Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I rise this morning to offer my strong support for the Railroad Retirement Survivor Improvement Act of 2001. It is a piece of legislation that truly will modernize the railroad retirement system and help ensure that our railroad retirees are offered benefits that are consistent with what is made available in the private sector to other industrial workers throughout our economy. Quite frankly, this is simply a fairness issue, to which I think we need to attend. It is strongly supported on both sides of the aisle, and I think we ought to do away with the procedural hangups that are keeping us from addressing this issue and moving forward. Today's railroad retirement system is deeply outmoded, badly in need of reform. Unlike most pension plans, the current pension system for railroad workers has tied the hands of those who have the fiduciary responsibility to manage it. It can't invest in private market assets, bonds, or equities. Instead, under the current law, the railroad retirement system is required to invest only in Government securities. That is whether it is the tier 1 benefits, which are like Social Security, or tier 2 programs, which are very consistent or the moral equivalent of a private pension system. The result is that railroad retirees and their families are being placed at a significant and, I believe, unfair disadvantage relative to their peers in the economy. Throughout modern pension activities, we have a different result than what happens for rail workers because they are not able to retire with the same certainty and security that other workers are, and their families are prejudiced as well because of the lack of effectiveness in their investment programs and retire programs. We need to do something about it. This program is very simple and very straightforward. The legislation before us also represents a political compromise that enjoys broad support, as I suggested, by Republicans and Democrats, labor and management. It has wide sponsorship throughout all interested parties. It makes sense from an economic standpoint, a consistency standpoint, and certainly a political standpoint. After all, most people in this Chamber--putting this into a personal perspective--are not being forced to invest in pension plans that are limited only to Government securities. Under the Thrift Savings Plan, Government employees, like most in the private sector, can invest in the private market, stock index funds, debt index funds--a whole host of options that improve the performance profile of the assets involved in the pension funds. These funds historically have done better, and the academic history and testing objective data show private pension funds need more opportunities than just being limited to Government securities. I do not understand why we are denying to railroad workers the same opportunity that we have as public employees. Because private debt and equities generally provide these higher returns, this also would allow for significant improvement in the retirees' benefits: For example, a simple concept such as reducing the retirement age from 62 to 60 after 30 years of service. It is a pretty straightforward, simple, commonsense view and is very consistent with what goes on in the private sector. Also, widows and widowers would be guaranteed benefits at an amount no less than the amount of the annuity that the retiree received. If one works all their life to build up an annuity that is sensible, the widow or widower should receive more than 50 percent of the retiree's annuity. That is also pretty consistent with actions in the private sector. This legislation will allow a retirement system to reduce its vesting requirement from 10 years to 5 years, a very standard feature in all private sector pensions. We ought to take advantage of this opportunity to modernize the railroad retirement system and put it in a consistent format with other elements in our society's retirement programs. I am concerned that the reason this legislation is not moving is because there are those who believe we somehow are going to pilfer the money. The opposite is true. I believe when we do not properly manage, as a fiduciary, retirees' money, we are actually limiting their ability, and the pilfering is really our fault, not theirs. We ought to do something about that. I am concerned about what is really happening. I believe it is sometimes the view of some that we are trying to limit our options in managing retirement funds. It is quite possible people are presuming that if we make this kind of move with respect to railroad retirement activities and pension investments, we must have an analogy that works for Social Security. There is reason to believe we ought to be thinking about how we manage our Social Security trust funds so that we secure their actuarial responsibility over the long run. I hope we are not standing against doing something that makes sense for railroad workers because we have this great desire to resist modernizing our practices in how we handle our pension funds. It is time for us to move forward with this legislation. It was overwhelmingly supported in the House. There is something approaching 75 cosponsors in the Senate. This is 21st century investing--actually, it is 20th century investing practices, and we need to make sure our railroad workers have that same right. I hope we will avoid all this haggling about procedure and move forward to protect their retirement the way we expect others in the economy to proceed.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I wonder if the senior Senator, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, would respond to a question.

Mr. CORZINE. I appreciate the remarks of the distinguished Senator. I think there really is--the point that I was trying to make--some evidence that spending does have meaningful impact on the growth of the economy. I will make sure I send you over a copy of the Federal Reserve Bulletin's commentary on this so you can get a sense of what this is about.

Mr. CORZINE. Would the Senator comment on whether he believes unemployment benefits tend to get expended or not in the process of going to people who have lost their jobs? Do you think that goes to savings? Is that what I am reading you to say?

Mr. CORZINE. I wonder if the Senator is familiar with the Federal Reserve's view of how they model or look at the economy, and how tax cuts and spending cuts work through the economy. We just had a Joint Economic Committee meeting yesterday in preparation for that. We went back and looked at some of their models which are based on statistics and observations through time. When you were commenting earlier, I thought it would be worthwhile if I mentioned that, at least according to the Federal Reserve's models, spending has a multiplier effect of 1.4 times in the first year relative to tax cuts, which have about a half of 1 percent impact in the first year. Sometimes when you drag those out over a longer period, you catch up with the benefits of taxes, depending on the nature of them. But there is solid evidence in the economic community, and I think among the Federal Reserve, that spending can have and often does have meaningful multiplier effects on the economy. That is why so many people would argue, and I think they would argue based on fact, or at least data, that there is reason to believe that spending does have a positive impact on the economy.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to honor one of the finest Senators to represent my State of New Jersey, Frank R. Lautenberg. My bill would designate specific buildings located at the Federal Aviation Administration's William J. Hughes Technical Center in Atlantic City, New Jersey as the ``Frank R. Lautenberg Aviation Security Complex.'' Designating these buildings as the Frank R. Lautenberg Aviation Security Complex would be an appropriate tribute to Senator Lautenberg. No one has been a greater champion for transportation interests in the United States Senate. Senator Lautenberg consistently made transportation a top priority and served for many years as Chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, as well as serving on the Environment and Public Works Committee. Over the years, he accumulated a long list of related accomplishments. For example, he authored legislation to ban smoking on all flights within the United States, which provides relief from secondhand smoke to thousands of air travelers annually. He was a staunch defender of Amtrak, successfully led efforts to protect its funding in the face of those who oppose our national passenger rail system, and developed landmark legislation to authorize the issuance of bonds to support high speed rail. He also wrote the law that increases the legal drinking age from 18 to 21, which has been credited with saving countless lives on our nation's highways. I also would note that Senator Lautenberg played an important role in supporting the Technical Center in Atlantic City, so it is especially appropriate that he be honored at the Center. Senator Lautenberg always worked hard to steer Federal funds to New Jersey for both road and rail projects, and had considerable success. These projects have been immensely important in easing traffic congestion in New Jersey, our Nation's most densely populated State. As a member of the committees that will reauthorize the transportation bill, the Environment and Public Works and Banking Committees, I hope to continue Senator Lautenberg's legacy in this area. In particular, I am hoping to work for funding of a new commuter rail tunnel across the Hudson River that would link New Jersey and Midtown Manhattan. Beyond his many successes in the area of transportation, Frank Lautenberg had many other accomplishments during his 18-year career in the Senate. He authored legislation barring people convicted of domestic violence from owning a gun. He wrote the Right-to-Know Act, which requires companies to disclose the chemicals they produce and store. He wrote the Public and Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Act, which has made a huge difference in improving the lives of residents of public housing. Also, as the Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, he played a major role in debates over fiscal policy, and in the development of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which helped lead to our first budget surpluses after a long history of deficits. Designating these buildings as the Frank R. Lautenberg Aviation Security Complex is a small but important way we can pay tribute to a man who has contributed so much to our State and our Nation. I personally am honored to serve as his successor in the Senate, and I hope that the Congress will act quickly on this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to honor one of the finest Senators to represent my State of New Jersey, Frank R. Lautenberg. My bill would designate specific buildings located at the Federal Aviation Administration's William J. Hughes Technical Center in Atlantic City, New Jersey as the ``Frank R. Lautenberg Aviation Security Complex.'' Designating these buildings as the Frank R. Lautenberg Aviation Security Complex would be an appropriate tribute to Senator Lautenberg. No one has been a greater champion for transportation interests in the United States Senate. Senator Lautenberg consistently made transportation a top priority and served for many years as Chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, as well as serving on the Environment and Public Works Committee. Over the years, he accumulated a long list of related accomplishments. For example, he authored legislation to ban smoking on all flights within the United States, which provides relief from secondhand smoke to thousands of air travelers annually. He was a staunch defender of Amtrak, successfully led efforts to protect its funding in the face of those who oppose our national passenger rail system, and developed landmark legislation to authorize the issuance of bonds to support high speed rail. He also wrote the law that increases the legal drinking age from 18 to 21, which has been credited with saving countless lives on our nation's highways. I also would note that Senator Lautenberg played an important role in supporting the Technical Center in Atlantic City, so it is especially appropriate that he be honored at the Center. Senator Lautenberg always worked hard to steer Federal funds to New Jersey for both road and rail projects, and had considerable success. These projects have been immensely important in easing traffic congestion in New Jersey, our Nation's most densely populated State. As a member of the committees that will reauthorize the transportation bill, the Environment and Public Works and Banking Committees, I hope to continue Senator Lautenberg's legacy in this area. In particular, I am hoping to work for funding of a new commuter rail tunnel across the Hudson River that would link New Jersey and Midtown Manhattan. Beyond his many successes in the area of transportation, Frank Lautenberg had many other accomplishments during his 18-year career in the Senate. He authored legislation barring people convicted of domestic violence from owning a gun. He wrote the Right-to-Know Act, which requires companies to disclose the chemicals they produce and store. He wrote the Public and Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Act, which has made a huge difference in improving the lives