Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Torricelli, I am introducing legislation, the Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism, COAST, Anti-Drilling Act, to ban oil and gas drilling off the Mid-Atlantic and Northern Atlantic coast. The people of New Jersey, and other residents of States along the Atlantic Coast, do not want oil or gas rigs anywhere near their treasured beaches and fishing grounds. Such drilling poses serious threats not to our environment, but to our economy, which depends heavily on tourism along our shore. Until recently, there was no reason to suspect that drilling was even a remote possibility. Since 1982, a statutory moratorium on leasing activities in most Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, areas has been included annually in Interior Appropriations acts. In addition, President George H.W. Bush declared a leasing moratorium on many OCS areas on June 26, 1990 under section 12 of the OCS Lands Act. On June 12, 1998, President Clinton used the same authority to issue a memorandum to the Secretary of the Interior that extended the moratorium through 2012 and included additional OCS areas. Given the long-standing consensus against drilling in these areas, I was deeply disturbed to discover that on May 31, 2001, the Minerals Management Service released a request for proposals, RFP, to conduct a study of the environmental impacts of drilling in the Mid- and North- Atlantic. The RFP noted that ``there are areas with some reservoir potential, for example off the coast of New Jersey.'' In addition, the RFP explained that the study would be conducted ``in anticipation of managing the exploitation of potential and proven reserves.'' I believe that the RFP was not only inappropriate, but probably illegal, and I was pleased when it was rescinded yesterday. However, I remain concerned about the Administration's policy with respect to offshore drilling. Although some Administration officials have indicated that they support the existing moratoria on offshore drilling, the President's energy plan and this recent proposed study call the Administration's position into question. I have asked the President to clarify his position on this issue, and I hope that he will use his authority to endorse the existing moratoria. In my view, however, it is time for Congress to act to resolve this question once and for all. That is why I am introducing the COAST Anti- Drilling Act. This bill would permanently ban drilling for oil, gas and other minerals in the Mid- and North-Atlantic. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important legislation. Doing so would ensure that the people of New Jersey and neighboring States that they need not fear the specter of oil rigs off their beaches. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Torricelli, I am introducing legislation, the Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism, COAST, Anti-Drilling Act, to ban oil and gas drilling off the Mid-Atlantic and Northern Atlantic coast. The people of New Jersey, and other residents of States along the Atlantic Coast, do not want oil or gas rigs anywhere near their treasured beaches and fishing grounds. Such drilling poses serious threats not to our environment, but to our economy, which depends heavily on tourism along our shore. Until recently, there was no reason to suspect that drilling was even a remote possibility. Since 1982, a statutory moratorium on leasing activities in most Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, areas has been included annually in Interior Appropriations acts. In addition, President George H.W. Bush declared a leasing moratorium on many OCS areas on June 26, 1990 under section 12 of the OCS Lands Act. On June 12, 1998, President Clinton used the same authority to issue a memorandum to the Secretary of the Interior that extended the moratorium through 2012 and included additional OCS areas. Given the long-standing consensus against drilling in these areas, I was deeply disturbed to discover that on May 31, 2001, the Minerals Management Service released a request for proposals, RFP, to conduct a study of the environmental impacts of drilling in the Mid- and North- Atlantic. The RFP noted that ``there are areas with some reservoir potential, for example off the coast of New Jersey.'' In addition, the RFP explained that the study would be conducted ``in anticipation of managing the exploitation of potential and proven reserves.'' I believe that the RFP was not only inappropriate, but probably illegal, and I was pleased when it was rescinded yesterday. However, I remain concerned about the Administration's policy with respect to offshore drilling. Although some Administration officials have indicated that they support the existing moratoria on offshore drilling, the President's energy plan and this recent proposed study call the Administration's position into question. I have asked the President to clarify his position on this issue, and I hope that he will use his authority to endorse the existing moratoria. In my view, however, it is time for Congress to act to resolve this question once and for all. That is why I am introducing the COAST Anti- Drilling Act. This bill would permanently ban drilling for oil, gas and other minerals in the Mid- and North-Atlantic. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important legislation. Doing so would ensure that the people of New Jersey and neighboring States that they need not fear the specter of oil rigs off their beaches. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

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

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am honored to rise today, particularly with the Presiding Officer who is in the Chair, to support a motion to proceed to S. 1052, the Bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights. I commend Senators McCain, Edwards, and Kennedy for the tremendous effort they put in to develop a strong, enforceable, and bipartisan bill with the support of over 500 consumer provider and health care groups, as the Presiding Officer just demonstrated to us with the A's. More importantly, I commend the American people because the American people know what makes common sense with regard to the need to provide everyone quality health care that puts the relationship between the doctor, the nurse, and the patient first. Over the last 30 years, managed care organizations have come to dominate our health care system. These organizations both pay for and make decisions about medical care, often preempting the fundamental relationship in the health care equation between doctor and patient. However, unlike doctors, nurses, or almost anybody in our society, HMOs, managed care institutions, are not held accountable for their medical decisions and treatment decisions. We just spent 8 weeks in the Senate talking about education and accountability. We need to talk about accountability within the context of the patient-doctor relationship, and that is what this debate will be all about if we can ever get to the bill. Unfortunately, in the case of some HMOs, they have sometimes skimped on care that undermines the health of our patients, the health of the American people for the preemption and benefit of the bottom line, and, in fact, it is all about protecting the bottom line. That is why this legislation is absolutely critical. The McCain- Edwards-Kennedy bill will ensure at long last that managed care companies are held accountable for their actions. Just as in all of industry--every doctor and, frankly, every individual in America-- everyone is held accountable. We cannot afford to wait any longer before passing legislation to curb insurance company, managed care abuses. According to physician reports, every single day we delay passage of this legislation, 14,000 doctors see patients whose health has seriously declined because an insurance plan refused to provide coverage for a prescription drug; 10,000 physicians see patients whose health has seriously declined because an insurance plan did not approve a diagnostic test or procedure; 7,000 physicians see patients whose health has seriously declined because an insurance