when personnel decide to continue with the reserves. But with reserve deployments increasing in frequency and duration, pulling reservists away from their families and civilian life for longer periods, the benefit of joining the reserves instead of active duty has been severely reduced. The more we depend on the reserves, the greater chance we have of losing highly trained former active duty servicemen and women. The added incentive of full retirement at 55 might provide an important inducement for some of them to stay on despite the surge in deployments. Enacting this legislation will send the clear message that the United States values the increased sacrifice of our reservists during these trying times. The legislation has been endorsed by key members of the Military Coalition, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Air Force Association, the Retired Enlisted Association, the Fleet Reserve Association, the Naval Reserve Association, and the National Guard Association. The bill would restore parity between the reserve retirement system and the civilian retirement system, acknowledge the increased workload of reserve service, and provide essential personnel with an inducement to join and stay in the reserves until retirement.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would reduce the retirement age for members of the National Guard and Reserve from 60 to 55. This change would allow 93,000 reservists currently aged 55 to 59 to retire with full benefits and would restore parity between the retirement systems for Federal civilian employees and reservists. In the interests of fairness, the United States must act quickly to restore parity between the retirement age for civilian Federal employees and their reserve counterparts. When the reserve retirement system was created in 1947, the retirement age for reservists was identical to the age for civilian employees. At age 60, reservists and Government employees could hang up their uniforms and retire with full benefits. However, since 1947, the retirement age for civilian retirees has been lowered by 5 years, while the reserve retirement age has not changed. The disparate treatment of Federal employees and reservists would have been serious enough had the nature of the work performed by the reserves not changed substantially over the past five decades. But America has never placed greater demands on its ready reserve than it does now. Today, some 80,000 reservists are serving their country in the war on terrorism, both at home and abroad. America's dependence on our ready reserve has never been more obvious, as reservists are now providing security at our nation's airports and air patrols over our major cities. With call-ups that last several months and take reservists far from home, serving the Nation as a reservist has taken on more of the trappings of active duty service than ever before. Before the war on terrorism began, reservists were performing about 13 million man-days each year, more than a 10-fold increase over the 1 million man-days per year the reserves averaged just 10 years ago. These statistics, the latest numbers available, do not even reflect the thousands of reservists who have been deployed since September 11. There is little doubt there will be a dramatic increase in the number of man-days for 2001 and 2002. In my view, with additional responsibility should come additional benefits. The Department of Defense typically has not supported initiatives like this. The Department has expressed concern over the proposal's cost, which is estimated to be approximately $20 billion over 10 years, although CBO figures are not yet available. However, I am concerned that the Department's position may be shortsighted. At a time when there is a patriotic fervor and a renewed enthusiasm for national service, it is easy to forget that not long ago, the U.S. military was struggling to meet its recruitment and retention goals. In the aftermath of September 11, defense-wide recruitment and retention rates have improved. However, there is no guarantee that this trend will continue. Unless the overall package of incentives is enhanced, there is little reason to believe that we will be able to attract and retain highly-trained personnel. Active duty military personnel have often looked to the reserves as a way of continuing to serve their country while being closer to family. With thousands of dollars invested in training active duty officers and enlisted soldiers, the United States benefits tremendously when personnel decide to continue with the reserves. But with reserve deployments increasing in frequency and duration, pulling reservists away from their families and civilian life for longer periods, the benefit of joining the reserves instead of active duty has been severely reduced. The more we depend on the reserves, the greater chance we have of losing highly trained former active duty servicemen and women. The added incentive of full retirement at 55 might provide an important inducement for some of them to stay on despite the surge in deployments. Enacting this legislation will send the clear message that the United States values the increased sacrifice of our reservists during these trying times. The legislation has been endorsed by key members of the Military Coalition, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Air Force Association, the Retired Enlisted Association, the Fleet Reserve Association, the Naval Reserve Association, and the National Guard Association. The bill would restore parity between the reserve retirement system and the civilian retirement system, acknowledge the increased workload of reserve service, and provide essential personnel with an inducement to join and stay in the reserves until retirement.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, we want to make sure in this compromise amendment that the perfect not be the enemy of the good. This is not everything anyone would want, but we have struck a compromise with voluntary reporting requirements and database buildup and recognition of actions by industry to control CO2. We will look at it in 5 years. If the threshold is not met, mandatory requirements will come into play. This is an outstanding compromise where people worked very hard on a complex issue to get to a bipartisan middle ground. I hope we will all support it.