of residents of public housing. Also, as the Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, he played a major role in debates over fiscal policy, and in the development of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which helped lead to our first budget surpluses after a long history of deficits. Designating these buildings as the Frank R. Lautenberg Aviation Security Complex is a small but important way we can pay tribute to a man who has contributed so much to our State and our Nation. I personally am honored to serve as his successor in the Senate, and I hope that the Congress will act quickly on this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to voice my very strong support for the District of Columbia's efforts to cut HIV/AIDS transmission through its needle exchange program and strongly oppose the Allen amendment. First, I compliment the leadership of the chairwoman, the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, for her efforts in making sure that democracy works in the District of Columbia, that we leave to the local folks home rule regarding those matters we leave to home rule all across this country. I can only argue that the District of Columbia should be able to use its own funds as it sees fit, the same as do other localities in the country. Let me start with the bottom line on the fundamental issue. Needle exchange programs work and they save lives. Facts speak for themselves. The Senator from Illinois was very articulate in bringing out a lot of them. I will go over a little more of that. There are over 130 needle exchange programs operating in the Nation, in 80 cities and 31 States. They work. These programs, like the District of Columbia's programs, are supported at the local level by people who want to attack this scourge of drug addiction and HIV/AIDS in our communities. They are supported by States and a huge amount of private funds in the country. Again, the simple reason is that they work. Countless government and private scientific studies have proved the effectiveness of the needle exchange programs. They limit the spread of HIV/AIDS. Fact. They do that without any sense or any kind of objective evidence that they do anything to spread drug use. The Centers for Disease Control, the University of California, and the U.S. General Accounting Office, among a whole host of others, have shown that these programs substantially reduce the transmission of HIV/AIDS without encouraging drug use. I want to give an example. Beth Israel Medical Center in New York studied needle exchange programs in the city and found that the program reduced infections by two-thirds--a very substantial program. The study found that injection drug use did not increase at all in the city at the same time. Similarly, a 1997 study by the National Institutes of Health concluded that needle exchange programs reduced HIV by at least 30 percent and reduced risk behaviors among drug injecting drug users. In fact, needle exchange programs serve as an effective link to drug treatment programs. So you get a double-edged benefit; not only do you limit the spread of HIV/AIDS, but you introduce people to drug treatment programs. According to the recent CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 95 percent of needle exchange programs refer clients to substance abuse treatment. Last year, the Surgeon General found that needle exchange not only reduces HIV transmission but many may also reduce injection drug use for these people who are in the programs. Reference to drug treatment programs is a good thing. That is how we reduce this scourge in our country. Mr. President, the District of Columbia and communities nationwide are facing a two-pronged public health crisis of injection drug use and a persistent and growing HIV/AIDS epidemic. As many as half of all HIV infections are caused by the sharing of HIV-contaminated injection tools. I conclude by saying this is an important program that needs the Senate support. We can do a lot to make a big difference in our communities. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I honor today Ramapo College and welcome its new president, Dr. Rodney Smith. As those of us in New Jersey have known for many years, Ramapo's real strength lies not just in its academics, but also in its emphasis on global and hands-on learning. In recent years, this fine institution has also become nationally recognized as one of the top liberal arts colleges in the northeast, offering degrees in fields as diverse as the arts and humanities, and the sciences and business. Ramapo's reach extends far beyond its Mahwah, NJ, location. The strength of Ramapo's academic reputation attracts students seeking a varied and quality education--students from not only every county within my home State of New Jersey, but also from neighboring states, across the country and around the world. On November 14, 2001, Dr. Smith will offer his first State of the College to the students, faculty and friends of Ramapo College. Accepting this prestigious post as Ramapo's third president, Dr. Smith joins the college at an exciting time in its history. With enrollment and applications continuing to rise, the college continues to grow, both in the number of programs it offers and the number of students it serves. An accomplished author and educator, Dr. Smith joins Ramapo College from Hampton University, where he served in several capacities, most recently as Vice President for Planning and Dean of the Graduate College. Prior to his tenure at Hampton university, Dr. Smith held positions at a number of esteemed institutions, including Harvard University. As we enter into a new century and mark the beginning of the College's fourth decade, Ramapo can be confident in Dr. Smith's ability to lead, guiding one of New Jersey's premier colleges in its present course of providing progressive programs and a concerned and committed faculty. Mr. President, I am pleased to invite my colleagues to join me in celebrating Dr. Smith's distinguished career and his future endeavors at Ramapo College.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, today I rise to discuss a critical need for our Nation to unite in what I think is an immediate effort to strengthen our economy. This morning you probably saw that our Nation's unemployment rate jumped a full half of 1 percent to 5.4 percent--one of the largest increases in any given month in history. We lost 415,000 jobs over the last month. Within that context, there are many more layoffs in the offing, that have been announced by companies, yet to be executed. GDP has declined. Consumer prices, actually, within the GDP numbers, declined for one of the first times since the 1950s. Manufacturing indices and other statistics indicate that we are in a recession. Over 40 years ago, the brother of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, President John Kennedy, issued a dramatic and now immortalized challenge to all Americans. He said: ``Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.'' We are now having a debate about an economic stimulus program, about the state of our economy, and what we should do next. Four decades later, it is again time to ask Americans to come to the support of our country in a practical sense. This is particularly true for those of us in the Congress. Today, we have not one but two great challenges. First, of course, we need to win the war against terrorism at home and abroad. To this end, we are remarkably united. Most Americans are on the same page in responding to the Nation's needs. But at the same time, we need to reinvigorate our slumping economy, an economy profoundly impacted by the cowardly acts of September 11, and the subsequent uncertainty surrounding bioterrorism events. Here America's response is not quite so clear. To this challenge, we still appear focused on something more than the Nation's real needs. Let me be clear: My views of stimulus are premised on the near certainty that we are in the midst of a serious national recession and I think also, importantly, a global one. Increasingly, we see our neighbors across the globe suffering from much of the same kind of weakness we see in America. This view is shared by most economic analysts and political leaders. Today's report only reinforces that view. For all of us, the primary risks from this point forward are how deep, how much further will this economic erosion go? The signs, statistically and anecdotally, are everywhere that this will be a long and deep slowdown. Therefore, we need an immediate and substantial fiscal response. We need an insurance policy, and we need to put it in place now. I agree with what the President says: It is time for us to go to work. The question is, How should we organize that work? This economic challenge will require the same type of bipartisan cooperation, the same sense of resolve, the same sense of national unity that we have enjoyed in the war effort. In truth, that should not be all that hard. After all, when it comes to designing an economic stimulus package there is broad consensus among economists about the principles we should follow. Chairman Greenspan agrees. Bob Rubin agrees. And the chairs and ranking members of the Senate and House Budget Committees--Democrat and Republican alike--agree. We should follow those straightforward principles and get on with working out the details. This should not be a political argument but an objective pursuit of the most certain actions to reinvigorate our economy. In the short term, we need actions that quickly generate real economic activity, real economic growth. For the long term, we need actions that promote fiscal discipline. It is a simple formula, very simple: Short-term stimulus, long-term discipline. It should not be that hard if we are willing to move beyond ideological debates and special interests. In fact, as I have said, there is a fairly broad consensus among economists about how to achieve these goals. For example, to maintain fiscal discipline, any stimulus package should include items where costs are primarily temporary; otherwise, the incremental benefit of new spending or tax cuts could be more than offset by higher interest rates which undermine housing, business investment, all kinds of activity in the real economy. Permanent tax or spending programs undermine our long-term fiscal health. And we already face a serious erosion in our budget baseline and long-run risks because of the demographic sea change that is coming in the next decade. Another point that would be obvious to most economists is that targeting benefits to those with modest incomes will be more powerful in stimulating the economy than benefits targeted to those with high incomes. This isn't a matter of ideology or politics; it is really just common sense. It is basic economics, particularly in the short run. People with lower incomes have an objectively measurable higher marginal propensity to consume. If we give a dollar to those who are stretched financially, they are likely to spend it. By contrast, if we give a dollar to those with significant wealth and assets, they are likely to save it, particularly in uncertain times. So if we want to generate economic activity now-- the whole point of a stimulus package--the most efficient approach is to target aid to those who need it most. There are several ways to offer tax breaks for those with modest incomes. Frankly, I am skeptical about the policy that seems most popular in Washington--maybe on both sides of the aisle--and that is giving out rebates. Most economists will tell you that one-time rebates do not work that well because people tend to save their checks, unless they are unemployed. This certainly was the case this summer when only 20 cents on the dollar was spent of the first round of rebates. That is not getting much bang for our buck, but it is consistent with past experience. And I think it should guide us today as we put together our stimulus package. Clearly, there are more effective ways to stimulate the economy and benefit those with low and moderate incomes. I think the principle ought to be: How do you get one dollar of benefit flowing from one dollar of tax activity? In my view, a better approach would be to reduce payroll taxes for a short period, perhaps a year or two--what I would call a payroll tax holiday, or a partial holiday. This would target working Americans and promote needed consumption by increasing take-home pay. And we should offset any reductions in trust fund revenues with a commitment to replenish those funds from the general fund once the economy gets back on track and budget surpluses return. Changing a person's income stream over a period of time changes how they think about their spending patterns and what their budgets are about. It tends to lead to greater expenditures than one-time shots. Similarly, we could expand the 10-percent rate bracket to apply to a wider range of incomes. Right now we stop it at $12,000 for a married couple. I think we should move it up to $20,000. This also would increase take-home pay for a broad range of low- and moderate- and middle-income families, and would provide the kind of stimulus that would change how people budget. Senator Bob Graham and I have advocated this change since the first of this year, and I think it is an idea that still should fit in a stimulus package. At a minimum, we could bring forward the full 10-percent bracket that still has some facets yet to be implemented. Another way to stimulate consumption