plan did not approve a referral to a medical specialist; 6,000 physicians see patients whose health has seriously declined because an insurance plan did not approve an overnight hospital stay. Think about that. That is 35,000 folks a day who are left with diminished and substandard care because we do not have the right relationship between doctors and patients in place with the interference of bureaucrats at insurance companies and HMOs. This legislation has all the key components that Americans have demanded to respond to these problems. It contains strong, comprehensive patient protections. It creates a uniform floor of protections for all Americans with private health insurance, regardless of whether something has been done in the States. It provides a right to a speedy and genuinely independent external review process when care is denied. It is not guaranteeing a lawsuit, it is guaranteeing a speedy independent external review. Finally, it provides consumers with the ability to hold managed care plans accountable when plan decisions to withhold or limit care result in injury or death, harm and pain to the patient. I wish to speak briefly about a few of the most important provisions in this bill, but this is all about common sense. First, this bill protects all Americans in all health plans. If we are serious about providing consumers with protections, we must be serious about covering all Americans. The McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill does just that. No person is left without rights because they live in a State with weaker protections. Second, the legislation ensures a swift, internal review process is followed and a fair and independent external appeals process if it is necessary. This will guarantee that health care providers, not health plans, will control basic medical decisions. It does not guarantee a lawsuit; it provides a process for a legitimate review of a patient's claims. Third, the legislation guarantees access to necessary care. Patients should not have to fight their health plan at the same time they are fighting an illness. That is why the legislation guarantees access to necessary specialists, even if it means going out of a plan's provider network. It seems pretty simple we ought to get to the right doctor for the disease that is diagnosed. Chronically ill patients will receive the speciality care they need with this bill. Patients will have access to an emergency room, any emergency room, when and where they need it. Women will have easy access to OB/GYN services without unnecessary barriers. Children will have direct access to pediatricians and, most importantly, pediatric specialists. Patients can participate in potentially lifesaving clinical trials. This is a critical protection for patients with Alzheimer's, cancers, or other diseases for which there are no sure cures. Fourth, the legislation protects the crucial provider-patient relationship--doctor-patient, nurse-patient. It contains antigag rule protections ensuring health plans cannot prevent doctors and nurses from discussing all treatment options with their patients. It sounds like common sense, and it limits improper incentive arrangements by the insurance industry. Finally, this legislation makes sure that the rights we seek to guarantee are enforceable. Yes, this legislation allows individuals harmed by an HMO to sue their HMO. This is a critical provision because, let's face it, a right without a remedy is no right at all. Again, that fundamental accountability issue we have been talking about, whether it is with regard to education, we also ought to be talking about it with health care. No matter what health care treatment protections are passed into law, unless patients can enforce their rights, the HMO is free to ignore those requests. Health insurers must understand that unless they deliver high-quality health care that protects the rights of patients, they can and will be held accountable. I wish to address for a moment the argument that this legislation will lead to more uninsured Americans. There is perhaps no issue about which I am more passionate than the uninsured, about 44 million in America. I believe health care is a basic right, and neither the Government nor the private sector is doing enough to secure that right for everyone. I hope one day we will have that debate. But let me be clear; if I believed this bill would increase the number of uninsured--I believe a number of Senators believe the same--we would not support this. Let me also point out the hundreds of health care and consumer groups that support this legislation are also the very groups that are working the hardest to expand coverage for the uninsured. They also would not support this legislation if they believed it would result in more uninsured. That issue is nothing but a diversion, a red herring, a scare tactic, because the CBO itself has said this legislation would only increase premiums by 4.2 percent over a 10-year period. This legislation will not result in higher numbers of uninsured. It will result in better quality for patients. I heard Senator Kennedy today saying, whether it was about family medical leave or minimum wage or a whole series of things, people are just trying to scare folks into believing that taking action that is going to help the people of America is somehow going to result in very negative results that ought to keep us from doing this and moving forward. It is just a bad argument. They are scare tactics at their worst. In sum, I believe health decisions should be made based on what is best for the patient. We need to assure the American people that the practice of medicine is in the hands of the doctors. We trust them with our lives. We should trust them to decide what care we need. I urge my colleagues to agree to take up the bipartisan McCain-Edwards-Kennedy Patients' Bill of Rights. I see one of the authors now. I congratulate him and the other sponsors for moving an important part of what needs to be done to make America's health care more secure for everyone.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 355, a bill requiring the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the contributions to our nation of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Commemorative Coin Act of 2001, S. 355, was introduced by Senator Mary Landrieu on February 15. As we approach the 40th anniversary of Dr. king's ``I have a dream'' speech, we remember that Dr. King was a man larger than life who had an extraordinary impact not only on the civil rights movement, but also on the history of America. He was living proof that non-violence can change the world. In the last session of Congress, this measure was introduced in both the House and Senate, but no action was taken on the floor. My constituents, however, concerned themselves with the issues and the Borough Council of Fair Lawn, NJ, passed Resolution 315-2000 urging that the measure be adopted and the commemorative coins be authorized for the year 2003. David L. Ganz, the Mayor of the Borough of Fair Lawn is a former member of the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee, a long- time advocate of using commemorative coins properly, and an avid coin collector. In an article appearing in COINage magazine, a monthly trade publication, in the July 2001 issue, Mr. Ganz argues that ``the accomplishments of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. transcend the work of presidents and academicians and cut across cultural lines. His life's work ultimately affected the fabric of American society . . . worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1904 . . . [and leading to] social justice for a whole class of citizens and a generation of Americans.'' This is a remarkable opportunity to honor a remarkable man, and I urge the Banking Committee, and ultimately this body, to promptly enact this legislation into law and authorize this distinctive tribute to a distinctive American.