Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. In September 1796, worn out by burdens of the presidency and attacks of political foes, George Washington announced his decision not to seek a third term. With the assistance of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, Washington composed in a ``Farewell Address'' his political testament to the nation. Designed to inspire and guide future generations, the address also set forth Washington's defense of his administration's record and embodied a classic statement of Federalist doctrine. Washington's principal concern was for the safety of the eight-year- old Constitution. He believed that the stability of the Republic was threatened by the forces of geographical sectionalism, political factionalism, and interference by foreign powers in the nation's domestic affairs. He urged Americans to subordinate sectional jealousies to common national interests. Writing at a time before political parties had become accepted as vital extraconstitutional, opinion-focusing agencies, Washington feared that they carried the seeds of the nation's destruction through petty factionalism. Although Washington was in no sense the father of American isolationism, since he recognized the necessity of temporary associations for ``extraordinary emergencies,'' he did counsel against the establishment of ``permanent alliances with other countries,'' connections that he warned would inevitably be subversive of America's national interest. Washington did not publicly deliver his Farewell Address. It first appeared on September 19, 1796, in the Philadelphia Daily American Advertiser and then in papers around the country. In January 1862, with the Constitution endangered by civil war, a thousand citizens of Philadelphia petitioned Congress to commemorate the forthcoming 130th anniversary of George Washington's birth by providing that ``the Farewell Address of Washington be read aloud on the morning of that day in one or the other of the Houses of Congress.'' Both houses agreed and assembled in the House of Representatives' chamber on February 22, 1862, where Secretary of the Senate John W. Forney ``rendered `The Farewell Address' very effectively,'' as one observer recalled. The practice of reading the Farewell Address did not immediately become a tradition. The address was first read in regular legislative sessions of the Senate in 1888 and the House in 1899. (The House continued the practice until 1984.) Since 1893 the Senate has observed Washington's birthday by selecting one of its members to read the Farewell Address. The assignment alternates between members of each political party. At the conclusion of each reading, the appointed senator inscribes his or her name and brief remarks in a black, leather-bound book maintained by the secretary of the Senate. The version of the address printed here is taken from the original of the final manuscript in the New York Public Library provided courtesy of The Papers of George Washington. The only changes have been to modernize spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. Mr. CORZINE, at the rostrum, read the Farewell Address, as follows: To the people of the United States. Friends and Fellow Citizens: The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made. I beg you at the same time to do me the justice to be assured, that this resolution has not been taken without strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country--and that, in withdrawing the tender of service which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both. The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea. I rejoice that the state of your concerns external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety; and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that in the present circumstances of our country you will not disapprove my determination to retire. The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience, in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and, every day, the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it. In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my political life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me, still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise and as an instructive example in our annals, that, under circumstances in which the passions agitated in every direction were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently, want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these states, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it. Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion. Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment. The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite movement that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can, in any event, be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts. For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess, are the work of joint councils and joint efforts-- of common dangers, sufferings and successes. But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the Union of the whole. The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter, great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise, and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the same agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort--and what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious. While then every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value! they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same government, which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is, that your Union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other. These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its hands. In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations--northern and southern--Atlantic and western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourself too much against the jealousies and heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations. They tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head. They have seen, in the negotiation by the executive--and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate--of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the general government and in the Atlantic states, unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi. They have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such they are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens? To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute. They must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances, in all times, have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a Constitution of government, better calculated than your former, for an intimate Union and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government.--But the Constitution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power, and the right of the people to establish government, presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils, and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. Towards the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular opposition to its acknowledged authority but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretext. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions, that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country, that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypotheses and opinion exposes to perpetual change from the endless variety of hypotheses and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable; liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is indeed little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of fraction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property. I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and, sooner or later, the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purpose of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it in the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, forments occasional riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true--and in governments of a monarchial cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent it bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming, it should consume. It is important likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions of the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield. Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that the public opinion should be enlightened. As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering, also, that timely disbursements, to prepare for danger, frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties) ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate. Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all; religion and morality enjoin this conduct, and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt but, in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices? In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachment for others should be excluded and that in place of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity, or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation's subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty of nations, has been the victim. So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducements or justifications. It leads also to concessions, to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions, by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained and by exciting jealously, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity gilding with the appearances of virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealously to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike for another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation, when we may choose peace or war, as our interest guided by justice shall counsel. Why forgo the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world--so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. (I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy)--I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion, it is unnecessary, and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies. Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course--in order to give to trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another--that is must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character--that by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish--that they will control the usual current of the passions or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good, that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism--this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated. How far in the discharge of my official duties, I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have, at least, believed myself to be guided by them. In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the 22d of April 1793 is the index to my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice and by that of your representatives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfuenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it. After deliberate examination with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take--a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it with moderation, perseverance and firmness. The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all. The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations. The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me, a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions and to progress, without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes. Though in reviewing the incidents of my administration I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence and that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest. Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat, in which I promise myself to realize without alloy the sweet enjoyment of partaking in the midst of my fellow citizens the benign influence of good laws under a free government--the ever favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors and dangers.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I oppose this legislation, and I wanted to take a few moments of my colleagues' time to explain why. Let me begin by commending the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, for his outstanding leadership on agricultural issues and his strong commitment to farmers. There is no more passionate advocate on these issues in the Senate. Let me also say that I grew up on a farm--a 120 acre family farm. I understand what it means to wake up early and put in the long, hard hours that go along with family farming. I have tremendous respect for the men and women who put food on our nation's table. And I represent a state, the Garden State, with an important agricultural history, although one less dominant today. But, in my view, the legislation before us is the wrong way to support America's farmers. It perpetuates an outdated system of subsidies that distorts the market, unfairly benefits a limited number of producers, and, most importantly, imposes excessive costs on all consumers. It distributes these subsidies in a manner that leaves farmers in states like New Jersey with little assistance. And, while this bill does more than other farm bills in recent history, it will use Social Security surpluses for unrelated spending, just when we should be saving to prepare for the baby boomers' retirement. If we were starting from scratch, no rational person would design the system of agricultural policies that we now have in place, a system begun during the Great Depression. This system provides that most of the federal assistance goes to four crops: wheat, corn, cotton and rice. If we were starting from scratch, the first question would be: why? What is it about wheat, for example, that justifies giving its producers large subsidies? The answer is that there is little reason. We have done it in the past. But there is no good reason to give wheat, or any of the other program crops, special treatment that is not provided to other producers. When Government chooses arbitrarily to favor some products with subsidies, it creates distortions in the market. Farmers might ordinarily be inclined to grow vegetables, soybeans, apples, or other fruits. That may be what consumers want and might make sense economically. But if those fruits do not enjoy government subsidies, many farmers will choose instead to plant more wheat. That reduces the supply of fruit, which raises its price. At the same time, it increases the supply of wheat, which lowers its price. Under the farm program, moreover, a reduction in the price of wheat then triggers even more Government subsidies. In other words, Government subsidies lead to more government subsidies, as the market gets increasingly distorted. The end result is often higher prices for consumers and, eventually, higher taxes for everybody. Let me focus on this last point. This bill calls for a dramatic increase in overall spending on agriculture: as reported by committee, a total of $73 billion over baseline levels in the next decade. Note that baseline levels already incorporate the effects of inflation. So a $73 billion increase is a huge amount of money. And the fact is, we cannot afford it. In large measure because of the tax cuts enacted last year, we already are looking at deficits for years to come. President Bush's budget calls for raiding Social Security surpluses of $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. And I am afraid that this bill will mean that Social Security surpluses are diverted to pay for farm subsidies. That, in my view, is wrong. Our Nation faces a huge demographic bubble, as the baby boom generation moves toward retirement. We simply must save more to prepare for that. This is the wrong time to be calling for huge increases in agriculture subsidies. I also would point out that this bill, like the existing system of farm subsidies, is fundamentally unfair to my State of New Jersey. The overwhelming bulk of the subsidies in this bill will go for commodities that, by and large, are not produced in the Garden State. 