would be to establish a sales tax holiday, as some of my colleagues have proposed. This approach has a lot of merit and could be effective in promoting economic activity-- again: one dollar of expenditure will lead to one dollar of activity-- if it is limited to a short duration, and if we can overcome the significant administrative hurdles and uneven application of sales taxes across the Nation. Certainly, sales taxes weigh most heavily on low- and moderate-income Americans. In fact, I think sales taxes define the idea of regressive taxation. Beyond providing tax cuts for those who have modest incomes, most economists would tell you that to inject money into the economy most rapidly, the best approach--contrary to a lot of political hype--is for Government to spend money directly, as long as we are able to implement such plans quickly. Can we get the shovel in the ground in the short run or are we going to have debates? Are we going to have long-term planning? If we could, we could get the real bang for our buck: one dollar spent, having real stimulus in the economy now. I especially think this is a far more attractive way to stimulate the economy than having additional tax cuts for the wealthy--sort of a trickle-down view. Savings is an admirable process for the long-term objective. It leads to growth in the capacity of the economy. But we have a shortrun need, with a very weak economy today. Programs that will promote savings over some long period of time will not strengthen our economy today. It can really run contrary to what we need to accomplish today-- stimulus. The Government can make, though, investments that can put money into the economy immediately. Unlike a dollar in tax cuts, a dollar of investment, as I said, can yield a full dollar's worth of economic activity now. If those investments are wisely targeted, they can also expand America's long- term capacity and productivity and have a multiplier effect, if you will, through job creation through the exporting and purchases that are necessary to implement the programs. A very straightforward, simple concept is that if we put money into the economy, it will generate jobs and generate activity and lead to growth in the economy. We need to do that. If you look at the productivity growth of America after we implemented our national highway program in the 1950s, we went on for about 20 years and we had the highest productivity rates at any time in America's history other than in the last 5 years. So there is no automatic correlation of Government spending leading to a decline in productivity or growth in the economy. We had one of the healthiest periods in our history, and I think we need to follow that concept in the current environment. These investments can be made to happen quickly. They can be implemented quickly. If we ask our young men and women to stand tall in Afghanistan, if we want to celebrate the heroism of our first responders climbing the stairs in the World Trade Center, we also ought to get it together so that we can move quickly on those investments, those actions that will benefit our Nation now. There are many ways to use Government spending to stimulate the economy. The most important in today's wartime environment is to make investments that increase our Nation's security, particularly our homeland security. We need to make a major commitment to fight bioterrorism by strengthening our public health system, buying vaccines, and investing in laboratory testing and research. We need to beef up security for our Nation's airports, rail systems, and ports. We need to provide substantial new resources to our law enforcement agencies and our firefighters. There has been a bill circulating in Congress for the last 4 years called the FIRE bill--$3.5 billion worth of requests for fire equipment for our Nation's first responders. And we have appropriated a mere $100 million once in that period of time. There are enormous needs for us to follow. In New Jersey, we have literally hundreds of millions of dollars of requests for resources in these public security, public safety, public health arenas. Let me be clear. These are not porkbarrel projects. They meet real needs and serve the public beyond the current economic situation. So we are not only stimulating the economy today, but we are setting up a stronger society for a long period of time to come; and these are investments, just as investments in the private sector, and can have high rates of return. We can have high rates of return in public sector investment. I think we need to do that. I commend the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, and the distinguished assistant majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, for their leadership in putting together a package of investments that ought to be a part of any stimulus program. Frankly, I think it ought to be a bigger part. Their proposal provides for $1.6 billion for local police and firefighters, $1.7 billion for Federal law enforcement, $2.4 billion for airport, mass transit, and Amtrak security, and additional funds for nutrition and other programs. In fact, I personally really do believe we should have gone larger with that program. I might have slightly rearranged it. But this is the direction we should be taking as a nation if we want to make sure we stimulate our economy now and provide for the public safety and security. This initiative will provide that real stimulus, and I hope we all will come together on this program and get out of this dogma of complaining and denigrating the idea that public investment doesn't have real public return. These dollars can be spent now, and they can be spent on very important projects that will serve our Nation. Beyond the types of investments proposed by Senators Byrd and Reid, another effective way to use Government spending to boost the economy would be to expand our system of unemployment insurance. For example, many States now fail to provide benefits for those seeking part-time work, such as working mothers who need to spend part of their days with their children. Today's unemployment report shows that over the last year, those who work part time have lost those opportunities. It has grown to over a million persons, most of whom are women. This discrimination against working moms, by leaving them out of the unemployment system, is both bad social policy and foolish economic policy. We ought to do something about it. Similarly, we should increase the level of unemployment benefits if we want to make sure that those who are temporarily out of the job force have the ability to continue to function. The unemployed are almost certain to spend money we offer them. Again, $1 expended gets $1 of input into the economy. So beefing up their benefits is just good stimulative economic policy. This is where we should be helping out, not focusing on those who have already done well and are well situated in the economy. Unemployment expenditures also have the advantage of when the economy grows, they go away; they are temporary. They meet a need, but when they are no longer necessary because people go back to work, they end. We really should be focusing on making sure that our unemployment compensation system is updated for the 21st century, brings more folks in and is more appropriate for the circumstances of today. It is a real stimulus program. We have supported corporate America through any number of tax and safety net programs. It is time to focus on people. Under current circumstances, this is a classic win-win. Another way to use Government spending to improve the economy is to help the unemployed, or other Americans, afford health care. That is why I support proposals to increase support for those who lose their jobs and who should buy health care through COBRA extension also. It is good health care policy and good economics. It will certainly avoid the runup of expenditures on uninsured at hospitals, charity care that will follow if we don't have these systems in place. After all, when people lose their jobs, they should not be forced to choose between basic needs such as housing, education, health care, and senior support at home. They should confidently be seeking future employment, and this program should be robust, in my mind. I believe strongly that we ought to be offering a 75-percent payment in support of COBRA premiums. Again, this is money spent today that goes into the economy and will be stimulative as we go forward. Beyond tax cuts for those with modest incomes, and direct Government spending--and I see the two leaders of that concept on the floor today, and I want to make sure they know I compliment them on their suggestions--there are tax breaks for businesses that can help, provided that they are well-designed and they produce an immediate corporate response. In particular, I support providing tax credits to encourage businesses to make investments in the short-term. Recently, Bill Gale of the Brookings Institution suggested that we provide the most benefits to those who make such investments in the very short term-- say, by the end of the first quarter of 2002--and then gradually phase out the benefits over the remainder of the year. This is a very simple concept. If you are going to have a sale, you want to encourage people to use it now. I think this makes great sense. It is an encouragement to businesses to speed up investments in the public sector. It would target benefits to many businesses that already have plans on the table. They are just holding them off because of the uncertainty of the environment and the times. I also make clear that this is a one-time benefit and would reduce political pressure to turn the Tax Code into a permanent support program that may be unneeded in the long run. The final approach to economic stimulus I want to mention is the critical need to address the fiscal problems facing our States. There is an article in the paper today that shows across this Nation our States are moving into budget deficits, maybe out of poor economic planning, but the reality is that many of the steps they will be taking can be countervailing to the steps we may take at the Federal level. It does no good if the Federal Government provides significant stimulus and the States move in just the opposite direction; they offset each other. We may very well be moving into one of those situations. Unfortunately, because of the rigid balanced budget requirements, many States are looking at significant spending cuts and/or tax increases. We need to consider ways to prevent this conundrum. I would support establishing targeted revenue sharing to States in need--and I do mean targeted--so that this money is not used for further tax cuts. They would be serving the particular needs that Congress may have mandated in other areas, and we ought to be very clear about it. Ideally, such a system could work both ways: Shifting money to States during times of economic slowdown and shifting money back during periods of economic growth. Having said that, given the need to act quickly, it may be the more practical way of accomplishing this is through the Medicaid match provided to the States. This would use an existing regulatory structure and could be implemented very rapidly where a revenue-sharing program might take longer to be implemented. In any case, we cannot ignore this conflict that may very well negate the efforts we take here and having the States be a drag on our economy just when we need most to lift up the economy. All the proposals I have outlined today would provide real help to our economy, and most economists would agree, I believe, we should structure a program that errs on the side of being aggressive as opposed to wondering whether we are dealing with serious downside risks. We need an insurance program against the kinds of actions that we measure, that were reported today in the unemployment statistics, and we see across the Nation. I believe we ought to make our mistakes by being certain that we have a strong economy, as opposed to being insecure about that. I hope we will take that into consideration, and if there are choices to be made, I believe we ought to do those on the stimulative side now. While I believe we should pursue those stimulative short-term policies, we should take affirmative steps to address fiscal imbalances in the long term--again, the basic formula I talked about: short-term stimulus, long-term discipline. In particular, it is critical that we revisit--and I truly believe we must revisit--the tax cut that was enacted earlier this year. If left fully in place, this legislation will drain significant revenue from the Treasury and, in the long-term context, substantially weaken our financial condition just as the baby boomers are about to retire. I know many of my colleagues believe these tax cuts were affordable when we debated them earlier this year. We can have a debate about whether they were or were not at that point in time, but the times have changed and they have changed dramatically. We now face a substantially weakened economy, dramatically lower productivity in our economy, and huge costs for a long-term war against terrorism. Given these changed conditions, I hope some of my colleagues will reconsider their views on the full tax-cut package and recognize the need to suspend some of the provisions that are set to be implemented in the future. By the way, 65 percent of those cuts come after year 5 because, as most economists would agree, maintaining fiscal discipline in the