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the Merck Institute of Aging & Health and its executive director, Dr. Patricia Barry, on its public introduction today. As the baby boom becomes the senior boom, the number of Americans over 65 will double within the next 30 years to 70 million. This significant increase in the life span means that we must find ways to increase the health span, or America will grow sicker as it grows older. Located in Washington, DC, the Merck Institute of Aging & Health is a new nonprofit organization established to help increase the health span by promoting active aging. Funded by the respected Merck Company Foundation of White House Station, NJ, the new institute is specifically dedicated to improving the health, independence, and quality of life of older people around the world. It will fulfill this mission by communicating vital health information, educating the public and health professionals about healthy aging, and encouraging research in the aging field. As more individuals start to enjoy longer lives, they also need to enjoy better lives. They need to learn how to age without losing independence, and they need to see the promise of active aging transformed into reality. This is both the challenge and charge of the new institute, and I have every confidence that its director and staff will meet that challenge and help the public, professionals, and policymakers face the critical issue of active aging in the 21st century. In the process, I know that this institute will help prove, in the words of Dr. Barry, that ``Aging should not be seen as an obstacle, but as an opportunity.'' Again, I congratulate the Merck Institute of Aging & Health on its public introduction, and I wish it continued success throughout the coming years.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I warmly endorse the comments of the senior Senator from Connecticut. As always, he is spot on with his analysis, and his point with regard to the Gregg amendment, which I strongly oppose, is exactly where I think we should come out. Although I commend the author and supporters of the amendment for their concern about low-performing schools, I believe this amendment is misguided because it would undermine the public education system that is the very tie that binds our society. I encourage the authors to show their passion to improve our poor- performing public schools by fully resourcing those proven initiatives that will change failed schools. Mr. President, 90 percent of our children attend public schools. As our Nation becomes increasingly diverse--my State, in particular, is blessed with incredible diversity--our public schools continue their fundamental purpose of uniting Americans while providing every child with the opportunity to succeed. That must be our mission--our passion. The availability of quality public education for all is defining to America's democracy. If we adopt this vouchers measure, we would drain limited resources from our public schools and send a signal that we are prepared to erode the historical purpose and position of public education in America. Much of the debate around vouchers is about choice. But the choice inherent in any vouchers proposal is false, meaningless choice. Contrary to the rhetoric, vouchers would not ensure parental choice, because private schools can and do reject applicants for private reasons--including disability or language skills. In fact, the only real choice vouchers will create is in the hands of the private schools. That means that a child with limited English proficiency--let's keep in mind that there are over 4.1 million of such children in our schools--would not have a meaningful choice. That means that a child with learning disabilities wouldn't really have a meaningful choice. These children with unique educational needs--who most need the promise of a quality education--would often be left behind in schools we deem to be failing. Vouchers are also a false choice because the amount being offered is too little to be meaningful. How many families, making $32,000 or less, actually have the additional funds to allow them to take advantage of vouchers. What is the practical reality here? In addition to vouchers setting up a false choice, vouchers provide no accountability. Now, I have been listening to much of the debate on this education bill, and one of the main themes has been about accountability. I support accountability. As a former businessman, I appreciate the importance of monitoring the success or failure of our investments. But this voucher proposal provides no accountability. Under the proposal, we would divert critical public resources without any public oversight. This proposal would thus undermine the progress we are making towards increased accountability. The incredible fact in this debate is that the evidence does not show that vouchers work. Experiments have shown that vouchers do not help improve student achievement. A University of Wisconsin-Madison professor found that there were no achievement differences between voucher student and comparable Milwaukee public school students. Princeton University Professor Cecilia Rouse found that students in a special Milwaukee program that used extra resources to reduce class sizes outperformed both regular public school students as well as voucher students in both reading and math. The evidence also shows that vouchers do not reach the students most in need. Finally, they do nothing to help the public schools that are left behind to educate the vast majority of our children. We are unfortunately operating in a time of limited resources. More limited now that we have made the choices we've taken on the recent tax cut. We are underfunding title I, the critical engine of reform for our low-income school districts. Two-thirds of the eligible kids are left out. Similarly, we have been shirking the Federal Government's responsibility in fully funding IDEA, education for the disabled. Just when we should be putting increased resources in our public schools--so that our reform efforts can be meaningful, and so that we can ensure that the children who need our help the most, get our help-- we should not be siphoning critical funds to fund vouchers. If we want to reform schools, we need to provide those schools with real resources, not deprive them. We have heard a lot of rhetoric lately about the need to ensure that no child is left behind, and about the need for school reform. But we must put our money where our mouth is, because reform without resources is a charade. Even though supporters will argue that this proposal would not take away funding from the title I program, any money spent on vouchers is money that could and should be used to bolster our public schools. We know what works. A good teacher in every class is the most important single factor in the quality of a child's education. We can do everything else right, but if we don't have good teachers, the educational system just won't work. That's why it is critically important that we provide real resources to attract and retain quality teachers, and to help teachers develop their skills. We also know that smaller class sizes work. It's abundantly clear that smaller classes are better for children, and we've started to make progress in recent years. But we have not gone far enough. In my view, that's a serious mistake. We also know that our children must go to school in safe modern school buildings, and that's why I have been fighting to modernize our schools. In sum, there is no evidence that vouchers work. They do not provide a meaningful choice to families who struggle to ensure that their children receive a quality education. And by diverting funds we undermine our other reform efforts and put at risk those who remain in our public system. We should not give up on our public schools. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. CORZINE. I rise in strong support of the amendment that develops best practices for teaching technology education, the integration. This amendment ensures that our kids benefit from new technologies that are rapidly changing the face of our country. Before I discuss the amendment, I extend my compliments to the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, for her outstanding leadership on this issue. Given her State and her own personal background, it is fitting she has taken the lead in this area. I think her expertise and her commitment to the application of technology in our society is a terrific addition to the Senate. I am particularly pleased the Senator from Washington cited Union City, NJ, as one of those places that has effectively integrated computer technology into the educational system, making a real difference in the lives of children in their learning experience. We heard the statistics. It is clear the Internet and the proliferation of computers have created a revolutionary change in our society. Yet when it comes to using the Internet to improve our schools, we have only scratched the surface. As the Senator suggested, we have done a lot regarding investing in hardware, but not a lot on the software, particularly among the teachers that have to bring the technology to our students. We need to move beyond word processing and e-mails and get to the real heart and soul of learning in a fundamental way and make it more interesting, more effective. The same kind of productivity gains we have had in our economy we can have in education. To do that we need to do a better job of training teachers and showing them how computers can change, not just what we teach but how we teach, integrating the technology and educational experience together. A few years ago, it would have been difficult for a fifth grader in a New Jersey school to share their experiences with a similar class in Australia or anywhere else in the world. Now they can. A few years ago it would have been difficult for students to chat real time with real experts around the country about questions discussed in class. Now they can. A few years ago it would have been unrealistic for a teacher to involve students with interactive software that uses exciting games to teach math and science. Now they can. However, they cannot do any of these things if teachers do not have the ability or the background to deliver those experiences. Today, many classrooms are equipped with computers, but their teachers are not equipped to integrate the computers into a learning experience. That is why this amendment is vital. Truly, it will make a difference. It will require States and local education officials to develop strategies for improving teacher training and curriculum development in order to assure that schools take full advantage of the Internet and other new technologies. There is tremendous potential and this amendment will make that possible. Again, I thank Senator Cantwell for her leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment, bringing the advances we have had in the rest of our society to our classrooms.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I could not agree more with my distinguished Senate colleague and friend from Minnesota. I rise in support of his amendment which ensures we not only test our kids, but we actually provide promised resources we have talked about over and over in this body to improve educational quality. He believes and I believe, and I think common sense argues, that unfunded mandates that are put upon our local school districts only aggravate disparities we already have about how our children are educated. We ought to make sure we start putting money where we are putting mandates on our communities. Before I discuss the amendment, let me thank Senator Wellstone for his leadership on a whole host of these educational matters. It is terrific how he has spoken out about leaving no child behind. I am very grateful for his dedication to quality education for all of our kids, and I am sure the country benefits. I agree we need to build more accountability into the system. Students, teachers, and administrators need to be held accountable for results. I come from the business world. We look at bottom lines. We ought to get to stronger and stronger results. Congress should be held accountable, too, and that is the purpose of this amendment. Accountability measures focused only on our kids, schools, teachers, and administrators just do not seem enough to assure that our children get an adequate education. As the Senator from Minnesota has spoken about several times today, 79 Senators supported an amendment to increase the authorization for the title I provisions in this bill to move that up to $24 billion-plus in the year 2005. Seventy-nine Senators voted in support of that. With that vote, we made a promise to millions of children who live in disadvantaged areas that those promises of better schools and greater opportunities would be real. We need to make sure that was not an empty promise, political rhetoric, or cynical posturing. We have been underfunding the title I program for years. Never in the entire history of the program, which began in 1965, has Congress fully funded the program. Then we hear we are not getting the results we are supposed to be getting when we do not put the resources that actually deliver the goods on preschool or afterschool programs or reading programs and the other issues about which people are talking. We complain but we do not put the resource there to make sure we can deliver in those places where they don't have the resources to provide the educational opportunities other places in the country have. We have seen the educational dollar that the Federal Government provides for education shrink from 12 cents to 7 cents, with some talk about 6 cents. We shrink that and we wonder why we get disparate results. Title I is a critical program if we are to ensure all children in our society are provided with meaningful educational and economic opportunity. Title I is the engine of change for low-income school districts across this country. The program is used to train teachers, to provide new technology for students, to support literacy and afterschool programs, and to promote preschool programs, a whole host of items that will make a difference and to make sure every child has a comparable education from one community to the next. Together, these initiatives have proven effective where they have been applied, raising test scores and improving educational achievement. But we have to have the resources. It has been underfunded for far too long and too many kids have been left behind. The engine of reform needs fuel. Let me be clear. I support testing. I think it is a good idea. I am not sure much of what we are putting in place is a good idea, but I support testing. By itself, testing is not enough. I am sure it gets our priorities right. What good does it do to test kids if we do not provide the tools needed to respond to bad test results and, more importantly, even prepare for the tests. It would be similar to diagnosing an illness and refusing to prescribe the drugs needed to cure it. That does not make sense. This amendment stands simply for truth in legislation. It is easy for Congress to authorize funding for programs. It makes political campaigning a lot easier to go out and say: I stood in there and I stood for authorizing title I funds for all our kids. Many people in the country hear we have done that and they think we have fully funded it. As my colleagues know, an authorization is little more than a promise, and all too often it is an empty promise. In my view, when it comes to providing quality education for all of our children, we need to make sure the promise is real. We need to put the money where the authorizing words state they should be. We must provide our schools with the resources to help students achieve their full potential. We must address the glaring disparity in resources that undermines America's sense of fairness and equal opportunity. We want to hold every child to high standards. We must provide every child with the opportunity to meet them. We have to hold ourselves to high standards. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota. Let's test our kids but get real and provide the resources we have been promising to ensure quality education for all.