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues an important issue that relates to provisions in the Energy bill dealing with reformulated gasoline. After a few brief introductory remarks, I would like to engage in a colloquy with my colleague and friend, the Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, in order to inform and clarify the legislative record on the matters I am about to discuss. The provisions contained in Subtitle C of Title VIII of the Energy bill deal with motor fuels. As has been discussed on this floor on preceding days, these provisions deal with a number of issues, including a ban on the use of MTBE and requirements for use of ethanol in reformulated gasoline. I would like to speak today on another issue in this subtitle that has received less attention during our debate on these issues, but which could have a profound and detrimental effect on the supply of gasoline in New Jersey and elsewhere in the Northeast, by affecting an important supplier to this market. Section 834 of Subtitle C eliminates the oxygen content requirements for reformulated gasoline. It is necessary to do this since the subtitle, in Section 833, Subsection (c), otherwise bans the use of MTBE, the oxygenate most commonly used to meet the oxygen content requirements of the Clean Air Act. And while we have all become aware of the groundwater contamination problems caused by leaks of gasoline containing MTBE, it is important to understand for the situation I am about to discuss that MTBE does provide significant benefits in regard to emissions of toxic air pollutants under current EPA models. Indeed, overall toxic air emissions reductions achieved through the use of reformulated gasoline substantially exceeded the minimum requirements set by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. I think we all agree with the Blue Ribbon Panel's recommendation, that with or without MTBE, it remains an important goal to maintain the real world emissions benefits derived from the use of reformulated gasoline. So when the authors of Subtitle C eliminated the oxygen requirement for reformulated fuel and banned the use of MTBE, they also wanted to be sure that the toxic air pollutant reductions achieved from the use of reformulated gasoline were maintained. Thus, they included the so- called `anti-backsliding' provisions found in subsection (b) of Section 834. Among other things, subsection (b) will require the EPA Administrator to . . . establish, for each refinery or importer . . . standards for toxic air pollutants from use of the reformulated gasoline produced and distributed by the refiner or importer that maintain the reduction of the average annual aggregate emissions of toxic air pollutants for reformulated gasoline produced or distributed by the refiner or importer during calendar years 1999 and 2000. This provision thus requires EPA to establish, for each refinery, the amount of toxic air emissions from the gasoline based on 1999 and 2000 data, and then establish that as a ``baseline,'' or maximum level of toxic air emissions from the gasoline produced by that refinery. What this provision doesn't do, is tell the refiner how to maintain the baseline once MTBE is eliminated, it just has to do it. In most cases, refineries can meet the gap in toxic air emissions performance-- caused by the ban on MTBE--simply by doing little more than complying with an already-existing separate regulation that requires them to reduce the levels of sulfur in the gasoline. Removing sulfur improves the toxic air emissions performance of the gasoline as calculated by EPA. Or the refinery could invest in improved extraction technology to remove directly some of the toxics--for example, benzene. Or a larger, multi facility refiner could trade between its refineries the credits for emissions of toxic air pollutants authorized by the Subsection. So, once the EPA Administrator establishes the baseline for a refinery, most refiners have options that are available to ensure that their refineries do not `backslide' on the emissions of toxic air pollutants from gasoline. For example, refiners that had high sulfur levels during the base period will have a relatively easy time complying with this requirement for their reformulated gasoline, primarily because they must desulfurize gasoline by 2004-2005 under already existing rules, and this step will substantially reduce toxic air emissions, thus offsetting the increases in calculated emissions from eliminating MTBE. But what happens under the Energy bill to the refiner who had voluntarily taken steps, not required by any regulation, to incorporate state-of-the-art benzene extraction technology and also removed a very large amount of the sulfur from its gasoline before the base period that the EPA will use to establish its baseline? That refiner will be given a baseline that is far tougher than virtually any other refiner. It is so tough, Mr. President, that when MTBE is banned, as required by the bill, it likely will not be able to make up the lost benefit MTBE provides--substantially lowering modeled emissions of air toxic pollutants--by lowering sulfur to required levels or taking any other actions that will allow it to maintain that baseline performance level. This is exactly the situation facing the Amerada Hess Corporation, a corporate constituent in New Jersey that is an important supplier of reformulated gasoline. At its Port Reading, New Jersey refining facility, Hess produces 35-50 thousand barrels per day of reformulated gasoline that is supplied to New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. Hess also supplies another 40-60 thousand barrels per day of reformulated gasoline into the northeast market from HOVENSA, a refinery it partly owns on St. Croix in the US Virgin Islands. Both facilities, the only two under the Hess umbrella, have long produced very clean gasoline--taken together, the gasoline produced by these refineries has almost 60 percent less sulfur and 35 percent less benzene than the refinery industry average. Once the EPA establishes baselines for these two refineries, and MTBE comes out of the gasoline, they will have no realistic options to maintain the baseline--exactly because the gasoline was already so clean. They can put in ethanol, but that does not have the same level of positive effect on toxic air emissions, compared to MTBE. They will lower sulfur further to 30 ppm, but in contrast to most other refineries, this will not be enough to maintain the baseline, since the gasoline was already low in sulfur before and during the relevant base period. Benzene is already at very low levels, and further reductions are not reasonably achievable. I will include in the record tables of data provided to me by Amerada Hess that illustrates this result. They could buy credits, if they were available, but this would allow refiners who did not take early action to clean up gasoline to obtain a competitive advantage. The only reasonable way to address this situation, Mr. President--and avoid penalizing a refiner by virtue of the fact that it took early action to clean its gasoline before it was required to do so--is to ensure that the EPA Administrator has the ability and discretion to review situations like this, and when necessary and appropriate, make adjustments to the refinery-specific baselines. This notion of providing limited, necessary baseline adjustments is not unprecedented. Indeed, EPA