long term is just as important as stimulating the economy in the shortrun. Unfortunately, while there is broad, if not universal, consensus among economists about the principles that should guide fiscal policy, many in Washington think they know better, and they are pushing proposals that, in my mind, simply make no sense and really do challenge whether we are all working together in an economic sense to strengthen this country the way we are working in our war on terrorism. The House of Representatives and Senate Republicans are promoting a stimulus package that would do very little to immediately stimulate the economy. The House and Senate Republican bills masquerade the stimulus, but they are both little more than an ideological repetition of programs designed to help those who need it least and favor special interests--a giveaway with limited economic benefits. According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the House bill would provide between 80 and 90 percent of its tax cuts to higher income taxpayers and corporations. It is just the opposite of how we get stimulus into the economy today. The bill eliminates the corporate alternative minimum tax, or AMT. AMT is designed to prevent corporations from avoiding taxes entirely through the use of deductions and various other tax benefits. Repealing the AMT will not generate real economic activity. There is no guarantee it will do anything other than change the bottom line of the corporations. Many corporations may well apply some of these savings to reducing debts, mergers, acquisitions, or increasing their bottom line, but there is no guarantee they will invest. That might benefit the shareholders, but it will not stimulate the economy. The House and Senate Republican bills would also reduce capital gains taxes. Reasonable people can and do disagree about the effect of such a reduction on long-term economic growth but, regardless of one's view about the ultimate merits of reducing capital gains taxes, I do not know a single economist who would argue that it is a powerful way to stimulate economic activity in the short term, at least compared with any of the other possible approaches. This same analysis applies to other provisions in the House and Senate Republican bills. It would accelerate a reduction in tax rates for those with higher incomes, just the opposite of where we should be for our long-term economic stability. We need to focus on how we are going to manage our fiscal affairs when these baby boomers start retiring. Accelerating a reduction in tax rates is going to exacerbate a problem we already put in place with this previous tax cut. In any case, regardless of one's view about the merits of cutting taxes for those with higher incomes, it is simply not credible to argue that of all the possible approaches to stimulating the economy, these are the most beneficial, and one cannot argue these are the most powerful. Such a claim is just not credible and does not relate to objective facts. I also emphasize the provisions in the House bill are not temporary measures; they are permanent tax cuts with huge long-term costs, just exactly what the budget chairmen in both Houses and the ranking members argued we should not do, and as such they undermine the fiscal discipline and almost certainly will put pressure on long-term interest rates over some period of time. I have spent most of my life as a business person and as a bond trader, someone who worked in financial markets looking at these kinds of policies as they worked their way through the marketplace. I can assure my colleagues that fiscally irresponsible tax cuts, such as the ones that are on the table in the House of Representatives, will affect investors and will undermine the long-term health of our financial system, if not our economic system broadly. The end result will be higher mortgage rates, less business investment, and a weaker economy. Meanwhile, the House stimulus bill puts very little money into the economy directly. There is no investment in our infrastructure, no investment in our Nation's security, only tax cuts for those who are already doing well-- mostly for corporations and mostly for those that are doing well. To be blunt about it, I think this is wrong-headed economic policy. Perhaps because of my private sector background, I find it especially alarming. Our Nation faces an economic emergency. We need to be addressing it in an objective and legitimate way so we do not turn our backs on a need that is very obvious to everyone and get into political debates. We need to deal with it directly. I think we are fiddling while Rome is burning. We simply cannot afford to continue business as usual. We have to pull things together, minimize differences and focus on what is important to get the job done. Our economy is at stake. We are all in this together. We cannot let the events of September 11 get us off the track of this great Nation, this great economy-- doing those things which were done throughout the 1990s and continued as we started this century. We need to move with a bipartisan, objective package that will lead to real economic growth, and we need to do it now. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Corzine pertaining to the introduction of S. 1602 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I say to my colleague from North Dakota, as always, his analysis is spot on. He is addressing one of the fundamental needs of our Nation to have a responsible stimulus program, one that happens soon, one that has real impact and is not an ideological platform or program, but one that is designed to truly stimulate our economy. The more we hear the Senator from North Dakota articulate this, the better our country will be and the sooner our economy will be moving forward. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

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

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, today I am introducing a bill, the Chemical Security Act of 2001, that will reduce the vulnerability of our communities to releases of hazardous chemicals. In the past, concern about chemical facilities has largely focused on accidental releases. Unfortunately, recent events have shown that the potential for catastrophic accidents is still with us. As recently as September 21, an accident at a chemical plant in France caused 300 tons of nitrates to explode, killing 29, injuring thousands, and damaging 10,000 houses. We need to ensure that we are taking all appropriate measures to prevent such catastrophes from occurring accidentally. But today, in the world of post 9/11, perhaps more importantly, we need to ensure that we do what we can to prevent such catastrophes from being caused intentionally by terrorists. In the wake of the attacks in New York and Washington, it is clear that wee need to look at all of our nation's assets and people as potential terrorist targets. We need to get ahead of the curve as quickly as we can. I believe that one of the places that we need to look first is at our nation's chemical production, processing, transportation and disposal infrastructure. Vulnerability of these sectors to either terrorist attack or the theft of dangerous chemicals can pose a serious threat to public health, safety and the environment. This is not just my opinion, Madam President. The Department of Justice studied this matter last year and concluded that there is a ``real and credible threat'' that terrorists would try to cause an industrial chemical release in the foreseeable future. The Department noted that attacking an existing chemical facility, for example, presents an easier and more attractive alternative for terrorists than constructing a weapon of mass destruction. In addition, the Department concluded that many plants that contain hazardous chemicals would be attractive targets for terrorists because of the plants' proximity to densely populated areas. This is certainly the case in my home state of New Jersey--the most densely populated State in the Nation. Other studies also have shown that our nation's chemical facilities are indeed vulnerable. For example, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry studied over 60 chemical plants in West Virginia, Georgia, and Nevada. The Agency found that security at those plants ranged from fair to very poor. As I noted earlier, beyond the new threat of terrorism is the existing problem of chemical accidents. According to the National Response Center of the United States Coast Guard, which is the sole point of registry for reporting oil and chemical spills, there were 28,822 accidental industrial chemical releases in 1998. Those releases caused 2,193 injuries and 170 deaths. Remarkably, Madam President, despite this risk, the federal government lacks mandatory security standards for any chemical facilities. Even those in densely populated areas. Even those with extremely hazardous chemicals. Now we do require owners and operators of such facilities to prepare risk management plans that analyze the potential off-site consequences of a release of regulated substances. These reports must include plans to prevent an unintended release and to mitigate the effects of such a release, should it occur. However, no federal requirements are in place that require specific steps to prevent releases caused by criminal or terrorist activity. Madam President, the Chemical Security Act of 2001 would fill this gap in current law by requiring common sense steps to address the highest priority threats from accidents and attacks involving hazardous chemicals. To enable the federal government to take immediate action upon enactment to address the most serious risks on a case-by-case basis, the bill provides EPA and the Attorney General the authority to issue administrative orders and secure relief through the courts to abate an imminent and substantial endangerment from a potential accidental or criminal release. The bill directs the EPA Administrator to consult with the Attorney General, states and localities to identify ``high priority'' categories within our chemical production, processing, transportation and disposal infrastructure. In designating these ``high priority'' categories, the Administrator is to consider a set of factors, including the severity of potential harm from a release, proximity to population centers, threats to critical infrastructure and national security, and other factors the Administrator considers appropriate. The bill also directs the Administrator to consider threshold quantities of chemicals in establishing high priority categories. This is to ensure that small businesses like gas stations and photo shops are not swept up in the regulations. Those businesses that are designated as high priorities are subject to two other provisions of the bill designed to reduce the threat of chemical attacks. First, a general duty is placed on any owner or operator of a facility that falls within a high priority category to identify hazards, take measures to prevent a criminal release, and minimize the consequences of any criminal release that occurs. Second, the EPA is directed to develop regulations for the high priority categories that will require them to take adequate actions to prevent, control, and minimize the potential consequences of an accident or attack. The bill includes other provisions to enable the EPA and the Attorney General to carry out and enforce the act, such as the authority to obtain information that may be needed, while providing for protection of trades secrets and national security information. Madam President, the legislation is not overly prescriptive, and this is intentional. I believe that in the wake of September 11, it is self- evident that we need to do a better job safeguarding our communities from terrorism. And I believe that the possibility of chemical attacks is something we need to look at. So the heart of the bill is a requirement that EPA and DOJ work with state and local agencies to ensure that the highest priority threats from chemical facilities are being addressed. But I don't want to tie the hands of the executive branch. I think that they should have wide latitude in determining what types of chemicals and facilities need to implement better security measures. But this latitude should not be misconstrued as a mandate to regulate gas stations, photo shops, and everyone under the sun who uses hazardous chemicals. Rather, the latitude is there to give EPA and DOJ broad enough authority so that they are able to address the most pressing threats, wherever they may be. Madam President, strengthening security at high priority chemical sources is an immediate and necessary step to safeguard our communities. Over the longer, term, however, I believe that our desire to protect our communities and our environment will be best served by reducing the use of hazardous chemicals. That's why this bill includes provisions to require high priority chemical sources to reduce risks where practicable by using inherently safer technology, well-maintained secondary control equipment, robust security measures, and buffer zones. We have seen this type of approach work in New Jersey, where the legislature enacted a law requiring facilities to implement alternate processes that would reduce the risk of a release of extremely hazardous substances. After the enactment of this law, the number of water treatment plants using levels of chlorine at a level considered extremely hazardous decreased from 575 in 1988 to 22 in September of 2001. Chlorine, which can cause a number of problems include burning of the skin and eyes, nosebleeds, chest pain, and death, was replaced by sodium hypochlorite or other much less hazardous chemicals or processes. Although I believe this New Jersey law has afforded my constituents a high level of safety with regard to accidents, the current federal and state security requirements in New Jersey do not address the threat of terrorist attacks. I suspect that this is most if not all of our states, Madam President. That's why it's critical for Congress to act. I am glad to note, Madam President, that the chemical industry has indicated a willingness to engage the federal government on the issue of security. On October 4, 2001, the American Chemistry Council sent a letter to President Bush, requesting that the federal government immediately begin a comprehensive assessment of security at chemical plants. On October 10, a representative of the American Chemistry Council who testified before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water and the Environment reiterated this message, stating that ``Our industry believes it will benefit from a comprehensive assessment conducted by appropriate federal law enforcement, national security and safety experts. While we are taking aggressive steps to make our operations more secure, we recognize that we cannot achieve this objective by ourselves.'' Madam President, I agree with the American Chemistry Council's on this point, and I look forward to working with industry to ensure that the federal government has the tools that it needs to play its proper role. In conclusion, Madam President, reducing the threat of a terrorist attack against a chemical facility, or an accidental release of hazardous substances, is critically important to ensure the safety of all Americans. We should not wait any longer before beginning to address this problem, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CORZINE