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am honored that the President pro tempore is in the chair. It is great to see him there. I also am pleased that I have this opportunity to stand in support of the Dodd-Biden amendment, which is designed to make sure that every child in America has access and the equal promise of a quality education. The Dodd-Biden amendment on school service comparability is a terrific initiative. This amendment is structured so all children have access to comparable quality education--not identical, but quality comparable education. It is a goal that all of us surely have to believe is as important as equal test results. Equal opportunity is just as important as equal outcomes as measured by standardized tests. This amendment is more than common sense, too. It actually fulfills the promise that we as a nation make to all of our children--that we will provide every child in America with access to a quality education and the American promise that flows from that, regardless of race, the family's income, or where they live. Title I kids should have access to every opportunity every other child in America has. It should not be a function of where they are born or where they live. As my colleagues have already described, this amendment would encourage States to ensure that all students receive a comparable education in several critical areas: class size, teacher qualifications, curriculum, access to technology, and school safety. These are just commonsense areas where we ought to be providing for every child a similar educational experience. They allow for the full potential of all of our children. Every child has a right to a qualified teacher. All of us believe that. Every child has a right to a challenging curriculum. Every child has a right to go to school in a safe and quality school building. In my State of New Jersey, there are many schools 100 years old, with an average age of 57 years. In our urban areas, it is a serious problem. A ZIP Code should not determine the quality of a child's education. I hope this is a basic premise on which we can all agree. Unfortunately, in my State and around the country ZIP Codes often do determine the quality of education a child receives. Children in one town where there is a serious tax base for them to operate under receive a high-quality education. In other towns, adjacent to those very same communities, they receive a dramatically lower quality education because they don't have the resources to provide for those quality teachers, the quality schools, the kinds of curricula that will make a difference. The reality is that property taxes in this country often determine who gets a quality education and the resources available to provide those services. This amendment strikes at the heart of that to try to bring equality, comparability, not identical results and services, but comparable ones. Inequality by geography, race, and class is close to a national disgrace. If you see the difference from one place to another in schools across the country, it is hard to understand how we can tolerate it. It robs children of equal access to the American promise. Unless we address this problem, as the Dodd amendment would begin to do, that inequality in our educational system will grow wider and wider through time, perpetuating a sense of unfairness in our society. We need to address it up front. This amendment does that. Title I was designed to be the engine of change for low-income school districts. This amendment would add fuel to that engine, requiring States to ensure that all students receive a comparable education-- again, not identical, comparable--regardless of where they live or their family's income, race, or nationality. In my State of New Jersey, we have been struggling with this promise for the better part of 30 years, providing equal access to a quality education. Thirty years ago we had a case before our State supreme court, Abbott v. Burke, that found the education offered to urban students to be ``tragically inadequate'' and ``severely inferior.'' This was a landmark case. The court ordered the most comprehensive set of educational rights for urban schoolchildren in the Nation. In New Jersey, we are proud of this ruling. Under Abbott, urban students have a right to school funding at spending levels of successful suburban school districts what they call ``parity funding''--this is what the Dodd-Biden amendment is working towards; educationally adequate school facilities; and intensive preschool and other supplemental programs to wipe out the disadvantages. These are the basic educational services that every child should expect to have access to and that every child needs to succeed in our society. Fortunately, Abbott has been a success. It is not perfect. We haven't made all of those transitions to comparable outcomes, but New Jersey has made real progress in equalizing the education provided to students in our communities. The Federal Government must also play an active role in ensuring that the children who need the most, get the most. Title I has gone a long way. What this amendment is doing is asking States on a national basis to do what New Jersey has already done. A substantial portion of the debate on this education bill has been about accountability. We demand accountability from students, teachers, schools, everybody under the sun, but we also need to demand accountability from the States with regard to providing comparable funding, comparable services for our kids so they can get to those equal outcomes. For example, starting in third grade, we will begin testing all students, with drastic measures for failing scores. We require equal outcomes on test scores, but we will not provide equal resources. I find that hard to believe. That is not consistent with America's sense of fairness. We demand accountability of students, teachers, and schools, but we do not address the glaring disparity built into the system of how we provide resources to those schools. I support high standards. I support accountability, but accountability measures alone are not sufficient to provide an adequate education. We must ensure that every school and every child has the level of resources necessary for a rigorous education and necessary to meet those standards. It is in this light that I strongly support the Dodd-Biden amendment, because it goes right at that equality of opportunity, through resources, that is critical to ensuring equality of outcomes. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise on this special day to talk about an issue that I think defines our health as a society--the issue of racial profiling. I thank my colleagues, Senator Feingold and Senator Clinton--particularly Senator Feingold, for his tremendous leadership on this issue over several Congresses. During the last session he held a number of hearings on racial profiling, and he and his staff have worked tirelessly to elevate the importance of this issue on to the national agenda as a matter of civil rights. I also would be remiss if I didn't mention Congressman Conyers, who has taken an equally valiant and effective role in presenting this issue on the floor of the House. It is one about which I think we all feel passionately. The practice of racial profiling is the antithesis of America's belief in fairness and equal protection under the law. Stopping people on our highways, our streets, and at our borders because of the color of their skin tears at the very fabric of what it is to be an American. We are a nation of laws, and everyone should receive equal protection under the law. Our Constitution tolerates nothing less. We should demand nothing less. There is no equal protection, there is no equal justice, if law enforcement agencies engage in policies and practices that are premised on a theory that the way to stop crime is to go after black and brown people on the hunch that they are more likely to be criminals. Let me add that not only is racial profiling wrong, it is also not effective as a law enforcement tool. There is no evidence that stopping people of color adds to catching the bad guys. In fact, there is statistical evidence which points out that singling out black and Hispanic motorists for stops and searches doesn't lead to a higher percentage of arrests. Minority motorists are simply no more likely to be breaking the law than white motorists. Unfortunately, racial profiling persists. In the last wave of statistics from New Jersey, minority motorists accounted for 73 