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, Mr. President, that New Jersey got less than one-twentieth of one percent of the total commodity assistance provided by the Federal Government in fiscal year 2001. Less than one-twentieth of one percent! The people of my State get one of the worst returns on their tax dollar of any State in the nation. This Congress can be generous when it comes to rural areas in other parts of the country. But our State has very different needs. And, when it comes to supporting urban areas, like Newark, Camden or Trenton, we tend to come up short. Yes, HUD helps some. Yes, there are some subsidies for transit. But, overall, the Federal government is not treating my State equitably. We are continuously the 49th of the 50 States in our return on the Federal dollar. That bothers a lot of New Jerseyans. And it bothers me. Having said that, I recognize that if you simply compare this bill to existing law, there are a few provisions that represent improvements. I do support most of the conservation and nutrition provisions. And I acknowledge the hard work of Senators Leahy and Torricelli in pushing for more fairness for specialty crops. Yet at the end of the day, the existing system of farm subsidies essentially remains intact in this bill, and the subsidies for favored crops are only increased. 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. We will continue to invade the Social Security Trust Fund. And we will continue to treat my State of New Jersey unfairly. For these reasons, I cannot in good conscience support this legislation. And I hope that, in time, we can revisit a failed farm policy and achieve real, needed reform.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today, February 12, 2002, is the first day of the new lunar year. Americans of Asian heritage are celebrating the beginning of the Year of the Horse. This is an occasion for Asian Americans to gather with their families, think of those who have passed away, enjoy symbolic foods, and usher in good luck and health for the year to come. As a Nation of immigrants, we all share in this time of celebration and salute the rich customs and energy that people of Asian descent have contributed to America. I am proud that the State of New Jersey is home to over 480,000 Asians and Asian Americans, representing the fifth largest community in the United States. Asian American New Jerseyans are an important and valued part of our diverse and vital community. In these troubled times, I hope you will join me in sharing in celebration and remembrance and help to reaffirm the importance of mutual respect and diversity in our Nation.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I, too, rise in strong support of the second-degree amendment offered by our distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. His arguments about protecting Social Security and the promotion of fiscal responsibility and basic fairness in our economy are compelling, particularly when we consider it relative to the permanent extension of the inheritance tax. This amendment stands for a very simple proposition, a principle that no Social Security surplus funds should be used for any other purpose. Under this second-degree amendment, the Senate would go on record opposing the use of Social Security funds for making currently scheduled tax cuts permanent or for wasteful spending. Social Security is a sacred compact between the American people and their Government. We have promised all Americans if they work hard and play by the rules, when they retire they will not have to live in the fear of poverty. We have promised them a safety net that will provide baseline payments for their retirement years. That is what Social Security is all about, that safety net. The Kyl amendment and those who would make permanent the estate tax are truly undermining that promise of Social Security. In this decade alone, we will spend $104 billion, if this is made permanent, of Social Security revenues and reserves to fund this new accelerated tax cut. And probably as serious with regard to fiscal issues, we will spend over $800 billion in the following decade just at the time our baby boom generation, those in the demographic bubble, come into play, and when the stresses on Social Security and Medicare and all other Federal Government expenditures will be under most pressure. This is a bad idea. It is a mistake. The Senator from Rhode Island was speaking in the context of fairness. I wonder why we think 2,800 farm estates out of over 2\1/2\ million in 1999 leads us to believe that we need to change this tax policy, particularly when we put it in conjunction with undermining our Social Security payments, and only 48,000 estates were paid in 1998. Then you add in the fact that taxes have not been paid on unrealized capital gains. I don't understand why we want to make the tradeoff of undermining our fiscal position as a nation, undermining our ability to continue to fund Social Security appropriately for such a narrow slice. We are all asked to sacrifice in a world where we are under constraints because of national defense, homeland security, expenditures we need to make, but we also need to protect our seniors, our Social Security. It seems to me this is a priority that does not match the time nor the place nor the needs of our Nation. It is not like Social Security is an extraordinarily generous benefit for our seniors. It provides a little more than $10,000 per person per year on average. In New Jersey, that doesn't go a long way toward paying for retirement. I don't know why we should be putting it at more risk today than we would at other times, particularly since we are talking about such a narrow slice of the American landscape. This is a time when making some adjustments to our estate taxes are perfectly reasonable. We have accomplished that. We continue to do that as we go forward. But why we want to make this permanent, undermine our fiscal integrity, undermine Social Security, and do it with an eye that forgets about the fairness of who is getting the benefit relative to what is going to be charged to the American people as we go forward makes no sense. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will stand with the distinguished Senator from North Dakota and make sure that we have a true expression of the sense of the Senate that stands with the American people. When the American people are asked a question, do we want to make permanent these tax cuts or do we want to have a raid on Social Security and an undermining of our retirement benefits, 84 percent of the American people say: Let's stand with Social Security, and let's forgo these tax cuts. I hope we take that into consideration when we are thinking about what are our priorities in this debate about an estate tax cut acceleration relative to our priorities on fiscal responsibility and protecting our seniors through Social Security. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the stimulus package, one that I firmly believe we should have as a nation. It is clear to me that while we may have a stronger economy today than we had 3 months ago or 6 months ago, we still are in a period of very slow growth, if at all, and one where I think we need an insurance policy to make sure our economy does turn around, it does pick up, and does better in the new year. We have real needs of the unemployed to address and their loss of benefits in our society. There are plenty of reasons to believe we ought to encourage business investment through a bonus depreciation plan, and we need to help our States that are running huge deficits with Medicaid matches and in other areas. For the life of me, I do not understand why we would think that making permanent an estate tax cut 10 years in the future is going to do a doggone thing to stimulate the economy now. While I have great respect for the distinguished Senator from Arizona, I think this idea of calling for the permanent repeal of the estate tax is just a bad idea. Last year, I did believe there was a need for some reform with respect to the estate tax. I thought it was onerous on many small family farmers and also for small businesses and some individuals who were trying to deal with relatively limited estates. I thought it was burdensome on these folks. I strongly opposed before I was here and I strongly oppose now the complete repeal of the estate tax. Those Americans who have done well and have had the benefit of the American promise in its greatest format I think have a responsibility to give some contribution back to the country that gave them the opportunity to do so well. We are all a part of that community. It seems reasonable that an estate tax fits within that concept. We can talk about the rates and about some elements of it, but it seems to me there is reason to believe those who have benefited so much have a responsibility to their community and society. Furthermore, it is a gift from one generation to the next, and if we are going to be consistent in how we treat various parts of our Tax Code, gifts are taxable and so, too, should be estates. That is not the issue today. The issue is: Is this stimulative to the economy? Is it something that makes any sense in the short term to get America's economy moving again? For the life of me, I just do not understand it. Whatever one might think, there is just no credible argument that would show it is going to do anything to stimulate the economy today. So I firmly want to speak out against this particular amendment because we have limited resources in this country. We have a fiscal structure that is very dangerous with regard to our needs not only in this decade but certainly in succeeding decades when the estate tax will really have a bite, as opposed to in the short run coming in, in a 10-year time frame. We have a demographic bubble that is going to change the underlying demands on Social Security. The number of people drawing it down will bankrupt it, or at least the resources will not be available to pay the benefits at a time many folks would expect them to come forward with their Social Security payments. To complicate that problem further by making permanent this estate tax repeal is difficult to understand, particularly since it is implausible to believe anybody is going to change one whit their spending patterns today based on an estate tax repeal that is going to get implemented 10 years from now. So it is an amendment that I think has no place on a stimulus package or a stimulus bill that we might be working on today. Again, I question whether we need a repeal under any circumstances for in fact it provides a huge windfall for a very small number of estates at the expense of the greater population. The estates of fewer than 48,000 people had to pay any tax at all in 1998. That is less than 2 percent of all estates. The beneficiaries of that estate tax, those burdened with that estate tax, are some of the wealthiest folks in America. I think it is fine to be wealthy, but the fact is we have great needs in this country. We are making choices about whether we are going to fund an additional 2 million new teachers so we can lower class sizes in this country. We have a Social Security system that everyone says is going to be stretched to meet its needs as we go through the 21st century. We have great demands on our homeland security, on national security. It does not make sense that we should be putting this in place right now. Also, it is dangerous for something that is really important to all Americans, and that is our charitable and philanthropic efforts in this country. It is hard to imagine what kind of impact the repeal of the estate tax is going to have on so much of the roughly $6 billion worth of charitable contributions the Treasury Department estimates we would be receiving. I am concerned about our ability to continue to make sure we have the community-based support that is operated through our philanthropic efforts. If we have ever seen the value of that, we have seen it in the days that have followed the September 11 tragedy as Americans have reached out to help others. Certainly that has been benefited by the view that charitable contributions and estates provide a basis for a lot of the charitable giving. So while this permanent repeal of the estate tax may cost $55 billion in 2011, and that is a lot of money, I think the real issue is we ought to worry about what it is going to cost in the second decade. I have an estimate that it may be over $800 billion in the second decade from 2012 to 2021. I find it hard to believe we want to take that bet at this point in time, when we have such a serious issue coming with baby boomers and the demographics that I spoke about before, and the real need to protect and provide security to Social Security and Medicare for our seniors. I guess that is before we have a prescription drug benefit for seniors and other things we have talked about. I do not have a clue how we could put this together and call this significant stimulus. I think there are fundamental reasons to believe that it is not a good policy in the long run. So I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I think there will be reason for further debate about this as we go forward in the future.