provided this form of relief just last year on nearly identical facts. In that case, it was implementing the Mobile Source Air Toxics, or MSAT, rule. That rule sets maximum levels of toxic air emissions from gasoline from baselines established using data from the base years, 1998, 1999, and 2000. It is thus nearly identical to the anti-backsliding provisions of Subtitle C--it only differed in that it covered all fuel, conventional and reformulated, and looked to data from one more base year, 1998. In that case, Mr. President, Hess faced the same situation in which it finds itself in this instance for its gasoline supplies form Port Reading and HOVENSA, except that the reason MTBE was going to be unavailable on a going forward basis was state-enacted bans on its use in New York and Connecticut. In this case, it is federal law that will ban the use of MTBE. So the result in the MSAT rule situation should be the same when the provisions of this bill go into effect. In the case of the MSAT rule, EPA agreed that once the state MTBE bans went into effect, EPA would make an appropriate adjustment to the baselines for the Port Reading and St. Croix refineries to reflect their unique situation. The adjustment was based on EPA's finding that the reformulated gasoline which these refineries produce significantly outperforms the industry average for toxic air emissions, and that MTBE bans would affect the modeled toxics performance. The purpose of this relief, quite simply, was to level the playing field, so that a refiner that took steps to clean up its gasoline early could continue to supply gasoline when MTBE is eliminated. I will enter into the Record a copy of the letters from EPA laying out the details of EPA's resolution of this problem. My purpose today is therefore twofold. I first wanted to bring this matter to the attention of the Senate. It would be a travesty if we were to enact legislation that penalized parties for taking early action to improve the environmental performance of their product. And I should hasten to add here, Mr. President, that based on every conversation I or my staff have had on this matter, we have been assured that this was an unintended consequence. So my second purpose, Mr. President, is to ensure that the record on this legislation provides sufficient guidance to EPA in order that it can address this matter effectively. For these reasons, I would like to engage the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Senator from Vermont, in a colloquy on this issue. As discussed in my remarks, EPA had the requisite authority and discretion under the MSAT rule to make limited, appropriate adjustments to refinery-specific baselines for toxic air emissions based on unique circumstances such as those facing Amerada Hess. Would you agree that EPA would enjoy a similar level of discretion under the anti- backsliding provisions of Subtitle C of Title VIII if and when the Energy bill, or any other bill that carries similar provisions, becomes law?

Mr. CORZINE. I very much appreciate the Chairman's answer, and believe that EPA should be able to retain and incorporate existing baseline adjustments granted under the MSAT rule into the baselines that will be established under Section 834(b). I wonder whether the Chairman could answer another question in this regard. If the MTBE ban proposed in S. 517 takes effect before or supersedes the implementation of existing state MTBE bans, is S. 517 intended to negate baseline adjustments that refer to or are based upon those state laws?

Mr. CORZINE. I again thank the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee for his comments and perspective on this issue, as this is a very important issue for my State and region. Mr. President, New Jersey is the largest user of reformulated gasoline in the Northeast. Hess--through the Port Reading and Virgin Islands refineries--supplies about 13 percent of the reformulated gasoline used in the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut region. Production from Hess's Port Reading refining facility alone translates to 14-20 percent of New Jersey's total gasoline consumption. My office is advised that if S. 517 does not allow EPA to retain existing MSAT baseline adjustments or grant new ones, it will constrict the ability of its Virgin Islands joint venture facility to manufacture reformulated gasoline and may cause Port Reading to close. The reformulated gasoline supplied by these two refineries, as I noted previously, today has almost 60 percent less sulfur and 35 percent less benzene than the refinery industry average and would be replaced by other suppliers, who would supply less clean gasoline on average. Moreover, New Jersey could lose a major employer in the form of Port Reading which, in addition to producing clean gasoline, has been identified as among the top environmental performers for refineries in the country in Environmental Defense's most recent rankings. As a matter of sound environmental policy, refiners who voluntarily cleaned up gasoline by removing dirtier components before the baseline period should certainly not be put in a worse position than refiners who waited until regulations forced them to reduce toxic air emissions. Nor should such refiners reap a windfall under S. 517 by having clean refiners end up buying credits from them to stay in business. I greatly appreciate the interest my Chairman on the Environment and Public Works Committee has shown on this issue, and hope we can work together, along with other interested Senators, to remedy this situation on this and any future legislation that may carry similar provisions. Private Use Clarification

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three bills to temporarily suspend duties on the importation of certain chemicals used by manufacturers in my State. According to informational provided to my office, none of these chemicals are produced in the United States. Therefore, the suspension of the duties will not hurt any domestic chemical companies. In addition, suspension of these duties will not cost the US government more than $500,000 in revenue annually. It is my understanding that the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission will verify that each of the chemicals for which I am requesting duty suspension meets these standards. Mr. President, it makes little sense to impose duties on chemicals that are needed by American producers and that are not available from domestic sources. Such duties only hurt American businesses and consumers. In the case of these chemicals, companies in my State of New Jersey rely on these chemicals, and employ many New Jerseyans. The suspension of duties should strengthen these New Jersey businesses and the State's economy, and reduce costs to consumers. I hope my colleagues will support the legislation.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Roughly a minute.