percent of those searched on the New Jersey Turnpike. Even the State attorney general admitted that State troopers were twice as likely to find drugs or other illegal contraband when searching vehicles driven by whites. Take the example of the March 2000 General Accounting Office report on the U.S. Customs Service. The report found that black, Asian, and Hispanic women were four to nine times more likely than white women to be subjected to x rays after being frisked or patted down. On the basis of x ray results, black women were less than half as likely as white women to be found carrying contraband. This is law enforcement by hunch. No warrants, no probable cause. What is the hunch based on? Race, plain and simple. Nowhere was this more evident than in my own home State 3 Aprils ago. Four young men on the New Jersey Turnpike in a minivan--on their way to North Carolina, hoping to get college basketball scholarships--were stopped by two State troopers. Frightened, the driver lost control of the van, and two dozens shots rang out and struck the van. Three out of the four young men were shot. I spoke to those kids a while ago. One of them told me he was asleep when his van was pulled over. He told me, ``What woke me up was a bullet.'' Stories such as this should wake us all up in America. The practice of racial profiling broadly undermines the confidence of the American people in the institutions on which we depend to protect and defend us. Different laws for different people do not work. Now we know that many law enforcement agencies, including some in my home State, have acknowledged the danger of the practice and have taken steps to combat it. I commend them for those efforts. Many law enforcement officials believe this is the step we need to take. It is a national problem. It is not a local problem, it is not a State problem, it is a national problem, and it requires a Federal response applicable to all. That is why my colleagues and I have introduced this legislation to end this practice. We want to be sure there are no more excuses, no more bullets waking folks up on questions about what racial profiling means. This bill defines racial profiling clearly and then bans it; no routine stops solely on the basis of race, national origin, or ethnicity. We will also require a collection of statistics to accurately measure whether progress is being made, whether problems exist. By collecting this data, we will get a fair picture of law enforcement at work. We use statistics in every aspect of our life. I came from the financial services industry. We collected statistics. If you go to a hospital, they collect statistics. We need to do that with regard to law enforcement so we have the information to detect problems early on. It is not our intention to micromanage law enforcement. Our bill does not tell law enforcement agencies what data should be collected. Instead, we direct the Attorney General to develop the standards for data collection, and he presumably will work with law enforcement in developing those particular standards for particular situations. Our legislation also specifically directs the Attorney General to establish standards for setting benchmarks against which the collected data should be measured so that no data is taken out of context that some in law enforcement rightly fear. No, it is an indication, a benchmark, not an absolute. If the numbers reveal a portrait of continued racial profiling, then the Justice Department or independent third parties can seek relief in Federal court ordering that remedies be put into effect to end racial profiling. Our bill will also put in place procedures to receive and investigate complaints of alleged racial profiling. By the way, this mirrors legislation that is now going through the New Jersey State Legislature on a bipartisan basis. It will require procedures to discipline law enforcement officers engaging in racial profiling. Finally, we will encourage a climate of cultural change in law enforcement with a carrot and stick. We are not trying to say that this all be done through the law; part of this has to come from a real cultural change. First the carrot. We recognize that law enforcement should not be expected to do this alone. It is a bigger problem. We are saying if you do the job right, fairly and equitably, you can be eligible to receive a best practices development grant to help pay for the programs dealing with advanced training, to help pay for the computer technology necessary to collect the data, such as hand-held computers in police cars, so statistics can be collected. We will help pay for video cameras and recorders for patrol cars, which protects the person who is stopped and also the law enforcement officer. It has been very well received across this country where it has been applied. It will help pay for establishing or improving systems for handling complaints alleging ethnic or racial profiling and will help to establish management systems to assure supervisors are held accountable for subordinates. If they do not do the job right, there is a stick. If State and local law enforcement agencies refuse to implement procedures to end and prevent profiling, they will be subject to a loss of Federal law enforcement funds. Let me be clear. This bill is not about blaming law enforcement, but we do believe we need to see change. It is not designed to prevent law enforcement from doing its job, it is to encourage them to do a better job. In fact, we believe it will help our law enforcement officers in this Nation maintain the public trust they need to do their jobs. If race is part of a description of a specific suspect involved in an investigation, this law does not prevent them from using that information or having that information distributed, but stopping people on a random, race-based hunch will be outlawed. Race has been a never-ending battle in this country. It began with our Constitution when the Founding Fathers argued over the rights of southern slaves. Then we fought a war over race. We fought a war that ripped our country apart. Our country emerged whole, but discrimination and Jim Crow laws continued for decades--discrimination sanctioned in part by our own Supreme Court. Our country's history has always been about change, about growth, about getting better, about recognizing things that weaken us from within. A generation ago, we began to fight another war, a war founded on peaceful principles, a war that killed our heroes, burned our cities, and shook us, once again, to the very core. But we advanced with important civil rights initiatives, such as the Voting Rights Act, the public accommodation laws. We demanded and gained like laws to fight discrimination in employment, housing, and education. It is time for us to take another very important step. Racial profiling has bred humiliation, anger, resentment, and cynicism throughout this country. It has weakened respect for the law by many, not just the offended. I close by putting it in simple words: Racial profiling is wrong, and it must end. Today Senator Feingold, Senator Clinton, I, and others in the House pledge to do just that: to define it, to ban it, and then enforce that ban.