Mr. CORZINE

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

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the opportunity to work with Senator Dodd on something that I think is vital to the American public, vital to the functioning of our financial markets and the health of the economy generally. Just as electoral reform is important, and I congratulate yourself and the Senator from Missouri and others who are leading us in that fight, I hope we can get the same kind of bipartisan focus on something that I think will make a difference to the functioning of our economy and our financial markets and the protection of investors that we are suggesting in the bill we are introducing today. It is also unique on this side of the table to work with Senator Dodd. I remember, as a former businessperson, testifying in Congress. Senator Dodd always asked the toughest, meanest questions of folks with ideas they wanted to suggest. He was always spot-on with regard to their strengths and weaknesses. It is a great honor to work with him in the effort to protect American investors by strengthening the regulation of our accounting profession. The dramatic and sudden collapse of the Enron Corporation has shined a spotlight on the critical importance of auditors, the accounting function, in the operation of our economy. Enron's collapse has left thousands without a job and, maybe more important for many, without a chance for a meaningful retirement program that we worked so hard and long to provide. It has been an economic disaster for pensioners, individual investors, and even institutional investors who relied upon the accounting statements, earnings statements, balance sheets, and analyses that flowed from that. Frankly, a lot of people think this came right out of the blue. A year ago this was the company with the seventh largest revenue in the country. Today it is bankrupt. It did catch people by surprise. Now it appears that for years Enron engaged in a variety of questionable and certainly gray accounting practices--not the most transparent to the world--to hide debt and inflate its earnings so they would have the ability to position their stock at a higher value over time. We all took the hook. Yet Enron's auditors blessed these arrangements and raised no serious red flags for investors, even though they had some questions in their own minds. It is now obvious those individual auditors failed, and I think failed miserably, in making some judgments about what should have been published at the time. Unfortunately, the failure of the auditors in the Enron case is not unique. We have seen several examples, highly public examples, of questionable accounting practices leading to serious problems in the statements of financial condition of companies across the country over the last few years. There has been a failure to blow the whistle when that should have occurred. In fact, we have seen a regular pattern that has developed of earnings restatements by some of the finest companies and corporations in America. That in and of itself gives cause for concern, since people make judgments about what it is they are going to do in the investment world based on their interpretation of balance sheets and income statements that are presented at a given point in time. That is how they make future judgments. Clearly, some of those judgments in history were wrong because the restatement of earnings indicates there were differences in fact. I think we need to be much more careful in this whole process. There is a whole series of detailed issues that I think need to be addressed--maybe not by Congress but in a much more fast-footed FASB, or Financial Accounting Standard Board, than we have had. Based on my experience in the real world--or the financial world; I don't know whether that's the real world--I can point to several possible explanations for these accounting failures. One is the serious increase in the complexity of these financial arrangements generally. The issue of derivatives and off-balance-sheet financing and the matter of notional amounts versus revenue standards--all of those things are very complicated in and of themselves. But there is an inadequacy, I believe, in our existing accounting structure to really scrutinize these and get to the nub of how they are reported on a timely basis. Another problem is accounting firms increasingly are facing extreme pressures to find other sources of revenue, which often means generating new forms of revenue from the same businesses they audit. This, obviously, can create conflicts in reality and certainly in appearance. And I think they undermine the independence required of auditors as we go forward. Another problem is that our regulatory structure, in my view, has been inadequate. It has relied far too heavily on self-regulation by the industry. That is a little bit like, what? Having the fox watch the hen house. Certainly I think it deals with an appearance issue that the public has a right to have us ventilate as we go through this debate. I think we need to do something about it. Another problem is the integrity of the process for setting accounting standards. I talked about this before and whether that process has been compromised or certainly complicated by the nature of how that process takes place. In some cases, as I heard Senator Dodd talk about, the fault may lie right here in this body, in the Congress. Certainly there is the appearance of political pressure getting wrapped up in how FASB, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, sets its rules. These are true professionals who work very hard to try to get to setting down rules that will work in the accounting world. But these are complicated issues. And then sometimes people enter in from the political process and stop it, halt it, and we have not seen the kind of progress for the kind and nature of complexity that has developed in the financial world. The bill Senator Dodd and I are proposing is a significant first step towards addressing the problems I have outlined in the accounting profession. It includes tough new provisions to ensure the independence of auditors and restrict their ability to provide nonaudit services that inevitably create conflicts of interest. Whether that comes when you are working with the company or you separate it, I think we have some real reasons for debate on that. But I think we will work very hard to make sure people have confidence that we are auditors and we are working on functioning with a given company to present the data in a way that works a lot more like what the former SEC Chairman, Arthur Levitt, would suggest. Also, our bill strengthens the Securities and Exchange Commission to put them in a better position to deal with the accounting industry on a real-time basis. I heard Senator Dodd talk about 20 or 25 accountants for the largest economy in the history of the world. A 10-trillion- dollar account economy, and we have 25 accountants sitting over in a building across the street trying to figure out whether we are reporting accurately for all these companies. Just on the surface of it, it does not meet the standard of common sense. We propose to double the size of the SEC's accounting staff. I think we need to seriously review what resources are necessary to deal with these problems so the public can have confidence with regard to what is going on in our accounting statements across the country. In addition, the bill would help close the revolving door between auditors and their clients which also creates real conflicts of interest. We have set up rules in other parts of our economy for people who work in a particular area. An example is, if a person works in the Energy Department, they cannot go to work for an energy company an hour and a half after they leave their job. I think it raises serious issues involving conflicts of interest when people go through a revolving door format going from being auditors to auditees. I think we need to look at those issues to make sure we have confidence that the chief financial officers, and others who have worked with the accounting firms, are truly being challenged independently by the accounting function. It is important. As a former CEO, it was good to know that people could come in and say: You have these kinds of problems you need to check out. That is where the independent auditor performs an enormous service, aside from the financial statements. When that gets compromised because people are so close to one another, I think you run risks of setting up dangerous precedents on how decisions are taken within the audit function. Finally, our bill would strengthen the independence of the Financial Accounting Standards Board--I have talked about this; so has Senator Dodd--which sets the accounting standards. We would do this by establishing a steady funding source and demanding greater timeliness of action by the FASB. This is truly one of the issues that needs to be addressed. We need to get on with a lot of the specific issues that have been addressed and have been tied up in knots for literally years and decades inside the Financial Accounting Standards Board. I think we can make a big difference in the functioning of our accounting system if we make sure we provide the resources to allow them to do their job appropriately. I believe these proposals will go a long way toward strengthening the accounting profession and protecting the integrity of the markets and protecting, ultimately, the investors and the retirees who are dependent on the information they derive from these accounting statements. It is absolutely essential we have this debate, this discussion, and that we are intent on making sure we get to a secure system and that this not be a political issue. This is about making sure our financial markets work effectively. I look forward to working with my senior colleague from Connecticut who has done such an outstanding job on a whole host of these issues. We are working to gain the public's trust. One way to do that is to make sure independent auditors are exactly that--independent. I think we need to respond. I hope we can do that quickly. We need to do it thoughtfully because we do not want to cause more problems than we fix. It is one of those things where making sure it is done right is very important because we are tinkering with the fundamentals of our economy. But we need to have good accounting statements to make sure people can make decisions on their investments in a way that is sensible and true to the facts as they stand. I appreciate very much this opportunity to work with Senator Dodd.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I, too, thank the Senate and the leadership of Senator Daschle, Senator Lott, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Senator Baucus, and others who have worked with us to allow this victims' relief effort to come to pass. Nothing can be more sincere and heartfelt during this holiday season than to respond with this legislation for families who have lost so much. I thank the Senate for its efforts.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that represents an important step towards the goal of addressing the threats posed by global climate change. I am pleased to be joined on this bill by Senator Jeffords and Senator Lieberman. They are recognized environmental leaders in the Senate, and are long-standing, outspoken advocates for taking action to mitigate climate change. I appreciate their help in introducing this legislation today. Climate change is an enormously complex issue in every aspect. Scientifically. Economically. Politically. But complexity is no excuse for inattention or inaction. Because the health and viability of the global ecosystems upon which we all depend are at stake. The time to act is now. Earlier this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently released its Third Assessment Report, and the science is increasingly clear and alarming. We know that human activities, primarily fossil fuel combustion, have raised the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to the highest levels in the last 420,000 years. We know that the planet is warming, and that the balance of the scientific evidence suggests that most of the recent warming can be attributed to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. We know that without concerted action by the U.S. and other countries, greenhouse gases will continue to increase. Finally, we know that climate models have improved, and that these models predict warming under all scenarios that have been considered. Even the smallest warming predicted by current models, 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century, would represent the greatest rate of increase in global mean surface temperature in the last 10,000 years. If these trends continue, the results may be devastating. People in my home State of New Jersey treasure their Jersey Shore. Like all coastal areas, the Jersey Shore is threatened by projected changes in sea levels due to climate change. I am concerned about this impact. And I am concerned about other climate change impacts across New Jersey, the country and the globe. I believe we need to take reasonable steps today start dealing with this issue. And I think this bill will make an important incremental step. The main provisions of the bill establish a system that would require companies to estimate and report their emissions of greenhouse gases, as well as