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

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by Senators Domenici, Wellstone, and Kennedy. It is an amendment which will ensure that people with mental illnesses are treated equally, fairly, and equitably, on parity with people who have physical illnesses. I do not think there are words that are strong enough to point out the rightness of this in our American health care system. Today, in America, two-thirds of our citizens with mental illness do not have access to mental health treatment, despite the fact that many have health insurance. For far too long, mental health consumers have been discriminated against in the health care system--subjected to discriminatory cost-sharing, limited access to specialties, and other barriers to needed services. In fact, many of them are just flat left out of the system. I have had some personal experience with this in my life. I know it is a very difficult trial even if one is not without resources. That is why I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act, legislation that represents a critical step toward equal coverage for mental health services. This amendment, the one we are debating today, incorporates the text of that legislation. And I hope to be a cosponsor, as well, of the amendment. This amendment builds upon legislation enacted 5 years ago which sought to ensure parity between mental and other types of health care. That law took the first steps toward recognizing that mental illness is a serious yet treatable disease. I served on the board of the NYU Child Study Center which worked for the better part of a decade to diagnose, to learn diagnosis, and to make sure that we had treatment regimens that actually could attack this disease, based on science and with great and positive outcomes. It is because of those experiences and some in my own life that I commend Senators Wellstone and Domenici for their great leadership on this movement. It is a very powerful statement to our country that we care about everyone, and their tireless efforts should truly be commended because they will ensure that Americans with mental illness will have equal access to mental health services. Unfortunately, the law enacted several years ago has now expired. Frankly, everyone would agree that it included some loopholes that allowed health care plans to evade many of its goals. This amendment is designed to restore the law and to close those loopholes. Perhaps most importantly, the amendment would ensure true mental health parity by prohibiting inequitable copayments, deductibles, and inpatient and outpatient visit limits for mental health services. These are real issues for real people who are in these circumstances, not unlike circumstances people might have with their physical health. We know that people would not be tolerant of those kinds of activities. These are commonsense proposals which will make a real difference in people's lives and I hope my colleagues will support them. Earlier this year, many of us worked hard to pass a strong Bipartisan Patient Protection Act that would provide for strong health care protections for all uninsured Americans, the Patients' Bill of Rights. Many of these protections, however, will do nothing for mental health consumers if group health plans are allowed to continue discriminating between mental and other medical and surgical health care coverage. Advances in medical research have made great strides in our ability to treat mental illness. As a nation, we need to make sure that our insurance covers those advances. Without proper coverage, the benefit of this research will be unable to reach those who need it most. As a country, I heard Senator Wellstone say, we lose $300 million in missed days of work, health care costs and criminal justice costs in a given year as a result of untreated mental illness. We simply cannot afford to do that. It is a simple cost/benefit equation that tells us that we need to move forward on this. It is overwhelmingly on the side of making sure that parity is attended to. In attempting to find a treatment, those suffering with mental illness face countless obstacles, as we have discussed over and over. This amendment would reverse those discriminatory practices, ensuring that health insurance coverage is strong and fair. I am pleased that my home State of New Jersey has enacted a mental health parity law, but, frankly, it does not go far enough and flat out excludes children, our most vulnerable, from its coverage. In addition, because of the ERISA preemption, not everyone in New Jersey is covered by our own State law. Therefore, we need a strong Federal law that ensures mental health parity for all Americans. In a few weeks I will be introducing legislation that goes a step further. My bill will address the fragmentation of the delivery system by providing increased support to community mental health services. But this is a step we should take and we should take it now. I am proud of the leadership Senators Domenici, Wellstone, and Kennedy have provided to make sure that our Nation has addressed this issue through the years. It is imperative that we now bring to closure this debate about parity by including this amendment in this appropriations bill.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a man whose undaunted and determined spirit showed this world the best of humanity. On September 11, Todd Beamer took action against the hijackers on United Flight 93 for the noblest cause, so that others might live. Todd's spirit proved stronger than the evil that boarded Flight 93 on that infamous day. His spirit of kindness and generosity, of selflessness and bravery never faltered. Todd embodied that spirit on September 11 and throughout his life. A husband and father, son and brother, friend and volunteer, parishioner and businessman: he played many roles. Our nation will always remember him in the role of hero. We will never know the number of lives spared by the courage of Todd and others aboard that plane, but his fortitude sent a clear message to all those who seek to harm us: We are not afraid. Todd joined with other passengers on that fateful flight in America's first counterstrike against terrorism and set a dignified example for all of us who follow. Our mission is righteous and let there be no doubt, we are all in this together. Todd's light shone through in the darkest hour of this Nation's history. May his honored memory be a constant reminder of America's great courage and resolve.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am going to support this legislation, and I want to commend the leadership--Senators Daschle and Lott--and Senators Leahy and Hatch, for their efforts in developing the bill. Clearly, there is no higher priority than combating terrorism and protecting our national security. At the same time, I do have real concerns about the process by which this legislation has come to the floor, and about the implications of some provisions for fundamental civil liberties. There are several provisions in this legislation that make a real, positive contribution to the fight against terrorism. Other senators have discussed some of the highlights in more depth, so let me just focus on a few. First, this bill includes legislation approved by the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, on which I sit, that will help authorities crack down on money laundering. This is essential if we are to deprive terrorists of resources. The bill will require additional reporting of suspicious transactions, require identification of the foreign owners of certain U.S. accounts, and impose other requirements on financial institutions to give authorities a greater ability to identify and prosecute money launderers. I also note that the bill includes a provision I authored that calls for a study into the possibility of expanding the legislation to include hedge funds and other investment services that also can be used by terrorists to launder money. Beyond the money laundering provisions, I also am pleased that this bill provides additional funding for the victims of terrorism. Coming from New Jersey, where thousands of our residents have been victimized by the tragedy at the World Trade Center, this is especially important to me. In my view, we as a nation have a responsibility to ensure that terrorism victims and their families are not left alone and uncompensated. That is why I am pleased that the bill would replenish the antiterrorism emergency reserve, replace the annual cap on the Crime Victim Fund, authorize private contributions to the fund, and strengthen services for victims in other ways. While this is not all that we should be doing for victims and their families, I appreciate the work of the leaders in focusing on their needs. I also pleased that the bill would triple the number of Border Patrol, Customs Service and immigration inspectors at our northern border. This would significantly enhance security over an area that, until now, has been seriously understaffed. The bill also authorizes $100 million to improve INS and Customs technology and additional equipment for monitoring the U.S.-Canada border. In addition, I want to highlight language in this bill that would establish two new crimes related to bioterrorism, including provisions to prohibit certain people from possessing a listed biological agent or toxin. There are many other things we need to do to prepare for the threat of a biological or chemical attack, and I have introduced related legislation, S. 1508, that would require states to develop coordinated plans, and that would provide additional resources for hospitals and other health care providers. The threat of bioterrorism is real, and I would hope that our leaders will bring related legislation to the Senate floor as soon as possible. While I support the provisions in this bill on money laundering, victim services, border enforcement, and bioterrorism, I do have serious concerns about the way this bill was put together, and about other provisions that raise serious questions about the protection of civil liberties. It is deeply troubling to me that we would be taking up a bill that deals with such sensitive civil liberties matters without comprehensive hearings, and without even consideration by the relevant committee. We are talking about a 243-page bill that was developed behind closed doors by a handful of people operating under enormous time pressure. This is a bill that raises fundamental questions that go to the very essence of our democracy, and our freedoms. It's not something that should be done in haste, with so little opportunity for input from outside experts, the public, and all senators. Perhaps because the legislation was developed so quickly, and in an environment so dominated by great public anxiety about security, there is a real risk that we will make serious mistakes. I am especially concerned about the provisions in this bill that require the detention of immigrants who are not terrorists, who are not criminals, but are merely suspected of future wrongdoing. In fact, these provisions go further than that. Lawful permanent residents who are charged with being deportable on terrorism grounds could be held indefinitely even if an immigration judge determines that the terrorism charges are false. I understand that we need to give the government sufficient authority to protect Americans from those who pose a real threat to public safety. But this provision goes too far. And I