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise on this special day to talk about an issue that I think defines our health as a society--the issue of racial profiling. I thank my colleagues, Senator Feingold and Senator Clinton--particularly Senator Feingold, for his tremendous leadership on this issue over several Congresses. During the last session he held a number of hearings on racial profiling, and he and his staff have worked tirelessly to elevate the importance of this issue on to the national agenda as a matter of civil rights. I also would be remiss if I didn't mention Congressman Conyers, who has taken an equally valiant and effective role in presenting this issue on the floor of the House. It is one about which I think we all feel passionately. The practice of racial profiling is the antithesis of America's belief in fairness and equal protection under the law. Stopping people on our highways, our streets, and at our borders because of the color of their skin tears at the very fabric of what it is to be an American. We are a nation of laws, and everyone should receive equal protection under the law. Our Constitution tolerates nothing less. We should demand nothing less. There is no equal protection, there is no equal justice, if law enforcement agencies engage in policies and practices that are premised on a theory that the way to stop crime is to go after black and brown people on the hunch that they are more likely to be criminals. Let me add that not only is racial profiling wrong, it is also not effective as a law enforcement tool. There is no evidence that stopping people of color adds to catching the bad guys. In fact, there is statistical evidence which points out that singling out black and Hispanic motorists for stops and searches doesn't lead to a higher percentage of arrests. Minority motorists are simply no more likely to be breaking the law than white motorists. Unfortunately, racial profiling persists. In the last wave of statistics from New Jersey, minority motorists accounted for 73 percent of those searched on the New Jersey Turnpike. Even the State attorney general admitted that State troopers were twice as likely to find drugs or other illegal contraband when searching vehicles driven by whites. Take the example of the March 2000 General Accounting Office report on the U.S. Customs Service. The report found that black, Asian, and Hispanic women were four to nine times more likely than white women to be subjected to x rays after being frisked or patted down. On the basis of x ray results, black women were less than half as likely as white women to be found carrying contraband. This is law enforcement by hunch. No warrants, no probable cause. What is the hunch based on? Race, plain and simple. Nowhere was this more evident than in my own home State 3 Aprils ago. Four young men on the New Jersey Turnpike in a minivan--on their way to North Carolina, hoping to get college basketball scholarships--were stopped by two State troopers. Frightened, the driver lost control of the van, and two dozens shots rang out and struck the van. Three out of the four young men were shot. I spoke to those kids a while ago. One of them told me he was asleep when his van was pulled over. He told me, ``What woke me up was a bullet.'' Stories such as this should wake us all up in America. The practice of racial profiling broadly undermines the confidence of the American people in the institutions on which we depend to protect and defend us. Different laws for different people do not work. Now we know that many law enforcement agencies, including some in my home State, have acknowledged the danger of the practice and have taken steps to combat it. I commend them for those efforts. Many law enforcement officials believe this is the step we need to take. It is a national problem. It is not a local problem, it is not a State problem, it is a national problem, and it requires a Federal response applicable to all. That is why my colleagues and I have introduced this legislation to end this practice. We want to be sure there are no more excuses, no more bullets waking folks up on questions about what racial profiling means. This bill defines racial profiling clearly and then bans it; no routine stops solely on the basis of race, national origin, or ethnicity. We will also require a collection of statistics to accurately measure whether progress is being made, whether problems exist. By collecting this data, we will get a fair picture of law enforcement at work. We use statistics in every aspect of our life. I came from the financial services industry. We collected statistics. If you go to a hospital, they collect statistics. We need to do that with regard to law enforcement so we have the information to detect problems early on. It is not our intention to micromanage law enforcement. Our bill does not tell law enforcement agencies what data should be collected. Instead, we direct the Attorney General to develop the standards for data collection, and he presumably will work with law enforcement in developing those particular standards for particular situations. Our legislation also specifically directs the Attorney General to establish standards for setting benchmarks against which the collected data should be measured so that no data is taken out of context that some in law enforcement rightly fear. No, it is an indication, a benchmark, not an absolute. If the numbers reveal a portrait of continued racial profiling, then the Justice Department or independent third parties can seek relief in Federal court ordering that remedies be put into effect to end racial profiling. Our bill will also put in place procedures to receive and investigate complaints of alleged racial profiling. By the way, this mirrors legislation that is now going through the New Jersey State Legislature on a bipartisan basis. It will require procedures to discipline law enforcement officers engaging in racial profiling. Finally, we will encourage a climate of cultural change in law enforcement with a carrot and stick. We are not trying to say that this all be done through the law; part of this has to come from a real cultural change. First the carrot. We recognize that law enforcement should not be expected to do this alone. It is a bigger problem. We are saying if you do the job right, fairly and equitably, you can be eligible to receive a best practices development grant to help pay for the programs dealing with advanced training, to help pay for the computer technology necessary to collect the data, such as hand-held computers in police cars, so statistics can be collected. We will help pay for video cameras and recorders for patrol cars, which protects the person who is stopped and also the law enforcement officer. It has been very well received across this country where it has been applied. It will help pay for establishing or improving systems for handling complaints alleging ethnic or racial profiling and will help to establish management systems to assure supervisors are held accountable for subordinates. If they do not do the job right, there is a stick. If State and local law enforcement agencies refuse to implement procedures to end and prevent profiling, they will be subject to a loss of Federal law enforcement funds. Let me be clear. This bill is not about blaming law enforcement, but we do believe we need to see change. It is not designed to prevent law enforcement from doing its job, it is to encourage them to do a better job. In fact, we believe it will help our law enforcement officers in this Nation maintain the public trust they need to do their jobs. If race is part of a description of a specific suspect involved in an investigation, this law does not prevent them from using that information or having that information distributed, but stopping people on a random, race-based hunch will be outlawed. Race has been a never-ending battle in this country. It began with our Constitution when the Founding Fathers argued over the rights of southern slaves. Then we fought a war over race. We fought a war that ripped our country apart. Our country emerged whole, but discrimination and Jim Crow laws continued for decades--discrimination sanctioned in part by our own Supreme Court. Our country's history has always been about change, about growth, about getting better, about recognizing things that weaken us from within. A generation ago, we began to fight another war, a war founded on peaceful principles, a war that killed our heroes, burned our cities, and shook us, once again, to the very core. But we advanced with important civil rights initiatives, such as the Voting Rights Act, the public accommodation laws. We demanded and gained like laws to fight discrimination in employment, housing, and education. It is time for us to take another very important step. Racial profiling has bred humiliation, anger, resentment, and cynicism throughout this country. It has weakened respect for the law by many, not just the offended. I close by putting it in simple words: Racial profiling is wrong, and it must end. Today Senator Feingold, Senator Clinton, I, and others in the House pledge to do just that: to define it, to ban it, and then enforce that ban.