a place where companies can register greenhouse gas emissions reductions. In addition, the bill would require an annual report on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. I'd like to go through each of these components in more detail. First, the bill requires EPA to work with the Secretaries of Energy, Commerce and Agriculture, as well as the private sector and non- governmental organizations to establish a greenhouse gas emission information system. For the purposes of the bill, greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. EPA is directed to establish threshold quantities for each of these gases. The threshold quantities will trigger the requirement for a company to report to the system, and are included to enable exclusion of most small businesses from the reporting requirements. Companies that emit more than a threshold quantity of each gas will be required to report their emissions on an annual basis to EPA. The requirements will be phased in, beginning with stationary source emissions in 2003. The following year, in 2004, companies subject to the reporting requirements will need to submit to EPA estimates of other types of greenhouse gas emissions, such as process emissions, fugitive emissions, mobile source emissions, forest product-sector emissions, and indirect emissions from heat and steam. Just as important as the reporting system is the greenhouse gas registry established by the bill. The bill requires EPA to work with the same set of actors to establish this greenhouse gas registry, which will enable companies to register greenhouse gas reductions. Many companies are voluntarily implementing projects to reduce emissions or sequester carbon. The registry would establish a place for companies to be able to put these projects on public record in a consistent and reliable way. Taken together, these provisions of the bill will accomplish several important goals. First, they will create a reliable record of the sources of greenhouse gas emissions within our economy. This will provide the public and private sector with important information that, if necessary, can be used to identify the most cost-effective ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Perhaps more importantly, these provisions will provide a powerful incentive for companies to continue to make voluntary greenhouse gas reductions. By requiring emissions reporting, and making that information available to the public, companies may face increased scrutiny with respect to their greenhouse gas emissions. But they will also have a place where they can register their greenhouse gas reductions project in a consistent and uniform way. This will enable companies to demonstrate the actions that they are taking to reduce their emissions, and will assist them in making the case for credits if a mandatory greenhouse gas emission reduction program is ever enacted. Finally, the bill requires EPA to annually publish a greenhouse gas emissions inventory. This will be a national account of greenhouse gas emissions for our Nation, and will incorporate the information submitted to the greenhouse gas information system and registry. EPA has issued such a report for several years now, and this provision is intended to explicitly authorize and expand the scope of this report. I know that there are technical challenges associated with measuring greenhouse gas emissions and reductions. But many advances have been made in recent years, often in a cooperative way, with industry, environmental groups and governments at the table. It's my intent that the systems and protocols developed under this bill conform to the best practices that have been and continue to be developed in this fashion. I urge my colleagues to join with me in this legislation. Let's start taking reasonable steps to address the threat of climate change. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. I concur with my colleague with regard to the importance of the smokeless nitrocellulose provision included in this year's defense spending bill. In fact the importance of this provision cannot be overemphasized because Green Tree now produces the qualified nitrocellulose for the Trident II, LOSAT, TOW and HELLFIRE missile programs. Had the provision providing the $2 million procurement of nitrocellulose been omitted, these important missile programs could have been disrupted because re-qualifying DoD materials can be costly and time consuming.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, it is my honor to address you in the chair. Your remarks with regard to Christmas are ones that stir one's heart and feelings. I am the lucky one to be here this evening to hear you speak. I hope everyone across America has the sense of how you love this body, the great Senate, and the people we serve. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that represents an important step towards the goal of addressing the threats posed by global climate change. I am pleased to be joined on this bill by Senator Jeffords and Senator Lieberman. They are recognized environmental leaders in the Senate, and are long-standing, outspoken advocates for taking action to mitigate climate change. I appreciate their help in introducing this legislation today. Climate change is an enormously complex issue in every aspect. Scientifically. Economically. Politically. But complexity is no excuse for inattention or inaction. Because the health and viability of the global ecosystems upon which we all depend are at stake. The time to act is now. Earlier this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently released its Third Assessment Report, and the science is increasingly clear and alarming. We know that human activities, primarily fossil fuel combustion, have raised the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to the highest levels in the last 420,000 years. We know that the planet is warming, and that the balance of the scientific evidence suggests that most of the recent warming can be attributed to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. We know that without concerted action by the U.S. and other countries, greenhouse gases will continue to increase. Finally, we know that climate models have improved, and that these models predict warming under all scenarios that have been considered. Even the smallest warming predicted by current models, 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century, would represent the greatest rate of increase in global mean surface temperature in the last 10,000 years. If these trends continue, the results may be devastating. People in my home State of New Jersey treasure their Jersey Shore. Like all coastal areas, the Jersey Shore is threatened by projected changes in sea levels due to climate change. I am concerned about this impact. And I am concerned about other climate change impacts across New Jersey, the country and the globe. I believe we need to take reasonable steps today start dealing with this issue. And I think this bill will make an important incremental step. The main provisions of the bill establish a system that would require companies to estimate and report their emissions of greenhouse gases, as well as a place where companies can register greenhouse gas emissions reductions. In addition, the bill would require an annual report on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. I'd like to go through each of these components in more detail. First, the bill requires EPA to work with the Secretaries of Energy, Commerce and Agriculture, as well as the private sector and non- governmental organizations to establish a greenhouse gas emission information system. For the purposes of the bill, greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. EPA is directed to establish threshold quantities for each of these gases. The threshold quantities will trigger the requirement for a company to report to the system, and are included to enable exclusion of most small businesses from the reporting requirements. Companies that emit more than a threshold quantity of each gas will be required to report their emissions on an annual basis to EPA. The requirements will be phased in, beginning with stationary source emissions in 2003. The following year, in 2004, companies subject to the reporting requirements will need to submit to EPA estimates of other types of greenhouse gas emissions, such as process emissions, fugitive emissions, mobile source emissions, forest product-sector emissions, and indirect emissions from heat and steam. Just as important as the reporting system is the greenhouse gas registry established by the bill. The bill requires EPA to work with the same set of actors to establish this greenhouse gas registry, which will enable companies to register greenhouse gas reductions. Many companies are voluntarily implementing projects to reduce emissions or sequester carbon. The registry would establish a place for companies to be able to put these projects on public record in a consistent and reliable way. Taken together, these provisions of the bill will accomplish several important goals. First, they will create a reliable record of the sources of greenhouse gas emissions within our economy. This will provide the public and private sector with important information that, if necessary, can be used to identify the most cost-effective ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Perhaps more importantly, these provisions will provide a powerful incentive for companies to continue to make voluntary greenhouse gas reductions. By requiring emissions reporting, and making that information available to the public, companies may face increased scrutiny with respect to their greenhouse gas emissions. But they will also have a place where they can register their greenhouse gas reductions project in a consistent and uniform way. This will enable companies to demonstrate the actions that they are taking to reduce their emissions, and will assist them in making the case for credits if a mandatory greenhouse gas emission reduction program is ever enacted. Finally, the bill requires EPA to annually publish a greenhouse gas emissions inventory. This will be a national account of greenhouse gas emissions for our Nation, and will incorporate the information submitted to the greenhouse gas information system and registry. EPA has issued such a report for several years now, and this provision is intended to explicitly authorize and expand the scope of this report. I know that there are technical challenges associated with measuring greenhouse gas emissions and reductions. But many advances have been made in recent years, often in a cooperative way, with industry, environmental groups and governments at the table. It's my intent that the systems and protocols developed under this bill conform to the best practices that have been and continue to be developed in this fashion. I urge my colleagues to join with me in this legislation. Let's start taking reasonable steps to address the threat of climate change. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the conference report on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, which expands and improves the Federal Government's commitment to education. In my view, there is no more important issue before the Congress than education. As our economy becomes increasingly global and based on high technology, its future is increasingly dependent on the quality of our workforce. The better our educational system is, the stronger our economy and our Nation will be. That's why, as a nation, we should make education our top priority. Some have suggested that local school boards should be left alone to solve these problems on their own. But I disagree. In general, I do support local control of education. But local control doesn't mean much if you don't have adequate resources within your control. And it's not enough to leave the problem to States, which can pit urban areas against suburban communities, a fight with no winners. No, if we are serious about education, we need to make it a national priority. And we need to ensure that our National Government plays an active and aggressive role. I am pleased that the conference report on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, takes a significant step toward increasing our Federal commitment to education. I want to commend Chairman Kennedy and Ranking Member Gregg for their tireless work in developing this legislation. This legislation requires States to set high standards for every student and strengthens Federal incentives to boost low-performing schools and significantly improve education achievement. It has strong accountability measures that I hope will help narrow the educational achievement gaps that threaten every child's access to the American dream. And, it better targets funding to schools serving the neediest students, to make sure that they have the resources to hire and train well-qualified teachers, pay for additional instruction, and increase access to after-school and school safety programs. In particular, I want to note that the final conference report contains a provision I authored to promote financial literacy. Unfortunately, when it comes to personal finances, young Americans unfortunately do not have the skills they need. Too few understand the details of managing a checking account, using a credit card, saving for retirement, or paying their taxes. It's a serious problem and it's time for our education system to address it more effectively. We need to teach all our children the skills they need, including the fundamental principles involved with earning, spending, saving and investing, so they can manage their own money and succeed in our society. I am not alone in advocating the importance of financial literacy. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently said that: ``Improving basic financial education at the elementary and secondary school levels is essential to providing a foundation for financial literacy that can help prevent younger people from making poor financial decisions.'' The amendment I authored, along with Senators Enzi, Akaka and Harkin, will include financial education as an allowable use in the local innovative education grant program, which funds innovative educational improvement programs. Elementary and secondary schools will be able to apply for Federal funds for activities to promote financial education, such as disseminating and encouraging the best practices for teaching the basic principles of personal financial literacy, including the basic principles involved with earning, spending, saving and investing. As a result, schools will have access to resources to allow them to include financial education as part of the basic educational curriculum. I am grateful to the conferees for including this important provision in the final conference report. I do have some reservations about this legislation, however. In particular, I am concerned that the testing provisions may impose significant burdens on schools without providing them with adequate resources to help them implement the requirements. In addition, I have serious questions about subjecting young children to a battery of tests every year. We do not have sufficient information to know whether constant testing is the best way to monitor our children's educational progress, and indeed, the pressure of such tests may detract from their educational experiences. I hope that Congress will closely monitor the implementation of these and other provisions to ensure that they do not undermine the worthwhile reform efforts in this legislation. Of course, reauthorization of ESEA is not the only critical education issue we will face in this Congress. Next year, we will be reauthorizing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, which has meant so much to children with disabilities in New Jersey and across the country. Unfortunately, however, we have drastically underfunded this program, which has imposed a tremendous burden on local communities in New Jersey and across the Nation. In my home State of New Jersey, school budgets are capped by law at 3 percent annual growth. Therefore, districts often have to cut other programs to accommodate mandated and rising special-education costs. Or, local property taxpayers, who already are overburdened, have to pay increased taxes to cover expenses that the Federal Government should be sharing. I have received many letters, phone calls, and emails from concerned constituents urging Congress to fulfill the promise of full funding for the services mandated under IDEA. One woman, for example, wrote: ``My son is currently enrolled in our district's preschool disabled program. He is autistic and requires a full day program with intensive, 1:1 teaching. He is one of four children in the class, all with similar needs. Not only does this program require extra staffing, it also requires very specialized training. Thanks to the incredible teachers and support staff, Kevin is making wonderful progress. This, of course, would not be possible without the funding provided by the school district.'' This woman then went on to note that in her town, special education costs have increased by 14 percent, 26 percent, and 11 percent over the last 3 years, while revenues have only increased by 3 percent annually. The result has been that the school district has had to use funds intended for regular education in order to cover the special education costs. Another parent, whose son has Down syndrome said, ``It makes me very concerned when administrators are phrasing things in a way that makes it sound like special ed is denying the other kids. It's not special education that's denying them. It's the funding mechanism that's doing it.'' Like many of my colleagues, I had hoped that we would fulfill our commitment to the States, fully funding the Federal share of 40 percent of the average cost per pupil that we envisioned when IDEA first passed the Congress. Unfortunately, the conference committee rejected full funding of IDEA. I was very disappointed that we missed this opportunity to ease the burden on local communities, but remain committed to working to increase the Federal share of IDEA spending in next year's reauthorization. With this education reform bill we are taking significant strides to enhance our educational system and provide every child with the opportunity they deserve to achieve their full potential. I am pleased to support the conference report.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, today along with Senator Torricelli I am introducing legislation to ensure that the families who suffered tremendous losses in the terrorist attacks on September 11th receive the compensation they deserve and need to move forward with their lives. The bill would eliminate provisions in current law that reduce the compensation to which they are entitled because of contributions received from other sources. New Jersey has been tragically affected by the terrorist attacks of September 11. This past weekend, I met with over 400 family members who lost a loved one on the 11th. These people are dealing with unimaginable pain, and many are struggling as they try to provide for the security of their families. To obtain assistance, families are being forced to navigate through extensive paperwork burdens. They have filled out countless forms and made countless calls seeking answers about the benefits to which they are entitled. Yet many fear that, notwithstanding their efforts, they will be unable to secure the assistance that they need so badly. The American people want to help these victims, and Congress has acted in an effort to make that happen. Soon after September 11, as part of broader legislation to support the airline industry, Congress established a fund to compensate the victims of the attacks, the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund. Under that legislation, victims and their families can choose to seek compensation from the Fund, in return for relinquishing their right to file suit against an airline. Those victims who opt-in are eligible for full economic and non-economic damages, but not punitive damages. The amount of compensation will be determined by a Special Master, Kenneth Feinberg. The purpose of the Fund is to ensure that victims are fully compensated without having to go to court, a process that could take many years for families who urgently need assistance. I support this goal. Unfortunately, in our desire to both aid the industry by limiting their liability and to provide compensation to the victims and their families, we rushed the legislation to enactment without sufficient consideration of how the Fund would operate. As a result, the law contains a glaring flaw. It includes a ``collateral source'' rule, which requires the Special Master to deduct the amount of life insurance and pension payments from the amount of compensation that would otherwise be available to victims and families under the Fund. This rule, in my view, is a serious mistake, and threatens to deny needed compensation for many of these victims. It is wrong to treat victims of the disaster on September 11 any differently. Reducing their awards not only harms these families, it also runs counter to the goals of the original legislation. After all, if families cannot obtain the compensation they need through the Victims Compensation Fund, some of them will be forced to go straight to court. That will delay the compensation they need, and subject airlines to costs and liability that Congress sought to protect them against. I would note, that in addition to repealing the collateral source rule, my legislation makes clear that charitable donations should not be considered collateral sources and should not count against compensation awarded under the Fund. This no only ensures that families get the compensation they need, but its ensures that those who have made charitable contributions are not treated unfairly. After all, those who have generously sent checks to charitable organizations did not think that their contributions would reduce Federal compensation. In effect, such a reduction would be a tax on people who have contributed their own funds in an effort to help. In addition, without such a clarification, charities may withhold funds for victims until after they recover from the fund, in order to avoid an offset. Recovery under the Victims' Compensation Fund is not the only relief that these grieving families need. Although charities have provided some assistance to families over the past three months, that funding has only been a stopgap measure. These families need immediate tax relief. I am pleased that just before Thanksgiving the Senate passed a comprehensive victims' tax relief bill, but unfortunately the House has only passed a more narrow version of the legislation. These families need immediate relief so that they can plan and provide for their families. They need: a waiver of federal income tax liability for this year and last year; payroll tax relief--this is particularly important to low-wage workers, who are less likely to benefit from the waiver of income tax liability, and are also less likely to have left their families with life insurance and pensions; reduced estate taxes; exclusion of survivor, disability and emergency relief benefits from taxation; and finally, we need to make it easier for charitable organizations to make disaster relief payments to help victims and their families with both short-term and long-term needs, such as scholarships for victims' children. Many of these proposals are based on provisions in current law that provide tax relief to soldiers who die in combat and government employees who die in terrorist attacks outside the United States. Extending these provisions to the victims of the terrorist attacks is appropriate because the attacks of September 11 were attacks on our entire nation. Last week some families came down here to meet with the New Jersey delegation and House and Senate leadership to plead for immediate assistance, so that they can pay their mortgages, keep children in school, and keep their heads above water. They made their case powerfully and effectively, and we in Congress must no let them down. I urge my colleagues to stand up for these victims and support my legislation. I asks unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no object, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, today along with Senator Torricelli I am introducing legislation to ensure that the families who suffered tremendous losses in the terrorist attacks on September 11th receive the compensation they deserve and need to move forward with their lives. The bill would eliminate provisions in current law that reduce the compensation to which they are entitled because of contributions received from other sources. New Jersey has been tragically affected by the terrorist attacks of September 11. This past weekend, I met with over 400 family members who lost a loved one on the 11th. These people are dealing with unimaginable pain, and many are struggling as they try to provide for the security of their families. To obtain assistance, families are being forced to navigate through extensive paperwork burdens. They have filled out countless forms and made countless calls seeking answers about the benefits to which they are entitled. Yet many fear that, notwithstanding their efforts, they will be unable to secure the assistance that they need so badly. The American people want to help these victims, and Congress has acted in an effort to make that happen. Soon after September 11, as part of broader legislation to support the airline industry, Congress established a fund to compensate the victims of the attacks, the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund. Under that legislation, victims and their families can choose to seek compensation from the Fund, in return for relinquishing their right to file suit against an airline. Those victims who opt-in are eligible for full economic and non-economic damages, but not punitive damages. The amount of compensation will be determined by a Special Master, Kenneth Feinberg. The purpose of the Fund is to ensure that victims are fully compensated without having to go to court, a process that could take many years for families who urgently need assistance. I support this goal. Unfortunately, in our desire to both aid the industry by limiting their liability and to provide compensation to the victims and their families, we rushed the legislation to enactment without sufficient consideration of how the Fund would operate. As a result, the law contains a glaring flaw. It includes a ``collateral source'' rule, which requires the Special Master to deduct the amount of life insurance and pension payments from the amount of compensation that would otherwise be available to victims and families under the Fund. This rule, in my