hope it can be corrected in conference. Similarly, there are other provisions of this legislation that seem very loosely drafted, and that could, perhaps unintentionally, lead to infringement on important civil liberties. For example, many have raised serious questions about provisions relating to law enforcement surveillance of Internet and telephone use, and about other provisions that give the government extensive new powers to conduct secret searches. These and other provisions do not seem to have received adequate scrutiny. I am hopeful that they can be examined more closely in conference, and any needed improvements can be made before the legislation is sent to the President. I also would urge our conferees to accept a provision, like one included in the House version of this legislation, that would set a time limit on the application of certain provisions that pose the greatest threats to civil liberties. In my view, that's especially important since we have rushed this legislation through the Senate so quickly. As I said, I am hopeful that we can identify and correct any mistakes in conference. But we still seem to be operating on a rush basis, and I suspect that some mistakes are inevitable. Given the stakes involved, I think it would be better to make many of these provisions temporary, and then revisit these issues when we have more time to thoroughly consider all their implications. In the end, while I do have serious concerns about certain aspects of this legislation, I have decided to support the effort to move it to conference. Our nation has just suffered the most horrendous act of terrorism in our history, and we are facing serious threats of other terrorist attacks. A vast, well-organized and well-funded terrorist network has gone to war against our nation. And while we should not overreact, or erode basic freedoms, we do have to defend ourselves. We must give our law enforcement officials the tools they need to find and destroy these terrorist networks. And this legislation should help. But we need to continue to review and improve its provision as we go to conference. And we will need to continue to closely review the implementation of the legislation after it is enacted. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues a great man in the State of New Jersey, Reverend Doctor William D. Watley. Reverend Watley is a man of integrity who is committed to the spiritual, mental, social, and economic well being of his congregation and the residents of the City of Newark. Reverend Watley has dedicated his life to his ministry. As Pastor of the St. James A.M.E. Church in Newark, he ensures that everyone has a voice and gives hope to those who feel they have no hope. Under his leadership, St. James A.M.E. Church has reached out to the community and established numerous programs, including a soup kitchen that feed over 1,000 people per week, a clothing program, and a drug and alcohol abuse program. Reverend Watley is also an outstanding advocate for children and families. His vision was to start a state of the art preparatory school in the heart of Newark, preparing students mentally, physically, and spiritually for the challenges ahead. His dream realized, St. James Prep opens its doors every day stressing academic excellence and social responsibility. Reverend Watley is a true American, one who believes that all people should have access to America's promise. One of his many gifts is the ability to bring people together to work for a common cause. Reverend Watley is an unselfish man whose motivation is not self-gratification. He possesses a higher calling. This week, Reverend Watley celebrates 17 wonderful years of pastoral ministry at the St. James A.M.E. Church in Newark, NJ where over 3,000 people attend services each Sunday, and where I have frequently joined with the congregation in being spiritually uplifted by Reverend Watley's message of hope. Under his expert guidance, St. James A.M.E. Church has experienced enormous growth and is a warm congregation filled with joy and love. Reverend Watley has been a true friend to me. I admire him for his leadership in and outside the walls of his church. He is a role model for all of us. I can boldly say that the State of New Jersey is a better place because of the leadership of Reverend Doctor William D. Watley and I am a better man today because of my friendship with him. It is an honor for me to bring him to your attention.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak with strong support for an amendment that I know my colleague from Delaware, the senior Senator, Joe Biden, will be offering which deals with the issue of rail transportation up and down the east coast--actually across the country, an amendment that provides about $3 billion to enhance the security of our rail transportation network. This happens to be an amendment that I think fits extraordinarily well and is extraordinarily important in providing a comprehensive security package for our transportation network in this country. The tragic events of recent weeks have focused attention on our need to improve the safety and soundness of our transportation network, in particular our airlines. I congratulate the leaders of the Senate, our majority leader, Tom Daschle, and the minority leader, Trent Lott, along with Senators Hollings and McCain, for their outstanding work to bring forward a package that I believe our Nation is asking for, is demanding: that we recognize we need to improve the safety of our aviation system in this country. We need to be a little more forward looking. We need to think outside just the events that have occurred to what could occur and where the next tragedies might very well occur. While we are tightening aviation security, we need to address problems that may very well exist in other parts of our transportation system. Just yesterday we experienced a serious problem in our country's bus network. Fortunately, it was not of the same tragic proportions, but we saw, once again, a criminal taking over a bus and attacking the driver, leading to the death of five innocent passengers. We have a vulnerable transportation system in this country. Unfortunately, our rail system may be the most vulnerable. That is why we need the Biden initiative, hopefully with a number of Senators from across the country supporting it. We need to address this issue before a problem occurs. Talk about proportionality. In fiscal year 2000, Amtrak provided ridership for 22.5 million folks. Out of New York City, there were 8.5 million boardings. It is an enormous contributor to the transportation system in this country. It is an important one. We learned that it is complementary to our transportation system as we saw the shutdown of Reagan National and we saw the aftermath of the events. It is not just passenger traffic. Freight traffic feeds one of the most important ports in our country, the New York-New Jersey port. Up and down the east coast, there is tremendous interconnectivity of our society through rail traffic. This is one of our most vulnerable spots, and I think it needs to be addressed on an emergency basis. I think a lot of my colleagues do, and that is why we are so impassioned about the need to address this now in this time when we are looking at various needs for security. When you ride Amtrak, which a number of Senators did when they visited ground zero a couple of weeks ago, and as a number of us do regularly, you do not have to go through any security checkpoints before boarding, no metal detectors, no x-ray machines to check luggage, and there are very few security officers. Someone can just walk on a train and put a bag in the storage bins. One does not even have to be suicidal to accomplish destruction. Indications are that security on trains is light. Under these circumstances, we have been very fortunate, in my view, to have avoided a major terrorist attack on our Nation's rail system. It is not just a Northeast corridor problem. It is a problem across the country where we have heavy rail traffic. It is time to improve that security now. We need to think ahead to what could be a major disaster, a human tragedy for our country. That is why the Biden initiative, and the initiative of so many of us, is so important. This amendment will provide the resources to substantially improve the security of the Nation's passenger rail system--not just in the Northeast but the Nation's rail transportation system. Funds could be used for a variety of purposes, including hiring more police officers, improving training and security personnel, purchase of security cameras, and the establishment of special emergency response teams that can respond instantly if we have a problem on our rails. It could provide helicopters to check the track coverage to make sure we are not being attacked before an event. There are a number of things we need to do on a commonsense basis to make sure we are more secure in our rail traffic, to make sure our economy continues to roll and provide the freight connections with which Amtrak and rail across our country use to service our economy. We ought to do this now and not wait for a problem to occur. It is also important--and this is absolutely more clear every day-- Mr. President, I encourage you to come to New York, New Jersey, and try to commute across the various forms of transportation under the Hudson River or over it and see the 1\1/2\ to 2 hour lines that are taking place because of the breakdown, obviously, of the path tunnel that went into the World Trade Center. There were 50,000 riders one way each day on that pathway, and now they are looking for other ways to get into the city. With the entry level of the Holland Tunnel now stopped because of security reasons, there is an absolute need for us to understand that these are important security chokepoints, risk points in our transportation network. A lot of these tunnels are extraordinarily dated and, by the way, not just the ones in New York and New Jersey, but Baltimore, Washington, and other places across the country are not up to scale for the 21st century. In fact, some of them are not up to scale for the 20th century. The ones in Baltimore were put in place in the 1870s. The tunnels under the Hudson River were built in the early 1900s when we had the Pennsylvania railroad. They have gone through different ownerships and struggles to stay current. If a terrorist were to attack the ones I know best under the Hudson River, there are two exits in a tunnel that is the better part of 6 or 7 miles long. Lousy ventilation was put in place, as I said, in the early 1900s, and a narrow passageway virtually makes it impossible to evacuate. On an average day there are 100,000 passengers who go through that tunnel. It is not just Amtrak, but it is the New Jersey transit, which is one of the vital links to have a connected economy in the metropolitan New York-New Jersey-Connecticut area. I stress that it is not only New York-New Jersey. We have similar issues in the Baltimore tunnels, and, frankly, they have a tunnel in Washington that runs right next to the Capitol Building. There are enormous risks and inefficiencies that occur here. We have a safety issue for sure. All one has to do is watch grade B movies of days in the West, as we might have seen in South Dakota, where people blew up bridges or blew up tunnels to know it does not take a genius to figure out that these are places where security measures need to be taken and attended to. I hope my friends in the Senate will realize this is not about porkbarrel spending. This is a serious concern for literally millions of folks who are involved in our rail transportation system. Finally, this is a vital economic link for this country. There is an enormous amount of freight traffic up and down the east coast. There is in other parts of the country as well, and our friends need to have protection to make sure those links stay in place. If we are ever going to worry about where the status of our economy is and how we are going to keep it thriving, get it back on the right track, now is the time to be thinking about that. That is why I think we have to make sure we move on these issues with regard to rail transportation at the same time we are talking about aviation. There is the old saying: Fool us once, shame on you; fool us twice, shame on us. Frankly, I think we are in that position. That is why I feel so strongly about support of the initiative that a number of us are taking under the leadership of Senator Biden, and I hope we will move that forward. Economic reasons for sure, but when you want to think about the safety of the people of America, we do not need another September 11 to produce movement on things where we know there are problems. As a matter of fact, the traffic has increased over 40 percent in that Northeast corridor since September 11 because a lot of people believe it is an alternative to air transportation. I hope we will move on this bill, move on it quickly, so we are looking after our citizens in a prospective way, not in a reactive way. For all of these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Biden amendment when it is presented. I hope to come back and speak to this again and make sure people forcefully understand this is a need that has to be addressed now, not after the fact. I appreciate the attention of the Senate, and I hope we will all be attentive to the needs of what I think are important rail safety issues, as well as our aviation safety. I yield the floor.