view, is a serious mistake, and threatens to deny needed compensation for many of these victims. It is wrong to treat victims of the disaster on September 11 any differently. Reducing their awards not only harms these families, it also runs counter to the goals of the original legislation. After all, if families cannot obtain the compensation they need through the Victims Compensation Fund, some of them will be forced to go straight to court. That will delay the compensation they need, and subject airlines to costs and liability that Congress sought to protect them against. I would note, that in addition to repealing the collateral source rule, my legislation makes clear that charitable donations should not be considered collateral sources and should not count against compensation awarded under the Fund. This no only ensures that families get the compensation they need, but its ensures that those who have made charitable contributions are not treated unfairly. After all, those who have generously sent checks to charitable organizations did not think that their contributions would reduce Federal compensation. In effect, such a reduction would be a tax on people who have contributed their own funds in an effort to help. In addition, without such a clarification, charities may withhold funds for victims until after they recover from the fund, in order to avoid an offset. Recovery under the Victims' Compensation Fund is not the only relief that these grieving families need. Although charities have provided some assistance to families over the past three months, that funding has only been a stopgap measure. These families need immediate tax relief. I am pleased that just before Thanksgiving the Senate passed a comprehensive victims' tax relief bill, but unfortunately the House has only passed a more narrow version of the legislation. These families need immediate relief so that they can plan and provide for their families. They need: a waiver of federal income tax liability for this year and last year; payroll tax relief--this is particularly important to low-wage workers, who are less likely to benefit from the waiver of income tax liability, and are also less likely to have left their families with life insurance and pensions; reduced estate taxes; exclusion of survivor, disability and emergency relief benefits from taxation; and finally, we need to make it easier for charitable organizations to make disaster relief payments to help victims and their families with both short-term and long-term needs, such as scholarships for victims' children. Many of these proposals are based on provisions in current law that provide tax relief to soldiers who die in combat and government employees who die in terrorist attacks outside the United States. Extending these provisions to the victims of the terrorist attacks is appropriate because the attacks of September 11 were attacks on our entire nation. Last week some families came down here to meet with the New Jersey delegation and House and Senate leadership to plead for immediate assistance, so that they can pay their mortgages, keep children in school, and keep their heads above water. They made their case powerfully and effectively, and we in Congress must no let them down. I urge my colleagues to stand up for these victims and support my legislation. I asks unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no object, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a great man from the State of New Jersey, Mr. James V. Parrillo. A 66 year old native of Newark, Mr. Parrillo is a man of integrity who has devoted his time and talents to making his city a thriving urban center. A graduate of East Side High School, Mr. Parrillo currently serves as a community relations specialist at the Newark Housing Authority. In this capacity he is responsible for coordinating special events, including an annual parade and senior citizen fashion show. A grassroots coalition-builder and youth advocate, Mr. Parrillo is also involved in strengthening the community and promoting the development of children. For the past fifteen years he has sponsored a little league baseball team in Newark's Ironbound section, providing a much needed recreational outlet for the city's young people. Most recently, he was elected to serve as a member of the Newark Board of Education and is chairman of its Community Development Committee. In 1981, Jimmy, as he is affectionately known, established the Jimmy Parrillo Civic Association, an organization comprised of representatives from the business, educational, and political communities. Each year the association recognizes the achievements of individuals who have contributed to promoting stable communities in the city of Newark. I want you to know that James V. Parrillo is a true American and believes that all people should have access to America's Promise. An unselfish man, he has the gift of bringing people together to work for a common cause. Jimmy believes that he can make a difference. The city of Newark is a better city today because of his dedication and leadership. Lastly, I am proud to call Jimmy a friend and it is an honor for me to bring him to your attention.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Feingold, I am submitting a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that in establishing rules governing access to the Capitol or congressional offices for those who have official business before the Congress, lobbyists should not be granted special privileges that are not available to other American citizens. A fundamental principle of American democracy is that all citizens are created equal and all should have access to government leaders. Unfortunately, there is a perception among many Americans that special interests and their lobbyists have access to decision-makers that ordinary citizens lack. This contributes to the widespread belief that middle class citizens, and those of more modest means, are treated unfairly in the political process. In my view, it is critically important that we do everything reasonably practicable to give Americans confidence that Congress will treat all citizens equitably, regardless of whether they are represented by professional lobbyists. Recent terrorist events have focused attention on the need for security precautions at the Capitol and surrounding congressional office buildings. Already, tightened security measures have restricted access to the Capitol. I expect that other changes will be considered in the future as we seek to find an appropriate balance between legitimate security concerns and the need to give citizens access to their elected representatives. Unfortunately, in recent weeks, we have heard increasingly that some professional lobbyists are seeking to gain special privileges for access to the Capitol complex that would not be available to other members of the general public who have official business before the Congress. I believe that granting such special access would be a mistake, and that is why I am introducing this resolution. I understand that lobbyists can play an important role in the legislative process and have legitimate rights to participate in that process, just like other Americans. In my view, however, it would not be fair to provide lobbyist with special privileges that are not provided to other citizens who have official business before the Congress. Such privileged access would further contribute to the perception that ordinary citizens are treated unfairly in the legislative process and heighten concerns about the excessive influence of special interests and lobbyists. All Americans have a stake in debates before the Congress, not just lobbyists. If an elderly individual spends her own money to come to Washington to protect her Social Security benefits, there is no reason why she should face greater restrictions than a lobbyist representing a corporation seeking a special tax break. I hope my colleagues will support this resolution.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. For all these various reasons, I strongly support Senator Byrd's amendment.

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I strongly support the leadership and initiatives of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia with regard to these issues on homeland defense. There are so many powerful arguments that support this investment that I think our society needs to make in the protection of our communities through the bioterrorism initiative, which puts money in State and local hands, money that will make a difference to make sure we have the plans in place to really protect our people. I live in New Jersey. We had a number of anthrax-related events in our Postal Service. We were not prepared, and the State ended up coming in and spending enormous amounts of money. It needs to be addressed now. That is why the kind of program that Senator Byrd has put together is so important. It is a good economic policy. We need to have confidence in our society right now. This is a statement to all of the people in this country that we take these issues seriously with regard to homeland defense, whether it is from bioterrorist attacks or whether it is protecting our nuclear plants, of which we have four in New Jersey. It is absolutely essential we send out these sure and certain statements that we care. It is good economic policy because it will stimulate our economy. We do not want to get too far away from that. This is real expenditures that will be out the door quickly. Our States are desperately strapped, as the Senator from Rhode Island was just saying. New Jersey has a $1.9 billion deficit in this fiscal year, the one that ends June 30. They need resources to be able to be economically sound in a tough economic environment. It is inconceivable to me that we do not stand strong with New York City and New York State at this period of time. I have seen the two Senators make their presentations today with regard to the devastation. This is money not going to be available in the near term when the need is the greatest. We need to act. I have lived and worked in the community around New York for 30 years. The desperation, the depression that we have--in an economic and emotional context--is real. We need to send these signals. That is what this is about. It will do much along those lines. I will be very parochial. This bill has meaningful elements in it for the State of New Jersey--those parts of New Jersey, by the way, that are linked inextricably with New York City. There is $100 million for ferry service, $81 million for law enforcement. Part of that, $34 million, is going to the State police in New Jersey. We have one boat patrolling the ports--one boat.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce private legislation granting citizenship to Deena Gilbey, a woman profoundly affected by the disaster of September 11. Since then, Deena has endured a tremendous hardship, a hardship that has been compounded by mounting paperwork and an unyielding, dispassionate bureaucratic process. Without swift congressional action, Deena, a British national, will be forced to uproot her two children and remove them from the only country they have ever known just one year from the death of their father. Deena Gilbey first moved to the United States in July 1993 when Paul, her husband was transferred from London to the New York office of Euro Bank. They spent the eight years that followed building a life in the United States in suburban Chatham Township. They began to raise two children, Max, 7, and Mason, 3, both of whom were born in the United States. Although the children are both U.S. citizens, Deena is not and was present in the county as part of her husband's H1-B work visa. Both Deena and Paul were attempting to become citizens when disaster struck. For all Americans, September 11 will be remembered with a deep sadness. However, that national anguish took on a personal quality for the Gibleys when the family learned that Paul, like so many others, was lost beneath the rubble of the World Trade Center. With the death of Paul, Deena was forced to face up to the difficult realization that her own lawful status in the United States was in jeopardy. For the first several weeks after he died, it was unclear whether Deena would be allowed to leave the country and spend time with family or even work to support her children. The anti-terrorism bill that passed the Congress earlier this year was a step in the right direction. But it did not go far enough. It did not give Deena and Paul's children the stability they deserve. The anti-terrorism legislation that passed the Congress earlier this year allowed Deena to remain in the United States just one additional year to sort out her affairs. She had just one year to wrap up the life she and Paul had made together in the United States. She had just one year to prepare her children for the trauma of moving to a foreign country and of leaving the only country that had ever been home. One additional year is simply not enough. When Paul died in the attack on the World Trade Center, he died with thousands of Americans. Before that, he contributed to the American economy for nearly a decade, paying taxes and lending his expertise in a highly specialized field. On that fateful day, he embodied the American spirit when he assisted coworkers in escaping the fire and destruction of ground zero. Paul Gilbey was killed in a callous and cowardly attack on America. In the aftermath of this tragic event, we have a responsibility to help ensure that stability returns to the lives of the children he left behind. Giving citizenship to Deena Gilbey is our patriotic responsibility. I hope this Congress will acknowledge her sacrifice and allow her and her children to remain in the United States. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Terrorist Victim Citizenship Relief Act, that would quickly provide citizenship relief to hundreds of families adversely affected by the attacks of September 11, 2001. Today I am meeting with several of the families of the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks to discuss crucial legislation that would provide them with tax relief in the wake of a national calamity. They are dealing with a personal anguish that many of us can only imagine. It is critical that the House of Representatives move swiftly to pass the tax relief legislation that has already passed the Senate, by unanimous consent, I might add. But there is more that Congress must do to account for the shocking and unanticipated failure of the existing legal framework in the aftermath of September 11. I believe that the Terrorist Victim Citizenship Relief Act is an important part of this vitally necessary overhaul. When American citizens, foreign nationals, and immigrants perished in the cowardly terrorist acts of September 11, the immigration status of hundreds of families was thrown into turmoil. The attacks were on American soil on a major American institution and directed at the United States. Yet American citizens were not the only victims. Hundreds of temporary workers and immigrants died shoulder-to-shoulder with thousands of Americans. Their deaths should be acknowledged and their families should be honored. My legislation would bestow honorary citizenship on legal immigrants and non-immigrants who died in the disaster. This would honor their spirit and their tremendous sacrifice. Perhaps more important, the bill would offer citizenship to surviving spouses and children, subject to a background investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In the spirit of fairness and unity, it is appropriate and responsible to offer the privilege of citizenship to families who lost so much because of this attack on the United States. More than 3,000 people lost their lives when four planes crashed on that fateful September morning. Bodies are still being uncovered, and the death count has been revised several times. Nationals from some 86 countries perished in the attack, including visitors, non-immigrant workers, and legal permanent residents. America was not the only country that suffered losses. There was good reason the complex was called the World Trade Center. In the September 11 attacks, England lost 75 people, with 60 other British nationals unaccounted for. India lost more than 100. Germany has 31 confirmed casualties. Mexico has 19. Colombia has 15. Japan has as many as 21. Canada, Australia, the Philippines, Ireland, South Africa, and Pakistan all suffered tragic losses. And there were many more. It would be wrong to allow the tragic destruction of that fateful day to derail the hopes of hundreds of immigrant families to secure a better life for themselves and their children in the United States. And we must acknowledge the hundreds of families from 86 countries who lost loved ones in the attack. In New Jersey, there are dozens of poignant stories of immigrant families who experienced tragic losses in the World Trade Center disaster. These innocent people have lost husbands and wives, sons and daughters, sisters and brothers. Their families have been fractured and their livelihoods jeopardized. Immigrant families have been forced to grapple with a bureaucratic nightmare, wading through the myriad of programs available to the families of victims in an effort to keep their heads above water. They are often disheartened to learn that, although their loved ones died in the same attack, non-citizens are ineligible for many of the programs designed to assist the surviving families of victims. Concerns about immigration status have only added to the tremendous burden immigrant families are already confronting. Take the example of one New Jersey woman who came to my office seeking assistance. Her immigration status was directly dependent on the non-immigrant worker status of her husband who died in the attack. Both of her children were born in the United States. They are full citizens and are enrolled in American schools. She wants to continue to raise her children in the United States. However, under the antiterrorism legislation that Congress passed this month, this mother of two will be allowed just one additional year to sort out her affairs before being forced to uproot her children and return to England. One year is simply not enough to compensate this innocent woman for the loss of her husband. My legislation would grant her citizenship immediately, helping her to avoid the burden of removing her children from the only country they have ever truly known after having just lost their father. Granting her citizenship is the right thing to do. But, this woman's story is one of hundreds. My office has received numerous inquiries from immigrant families concerned that their immigration status has been undermined by the death of a loved one. Many families were in the process of preparing the necessary paperwork to apply for a change in status, only to have their potential sponsor die alongside thousands of others in the World Trade Center attack. This legislation would ensure that those families would be allowed to become American citizens and avoid undue paperwork and heartache. More than two months have passed since the United States was brutally attacked. When perpetrating their horrific crime, the terrorists did not distinguish between immigrants and American citizens or between undocumented workers and legal permanent residents. They were attacking the United States, and, in the process, killed thousands, citizens and non-citizens alike. In death, citizenship was irrelevant. In death, they were all unified. The thousands who died did not know it when they went to work, but they were at the front lines in the next American war. Their deaths are a tragedy that every civilized human being wishes could be reversed. Unfortunately, we cannot turn back the clock. However, we can acknowledge the tremendous loss of hundreds of immigrant families by allowing them to take on the full rights and responsibilities of American citizenship. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and 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 Terrorist Victim Citizenship Relief Act, that would quickly provide citizenship relief to hundreds of families adversely affected by the attacks of September 11, 2001. Today I am meeting with several of the families of the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks to discuss crucial legislation that would provide them with tax relief in the wake of a national calamity. They are dealing with a personal anguish that many of us can only imagine. It is critical that the House of Representatives move swiftly to pass the tax relief legislation that has already passed the Senate, by unanimous consent, I might add. But there is more that Congress must do to account for the shocking and unanticipated failure of the existing legal framework in the aftermath of September 11. I believe that the Terrorist Victim Citizenship Relief Act is an important part of this vitally necessary overhaul. When American citizens, foreign nationals, and immigrants perished in the cowardly terrorist acts of September 11, the immigration status of hundreds of families was thrown into turmoil. The attacks were on American soil on a major American institution and directed at the United States. Yet American citizens were not the only victims. Hundreds of temporary workers and immigrants died shoulder-to-shoulder with thousands of Americans. Their deaths should be acknowledged and their families should be honored. My legislation would bestow honorary citizenship on legal immigrants and non-immigrants who died in the disaster. This would honor their spirit and their tremendous sacrifice. Perhaps more important, the bill would offer citizenship to surviving spouses and children, subject to a background investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In the spirit of fairness and unity, it is appropriate and responsible to offer the privilege of citizenship to families who lost so much because of this attack on the United States. More than 3,000 people lost their lives when four planes crashed on that fateful September morning. Bodies are still being uncovered, and the death count has been revised several times. Nationals from some 86 countries perished in the attack, including visitors, non-immigrant workers, and legal permanent residents. America was not the only country that suffered losses. There was good reason the complex was called the World Trade Center. In the September 11 attacks, England lost 75 people, with 60 other British nationals unaccounted for. India lost more than 100. Germany has 31 confirmed casualties. Mexico has 19. Colombia has 15. Japan has as many as 21. Canada, Australia, the Philippines, Ireland, South Africa, and Pakistan all suffered tragic losses. And there were many more. It would be wrong to allow the tragic destruction of that fateful day to derail the hopes of hundreds of immigrant families to secure a better life for themselves and their children in the United States. And we must acknowledge the hundreds of families from 86 countries who lost loved ones in the attack. In New Jersey, there are dozens of poignant stories of immigrant families who experienced tragic losses in the World Trade Center disaster. These innocent people have lost husbands and wives, sons and daughters, sisters and brothers. Their families have been fractured and their livelihoods jeopardized. Immigrant families have been forced to grapple with a bureaucratic nightmare, wading through the myriad of programs available to the families of victims in an effort to keep their heads above water. They are often disheartened to learn that, although their loved ones died in the same attack, non-citizens are ineligible for many of the programs designed to assist the surviving families of victims. Concerns about immigration status have only added to the tremendous burden immigrant families are already confronting. Take the example of one New Jersey woman who came to my office seeking assistance. Her immigration status was directly dependent on the non-immigrant worker status of her husband who died in the attack. Both of her children were born in the United States. They are full citizens and are enrolled in American schools. She wants to continue to raise her children in the United States. However, under the antiterrorism legislation that Congress passed this month, this mother of two will be allowed just one additional year to sort out her affairs before being forced to uproot her children and return to England. One year is simply not enough to compensate this innocent woman for the loss of her husband. My legislation would grant her citizenship immediately, helping her to avoid the burden of removing her children from the only country they have ever truly known after having just lost their father. Granting her citizenship is the right thing to do. But, this woman's story is one of hundreds. My office has received numerous inquiries from immigrant families concerned that their immigration status has been undermined by the death of a loved one. Many families were in the process of preparing the necessary paperwork to apply for a change in status, only to have their potential sponsor die alongside thousands of others in the World Trade Center attack. This legislation would ensure that those families would be allowed to become American citizens and avoid undue paperwork and heartache. More than two months have passed since the United States was brutally attacked. When perpetrating their horrific crime, the terrorists did not distinguish between immigrants and American citizens or between undocumented workers and legal permanent residents. They were attacking the United States, and, in the process, killed thousands, citizens and non-citizens alike. In death, citizenship was irrelevant. In death, they were all unified. The thousands who died did not know it when they went to work, but they were at the front lines in the next American war. Their deaths are a tragedy that every civilized human being wishes could be reversed. Unfortunately, we cannot turn back the clock. However, we can acknowledge the tremendous loss of hundreds of immigrant families by allowing them to take on the full rights and responsibilities of American citizenship. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and 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 private legislation granting citizenship to Deena Gilbey, a woman profoundly affected by the disaster of September 11. Since then, Deena has endured a tremendous hardship, a hardship that has been compounded by mounting paperwork and an unyielding, dispassionate bureaucratic process. Without swift congressional action, Deena, a British national, will be forced to uproot her two children and remove them from the only country they have ever known just one year from the death of their father. Deena Gilbey first moved to the United States in July 1993 when Paul, her husband was transferred from London to the New York office of Euro Bank. They spent the eight years that followed building a life in the United States in suburban Chatham Township. They began to raise two children, Max, 7, and Mason, 3, both of whom were born in the United States. Although the children are both U.S. citizens, Deena is not and was present in the county as part of her husband's H1-B work visa. Both Deena and Paul were attempting to become citizens when disaster struck. For all Americans, September 11 will be remembered with a deep sadness. However, that national anguish took on a personal quality for the Gibleys when the family learned that Paul, like so many others, was lost beneath the rubble of the World Trade Center. With the death of Paul, Deena was forced to face up to the difficult realization that her own lawful status in the United States was in jeopardy. For the first several weeks after he died, it was unclear whether Deena would be allowed to leave the country and spend time with family or even work to support her children. The anti-terrorism bill that passed the Congress earlier this year was a step in the right direction. But it did not go far enough. It did not give Deena and Paul's children the stability they deserve. The anti-terrorism legislation that passed the Congress earlier this year allowed Deena to remain in the United States just one additional year to sort out her affairs. She had just one year to wrap up the life she and Paul had made together in the United States. She had just one year to prepare her children for the trauma of moving to a foreign country and of leaving the only country that had ever been home. One additional year is simply not enough. When Paul died in the attack on the World Trade Center, he died with thousands of Americans. Before that, he contributed to the American economy for nearly a decade, paying taxes and lending his expertise in a highly specialized field. On that fateful day, he embodied the American spirit when he assisted coworkers in escaping the fire and destruction of ground zero. Paul Gilbey was killed in a callous and cowardly attack on America. In the aftermath of this tragic event, we have a responsibility to help ensure that stability returns to the lives of the children he left behind. Giving citizenship to Deena Gilbey is our patriotic responsibility. I hope this Congress will acknowledge her sacrifice and allow her and her children to remain in the United States. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and 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 Microbicides Development Act of 2001. I am very pleased to be introducing this bipartisan bill along with my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Cantwell, Dodd, Leahy, and Murray. I extend my gratitude to Senator Cantwell, in particular, for her support and assistance in the development of this legislation. Additionally, I applaud the efforts of my colleague in the House of Representatives, Republican Congresswoman Connie Morella of Maryland, for her leadership on this important issue. We all believe this initiative is vital to the pursuit of combating the global HIV/AIDS crisis. As you know, tomorrow, December 1, is World AIDS Day. Twenty years ago, the Centers for Disease Control became aware of a virus that was claiming the lives of thousands of gay men in the United States. Throughout most of the 1980s, we thought of AIDS purely as a gay men's disease. Twenty years later, we find that we couldn't have been more wrong, as we have seen this disease spread globally to women, children, and heterosexual men, infecting and killing millions. Today, women and children are being impacted by this epidemic at alarming rates. Every day, 6,300 women worldwide become infected with HIV. In fact, women now represent the fastest growing group of new HIV infections in the United States. AIDS is the fourth leading cause of death among women aged 25 to 44 in this country. Unfortunately, I have seen the devastation that this disease is having on women, as New Jersey has the Nation's fourth highest HIV/AIDS infection rate among women, and the second highest infection rate among all adults. Despite this growing trend, however, there exists absolutely no HIV or STD prevention method that is within a woman's personal control. Condom use must be negotiated with a partner. We are all aware that for too many women, particularly low-income women in the developing world who reply upon a male partner for economic support, there is no power of negotiation. We know these women are at risk, yet, we expect them to protect themselves without any tools. Today we have the opportunity to invest in groundbreaking research that can produce these tools, and ultimately, empower women. Microbicides are self-administered products that women could use to prevent transmission of STDs, including HIV/AIDS. I say ``could,'' because due to insufficient research investments, no microbicides have been brought to market. This legislation would encourage federal investments for microbicide research through the establishment of programs at the National Institutes for Health, NIH, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC. In addition to investing new resources in microbicide research, the Microbicides Development Act will expedite the implementation of the NIH's 5-year strategic plan for microbicide research, as well as expand coordination among Federal agencies already involved in this research, including NIH, CDC, and the United States Agency on International Development, USAID. The bill also establishes Microbicide Research and Development Teams at the NIH. These teams will bring together public and private scientists and resources to research and development microbicides for the prevention of HIV and STD infection. The Microbicides Development Act of 2001 has the potential not only to save millions of lives, but also to save billions in health care costs. Every year, 15 million new HIV and other STD infections occur among Americans aged 15 and older. The direct cost to the U.S. economy of STDs and HIV infection is approximately $8.4 billion. When the indirect costs, such as lost productivity, are included, that figure rises to an estimated $20 billion. While new therapies are being developed to prolong the lives of individuals infected with HIV/AIDS--and we must continue developing new therapies--only prevention can truly ensure the safety and health of those vulnerable to infection. If we do not pay a small price now to invest in new prevention methods, we will pay a much higher price later. Federal support for microbicide research is crucial. Numerous small biotechnology companies and university researchers are actively engaged in microbicide research, but they are almost totally dependent on public-sector grants to continue their work and to test their products. Existing public sector grants for microbicides, however, are too small and too short-term to move product leads forward. According to the Alliance for Microbicide Development and other health advocates, in order to bring a microbicide to market within the next 5 years, current Federal investments in microbicide research should be increased to $75 million this year. The NIH currently invests only $25 million a year, or 1 percent of its total HIV/AIDS budget, in such important research. This legislation will make microbicide research the priority it should be, a priority the Federal Government must have if it expects to save the lives of women and their children worldwide, who, 20 years after the first AIDS death, will otherwise become victims of a preventable disease. In closing, I would like to request that an opinion piece written by United Nations' Secretary General Kofi Annan that appeared in the Washington Post yesterday be included in the Record. In his comments recognizing World AIDS Day, Secretary Annan reiterates the importance of investing in new prevention methods as we continue to fight against AIDS.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Microbicides Development Act of 2001. I am very pleased to be introducing this bipartisan bill along with my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Cantwell, Dodd, Leahy, and Murray. I extend my gratitude to Senator Cantwell, in particular, for her support and assistance in the development of this legislation. Additionally, I applaud the efforts of my colleague in the House of Representatives, Republican Congresswoman Connie Morella of Maryland, for her leadership on this important issue. We all believe this initiative is vital to the pursuit of combating the global HIV/AIDS crisis. As you know, tomorrow, December 1, is World AIDS Day. Twenty years ago, the Centers for Disease Control became aware of a virus that was claiming the lives of thousands of gay men in the United States. Throughout most of the 1980s, we thought of AIDS purely as a gay men's disease. Twenty years later, we find that we couldn't have been more wrong, as we have seen this disease spread globally to women, children, and heterosexual men, infecting and killing millions. Today, women and children are being impacted by this epidemic at alarming rates. Every day, 6,300 women worldwide become infected with HIV. In fact, women now represent the fastest growing group of new HIV infections in the United States. AIDS is the fourth leading cause of death among women aged 25 to 44 in this country. Unfortunately, I have seen the devastation that this disease is having on women, as New Jersey has the Nation's fourth highest HIV/AIDS infection rate among women, and the second highest infection rate among all adults. Despite this growing trend, however, there exists absolutely no HIV or STD prevention method that is within a woman's personal control. Condom use must be negotiated with a partner. We are all aware that for too many women, particularly low-income women in the developing world who reply upon a male partner for economic support, there is no power of negotiation. We know these women are at risk, yet, we expect them to protect themselves without any tools. Today we have the opportunity to invest in groundbreaking research that can produce these tools, and ultimately, empower women. Microbicides are self-administered products that women could use to prevent transmission of STDs, including HIV/AIDS. I say ``could,'' because due to insufficient research investments, no microbicides have been brought to market. This legislation would encourage federal investments for microbicide research through the establishment of programs at the National Institutes for Health, NIH, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC. In addition to investing new resources in microbicide research, the Microbicides Development Act will expedite the implementation of the NIH's 5-year strategic plan for microbicide research, as well as expand coordination among Federal agencies already involved in this research, including NIH, CDC, and the United States Agency on International Development, USAID. The bill also establishes Microbicide Research and Development Teams at the NIH. These teams will bring together public and private scientists and resources to research and development microbicides for the prevention of HIV and STD infection. The Microbicides Development Act of 2001 has the potential not only to save millions of lives, but also to save billions in health care costs. Every year, 15 million new HIV and other STD infections occur among Americans aged 15 and older. The direct cost to the U.S. economy of STDs and HIV infection is approximately $8.4 billion. When the indirect costs, such as lost productivity, are included, that figure rises to an estimated $20 billion. While new therapies are being developed to prolong the lives of individuals infected with HIV/AIDS--and we must continue developing new therapies--only prevention can truly ensure the safety and health of those vulnerable to infection. If we do not pay a small price now to invest in new prevention methods, we will pay a much higher price later. Federal support for microbicide research is crucial. Numerous small biotechnology companies and university researchers are actively engaged in microbicide research, but they are almost totally dependent on public-sector grants to continue their work and to test their products. Existing public sector grants for microbicides, however, are too small and too short-term to move product leads forward. According to the Alliance for Microbicide Development and other health advocates, in order to bring a microbicide to market within the next 5 years, current Federal investments in microbicide research should be increased to $75 million this year. The NIH currently invests only $25 million a year, or 1 percent of its total HIV/AIDS budget, in such important research. This legislation will make microbicide research the priority it should be, a priority the Federal Government must have if it expects to save the lives of women and their children worldwide, who, 20 years after the first AIDS death, will otherwise become victims of a preventable disease. In closing, I would like to request that an opinion piece written by United Nations' Secretary General Kofi Annan that appeared in the Washington Post yesterday be included in the Record. In his comments recognizing World AIDS Day, Secretary Annan reiterates the importance of investing in new prevention methods as we continue to fight against AIDS.