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 rise today to introduce the Biological and Chemical Attack Preparedness Act, legislation that would help prepare our public health infrastructure for the possibility of a future biological or chemical attack. The attacks of September 11 have focused attention on the threat posed to our entire Nation by terrorists, especially the threat of biological and chemical attacks. My office has received numerous letters and phone calls from constituents alarmed by recent news reports that the Federal Aviation Administration grounded crop dusters. Some speculate that the small propeller planes might be used to deliver chemical or biological weapons over a broad area, threatening the health and well being of the people below. The implications of such an attack are enormous. One analysis from the Centers for Disease Control predicted that a few kilograms of anthrax delivered over a major metropolitan area would kill more people than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. While the US is fortunate to have avoided a biological or chemical attack thus far, the threat of such an attack is very real. In 1995, it was hard to imagine that Japan would be targeted for such an attack. But that year, an apocalyptic cult did just that in a Tokyo subway station. The highly sophisticated cult counted scientists among its adherents and developed a deadly chemical weapon: sarin gas. They employed a crude form of delivery, filling soda cans and lunch boxes with sarin gas and puncturing the improvised containers as they left a rail car. While technical expertise and considerable resources are required, it is clear that a motivated terrorist group can unleash a chemical or biological weapon on a complacent population. The possibility of such an attack seems even greater when one realize that many of the countries considered to be active state sponsors of terrorism by the State Department are also believed to be developing chemical and biological weapons. The events of September 11 have brought our country's vulnerability to an attack with chemical and biological weapons into even greater focus. However, the challenge of maintaining the functionality of key infrastructure in the event of a chemical or biological emergency has been a concern for some time. The well-regarded Hart-Rudman report calls for careful preparation and explains that in a biological attack, ``citizen cooperation with government authorities will depend on public confidence that those authorities can manage the emergency.'' A recent Newsweek poll found that 46 percent of respondents were not convinced that national and local governments are prepared to handle an attack with biological or chemical weapons. Unfortunately, Americans have reason to be skeptical about the extent or which our public health system is prepared for a chemical or biological attack. The overwhelming consensus among public health officials is that our health care infrastructure today is not equipped to address a mass casualty incident involving chemical and biological weapons. The attack in Japan in 1995 was the first time in history when chemical weapons were turned on a civilian population. As such, it is a valuable and instructive case study. The attack itself killed eleven Japanese civilians and injured several hundred, a tragedy by any measure, but with a limited death count. The incident has broader significance for what it shows about the failure of an advanced public health system to respond to a biological or chemical weapon emergency. Specifically, the attack highlighted unfortunate weaknesses in Japan's ability to coordinate a comprehensive public health response. To put it mildly, the subway attack caught Japan's public health system off guard. St. Luke's International Hospital received most victims of the attack, treating over six hundred Japanese patients. Although even before the attack the hospital maintained a high level of emergency preparedness and conducted periodic emergency drills, it was not ready for the tremendous surge of acutely ill patients that overwhelmed the emergency room. The hospital was not prepared to treat victims manifesting the symptoms characteristics of sarin gas poisoning. It was not prepared to guarantee the health and safety of the healthcare workers employed there. And, although terribly overburdened with patients being treated in the chapel and cafeteria, it was unable to release patients to other hospitals, knowing that other hospitals were even less prepared to deal with the unique challenges posed by victims of chemical weapons. Because of the use of chemical weapons, standards already established for mass casualty incidents were found to be inadequate, and the staff was forced to improvise. According to a study conducted by the hospital, more than twenty-percent of the health professionals assisting the victims developed sarin gas poisoning themselves. Healthcare workers helping the sick were put into harm's way. Had the chemical or biological agent been more severe or had the health professionals received a greater dose, the implications of Japan's lack of preparation could have been even more serious. The United States must learn from the nightmare experienced by Japan and shore up our public health infrastructure before it is too late. Unfortunately, despite several programs that have moved us in the right direction, including the historic Frist-Kennedy emerging threats legislation passed in the last Congress that I hope will receive the funding it deserves, the United States' public health system is not much more prepared than Japan's in 1995. A study appearing in the May 2001 issue of the respected American Journal of Public Health reveals a troubling situation. Of the hospitals that responded to a survey, fewer than 20 percent had any plans for biological or chemical weapons incidents. That means only one-fifth of hospitals nationwide had even considered the implications of a chemical or biological attack on delivery of care. And only 6 percent had the minimum recommended physical resources for a hypothetical sarin incident. It is clear, that the U.S. is not prepared. The study outlines that the ``Domestic Preparedness Program . . . has included no systemic efforts to integrate hospitals into response plans, and it has provided only limited funds to acquire resources for state and local responders and none for hospitals.'' It is time to ensure that our public health system is up to the challenges of the new threat environment, including the possibility that chemical weapons or biological agents will be released on the United States. A report published by the American Hospital Association in conjunction with the Office of Emergency Preparedness, found that the fundamental problem is, and I quote, ``there is no general societal support for the preparedness role of the hospital.'' Up until this point, there was no requirement for individual hospitals or departments of health to plan for the possibility of a chemical or biological attack. Nor was there any funding to help them in this important process. In our previous approach to bioterrorism, we have focused on stockpiling medical supplies and creating additional laboratory capacity, but we have ignored the emergency preparedness of our hospitals. The Biological and Chemical Attack Preparedness Act seeks to overcome this failing of our public health system in several important ways. First, it would require States to develop public health disaster plans in consultation with local governments. It is vital that the various state governments rapidly devise and implement plans based on their own specific needs and strengths. The public health disaster plan developed by Nebraska will be very different from the one developed by New Jersey, and for good reason. The public health challenges posed by a rural population are different than those posed by a suburban or urban population. State plans must take into account the distribution and the pre-existing capabilities of hospitals in their states. They must address issues surrounding proximity to care and the financial costs of implementing a system. Simply put, they must devise a mechanism for providing care to all affected state residents in the event of an attack. This being said, as with national security issues generally, there is an important federal role. It is the job of the Department of Health and Human Services to establish broad guidelines and oversee the implementation of the various plans. Just as we need coordination between States, localities, and hospitals, we need coordination with the national health system. To ensure that states comply, Medical funding would be withheld for any state that failed to meet the broad requirements of the legislation. Second, as part of the public health disaster plan, States would be required to designate hospitals so that all state residents affected by a chemical or biological weapons disaster would have access to treatment. Each designated hospital would be required to devise and implement a chemical and biological weapons response that complies with their responsibilities as a component of the State's overall response. Right now, with only 6 percent of hospitals providing a high level of chemical and biological weapons attack readiness, we are far from the goal of ensuring that any person affected by chemical or biological weapons can receive treatment. Hospitals designated as part of the plan must be prepared with equipment, trained personnel, and pharmaceutical products sufficient to meet the anticipated need in the event of chemical or biological attack. I know we are asking a lot of our States and of our hospitals. Certainly, the additional precautions taken to prepare for an unconventional attack will be expensive. To address this real concern, the bill would create a new grant program administered by the Office of Emergency Preparedness of HHS to fund the implementation of biological and chemical attack preparedness strategies by health care providers. Hospitals could use the funds to purchase Class-A suits to protect healthcare professionals, filtration equipment to clean the air, shower units to remove chemical agents, antibiotics and vaccines to treat patients, and, perhaps most importantly, training for the staff to recognize the warning signs of an attack. And, because we are asking for additional preparation on the part of designated hospitals, they will receive preferential treatment in the grant program. Not incidentally, local governments would be eligible for the grants as well, providing a level of local control and oversight that is a vital component of a truly coordinated response. The Biological and Chemical Attack Preparedness Act would help ensure that our national public health system is prepared to orchestrate a skillful, quick and coordinated response to an attack with chemical or biological weapons. The bill would provide the resources necessary to assist hospitals and local governments in getting up to speed. And it would ensure that the various jurisdictions in our public health system are working together towards a single compelling goal: preparing for the devastating implications of a chemical or biological weapons attack. It would be far better to spend the money now than suffer the grim consequences later. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of 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 the Biological and Chemical Attack Preparedness Act, legislation that would help prepare our public health infrastructure for the possibility of a future biological or chemical attack. The attacks of September 11 have focused attention on the threat posed to our entire Nation by terrorists, especially the threat of biological and chemical attacks. My office has received numerous letters and phone calls from constituents alarmed by recent news reports that the Federal Aviation Administration grounded crop dusters. Some speculate that the small propeller planes might be used to deliver chemical or biological weapons over a broad area, threatening the health and well being of the people below. The implications of such an attack are enormous. One analysis from the Centers for Disease Control predicted that a few kilograms of anthrax delivered over a major metropolitan area would kill more people than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. While the US is fortunate to have avoided a biological or chemical attack thus far, the threat of such an attack is very real. In 1995, it was hard to imagine that Japan would be targeted for such an attack. But that year, an apocalyptic cult did just that in a Tokyo subway station. The highly sophisticated cult counted scientists among its adherents and developed a deadly chemical weapon: sarin gas. They employed a crude form of delivery, filling soda cans and lunch boxes with sarin gas and puncturing the improvised containers as they left a rail car. While technical expertise and considerable resources are required, it is clear that a motivated terrorist group can unleash a chemical or biological weapon on a complacent population. The possibility of such an attack seems even greater when one realize that many of the countries considered to be active state sponsors of terrorism by the State Department are also believed to be developing chemical and biological weapons. The events of September 11 have brought our country's vulnerability to an attack with chemical and biological weapons into even greater focus. However, the challenge of maintaining the functionality of key infrastructure in the event of a chemical or biological emergency has been a concern for some time. The well-regarded Hart-Rudman report calls for careful preparation and explains that in a biological attack, ``citizen cooperation with government authorities will depend on public confidence that those authorities can manage the emergency.'' A recent Newsweek poll found that 46 percent of respondents were not convinced that national and local governments are prepared to handle an attack with biological or chemical weapons. Unfortunately, Americans have reason to be skeptical about the extent or which our public health system is prepared for a chemical or biological attack. The overwhelming consensus among public health officials is that our health care infrastructure today is not equipped to address a mass casualty incident involving chemical and biological weapons. The attack in Japan in 1995 was the first time in history when chemical weapons were turned on a civilian population. As such, it is a valuable and instructive case study. The attack itself killed eleven Japanese civilians and injured several hundred, a tragedy by any measure, but with a limited death count. The incident has broader significance for what it shows about the failure of an advanced public health system to respond to a biological or chemical weapon emergency. Specifically, the attack highlighted unfortunate weaknesses in Japan's ability to coordinate a comprehensive public health response. To put it mildly, the subway attack caught Japan's public health system off guard. St. Luke's International Hospital received most victims of the attack, treating over six hundred Japanese patients. Although even before the attack the hospital maintained a high level of emergency preparedness and conducted periodic emergency drills, it was not ready for the tremendous surge of acutely ill patients that overwhelmed the emergency room. The hospital was not prepared to treat victims manifesting the symptoms characteristics of sarin gas poisoning. It was not prepared to guarantee the health and safety of the healthcare workers employed there. And, although terribly overburdened with patients being treated in the chapel and cafeteria, it was unable to release patients to other hospitals, knowing that other hospitals were even less prepared to deal with the unique challenges posed by victims of chemical weapons. Because of the use of chemical weapons, standards already established for mass casualty incidents were found to be inadequate, and the staff was forced to improvise. According to a study conducted by the hospital, more than twenty-percent of the health professionals assisting the victims developed sarin gas poisoning themselves. Healthcare workers helping the sick were put into harm's way. Had the chemical or biological agent been more severe or had the health professionals received a greater dose, the implications of Japan's lack of preparation could have been even more serious. The United States must learn from the nightmare experienced by Japan and shore up our public health infrastructure before it is too late. Unfortunately, despite several programs that have moved us in the right direction, including the historic Frist-Kennedy emerging threats legislation passed in the last Congress that I hope will receive the funding it deserves, the United States' public health system is not much more prepared than Japan's in 1995. A study appearing in the May 2001 issue of the respected American Journal of Public Health reveals a troubling situation. Of the hospitals that responded to a survey, fewer than 20 percent had any plans for biological or chemical weapons incidents. That means only one-fifth of hospitals nationwide had even considered the implications of a chemical or biological attack on delivery of care. And only 6 percent had the minimum recommended physical resources for a hypothetical sarin incident. It is clear, that the U.S. is not prepared. The study outlines that the ``Domestic Preparedness Program . . . has included no systemic efforts to integrate hospitals into response plans, and it has provided only limited funds to acquire resources for state and local responders and none for hospitals.'' It is time to ensure that our public health system is up to the challenges of the new threat environment, including the possibility that chemical weapons or biological agents will be released on the United States. A report published by the American Hospital Association in conjunction with the Office of Emergency Preparedness, found that the fundamental problem is, and I quote, ``there is no general societal support for the preparedness role of the hospital.'' Up until this point, there was no requirement for individual hospitals or departments of health to plan for the possibility of a chemical or biological attack. Nor was there any funding to help them in this important process. In our previous approach to bioterrorism, we have focused on stockpiling medical supplies and creating additional laboratory capacity, but we have ignored the emergency preparedness of our hospitals. The Biological and Chemical Attack Preparedness Act seeks to overcome this failing of our public health system in several important ways. First, it would require States to develop public health disaster plans in consultation with local governments. It is vital that the various state governments rapidly devise and implement plans based on their own specific needs and strengths. The public health disaster plan developed by Nebraska will be very different from the one developed by New Jersey, and for good reason. The public health challenges posed by a rural population are different than those posed by a suburban or urban population. State plans must take into account the distribution and the pre-existing capabilities of hospitals in their states. They must address issues surrounding proximity to care and the financial costs of implementing a system. Simply put, they must devise a mechanism for providing care to all affected state residents in the event of an attack. This being said, as with national security issues generally, there is an important federal role. It is the job of the Department of Health and Human Services to establish broad guidelines and oversee the implementation of the various plans. Just as we need coordination between States, localities, and hospitals, we need coordination with the national health system. To ensure that states comply, Medical funding would be withheld for any state that failed to meet the broad requirements of the legislation. Second, as part of the public health disaster plan, States would be required to designate hospitals so that all state residents affected by a chemical or biological weapons disaster would have access to treatment. Each designated hospital would be required to devise and implement a chemical and biological weapons response that complies with their responsibilities as a component of the State's overall response. Right now, with only 6 percent of hospitals providing a high level of chemical and biological weapons attack readiness, we are far from the goal of ensuring that any person affected by chemical or biological weapons can receive treatment. Hospitals designated as part of the plan must be prepared with equipment, trained personnel, and pharmaceutical products sufficient to meet the anticipated need in the event of chemical or biological attack. I know we are asking a lot of our States and of our hospitals. Certainly, the additional precautions taken to prepare for an unconventional attack will be expensive. To address this real concern, the bill would create a new grant program administered by the Office of Emergency Preparedness of HHS to fund the implementation of biological and chemical attack preparedness strategies by health care providers. Hospitals could use the funds to purchase Class-A suits to protect healthcare professionals, filtration equipment to clean the air, shower units to remove chemical agents, antibiotics and vaccines to treat patients, and, perhaps most importantly, training for the staff to recognize the warning signs of an attack. And, because we are asking for additional preparation on the part of designated hospitals, they will receive preferential treatment in the grant program. Not incidentally, local governments would be eligible for the grants as well, providing a level of local control and oversight that is a vital component of a truly coordinated response. The Biological and Chemical Attack Preparedness Act would help ensure that our national public health system is prepared to orchestrate a skillful, quick and coordinated response to an attack with chemical or biological weapons. The bill would provide the resources necessary to assist hospitals and local governments in getting up to speed. And it would ensure that the various jurisdictions in our public health system are working together towards a single compelling goal: preparing for the devastating implications of a chemical or biological weapons attack. It would be far better to spend the money now than suffer the grim consequences later. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, it is with deep pride and a certain humility that I rise today to pay tribute to the women and men of New Jersey who in the midst of very personal loss and deep sadness, responded immediately to the rescue and recovery efforts that followed the despicable attack on the World Trade Center. In the face of risk and danger, courageous New Jerseyans stepped forward and brought a powerful message to the innocent victims and their desperate families: ``You are not alone.'' New Jersey firefighters, police, EMTs, technicians, nurses, doctors, construction workers and welders, worked tirelessly through day and night. New Jersey residents came out in force to donate blood, supplies, and resources. The open doors of New Jersey schools, places of worship, and homes welcomed the weary, the hungry, and the wounded. All of this was done in the spirit of kindness and generosity, of selflessness and bravery that makes our nation the strongest in the world. That spirit motivated the undaunted and determined passengers of United Flight 93, many of whom were New Jerseyans, to take action against hijackers for the noblest cause, so others might live. Now that same spirit carries through communities around New Jersey where families and friends, neighbors and strangers alike, gather to console one another in this time of grief and anguish. Let there be no doubt, we are all in this together. To the men and women of New Jersey who have reached out to others in this time of unspeakable devastation, may the peace that you share be an example for all the world. Your heroic deeds will never be forgotten.