Mr. CORZINE

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

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report. I have been in the Senate for 143 days, and I have felt honored to serve with senators from both sides of the aisle. Today, however, we vote on a conference report that fails the tests of intellectual honesty, fairness, and fiscal responsibility. The conference report is not intellectually honest. It cynically includes a variety of provisions designed to hide its true costs. Some provisions are not effective for several years. Some are sunsetted after a few years. And all are eliminated after 9 years. In addition, the conference report fails to extend the research and development tax credit, it fails to extend many of the other expiring provisions that we know will be extended, and it fails to provide relief from the alternative minimum tax that we all know will be necessary. These are nothing more than deceptive inventions to shoehorn tax provisions that far exceed $1.35 trillion, the limit agreed to in the in the budget resolution. These deceptions are intended to divert the American people from the real costs of the legislation. Ultimately, they will only reinforce the public's cynicism about politics. The conference report also is fundamentally unfair. It would provide tax benefits averaging more than $50,000 for the top one percent, whose average incomes well exceed one million dollars. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of ordinary taxpayers, 72 million of whom are in the 15 percent tax bracket, will receive no marginal rate relief at all. That is not fair, and it is not right. As a matter of fairness, how can the top one percent of taxpayers, who pay 22 percent of federal taxes, receive 38 percent of this legislation's benefits? Where is the tax relief for those working Americans who carry the heavy burden of payroll taxes, sales taxes and property taxes? Finally, Mr. President, this conference report is fiscally irresponsible. In fact, this tax bill returns America to a dangerous formula for fiscal affairs which runs the risk of promoting financial instability as this legislation unfolds. We surely jeopardize the financial stability of Social Security and Medicare by limiting federal revenues which could be used to shore them up for the impending retirement of the baby boomers, and to provide a prescription drug benefit for seniors today. But maybe the most important financial consideration is the 180 degree turn from our recent commitment to fiscal responsibility and the reduction of our public debt. The return to fiscal irresponsibility in the 1990's led to the greatest expansion we have enjoyed since World War Two. We have experienced thriving entrepreneurship and productivity gains. 22 million jobs have been created. Two million businesses were established. And we have enjoyed the longest period of low inflation in decades. All of this is now at risk. Once global financial markets--currency, debt, and equity--begin to fully understand the long-term implications for fiscal discipline, I fear in the intermediate or long-term we will have instability in these markets. That instability potentially will limit investment due to rising interest rates, a depreciating dollar and lower equity valuations. It may take some time for the full impact of this tax package's implications to be understood, but I believe the analysis will come and the problems will occur. We all support a legitimately sized and directed tax cut. It is unfortunate that we have chosen this tax cut, which limits our ability to secure Social Security and Medicare for the long-term, which will make it impossible to pay off our national debt, and limit our ability to deal with important domestic and defense priorities we all say we support. I hope that my colleagues will reflect on the concerns I have outlined with respect to intellectual honesty, fairness and financial stability, and vote no on the conference report.

Mr. CORZINE. I withdraw the objection.

Mr. CORZINE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Passenger Safety Act, a bill to ensure that our children are adequately restrained and protected in cars. I am pleased to join my colleague Congressman Frank Pallone of New Jersey, who has introduced this legislation in the House and who has a longstanding interest in child safety. I also want to recognize Senator Peter Fitzgerald's commitment to child safety. His recent hearing on the subject of child passenger safety laws shed important light on the need to encourage States to strengthen their laws, and I look forward to working with him to address this issue. No child should be placed at risk by a simple trip to the local grocer. No child should be in danger on a family trip to the beach. No child should be placed in jeopardy in the daily ride to school. Yet unfortunately, every year almost 1,800 children aged 14 and under die in motor vehicle crashes, and more than 274,000 kids are injured. In fact, traveling in a car without a seatbelt is the leading killer of children in America. Despite this compelling statistic, the lack of reasonable safety measures for kids in this country is staggering. We know that children who are not restrained are far more likely to suffer severe injuries or even death in motor vehicle crashes, yet approximately 30 percent of children ages four and under ride unrestrained, and of those who do buckle up, four out of five children are improperly secured. Only five percent of four- to eight-year-olds ride in booster seats. Unfortunately, States have done too little to protect child passengers, a conclusion documented in a recent study of child car safety laws by the non-profit National Safe Kids Campaign. This report rated the effectiveness of each State's laws in protecting children from injury in traffic accidents, and twenty-four of the fifty States received a failing grade, while only two States, Florida and California, received grades higher than a C. My own State of New Jersey's laws were ranked dead last in the survey, because the State does not require any protection for children aged five or older riding in the back seat. Among the study's alarming findings: no State fully protects all child passengers ages 15 and under, no States require children aged 6-8 to ride in booster seats, 34 States allow child passengers to rider unrestrained due to exemptions, and in many States, children are legally allowed to ride completely unrestrained in the back seat of a vehicle. Statistics like these make it clear that we need new Federal legislation. States are simply not doing enough to protect children in car accidents, especially older children. That is why today I am introducing a bill that would help ensure that all children are safely secured in cars, no matter where they live. The Child Passenger Safety Act would encourage States to enact laws requiring that children up to age eight are properly secured in a child car safety seat or booster seat appropriate to the child's age or size. The legislation also would encourage States to ensure that children up to the age 16 are restrained in a seatbelt, regardless of where they are sitting in the vehicle. States that do not meet these critical goals would be subject to the loss of Federal transportation funds, the same approach used to encourage States to establish strong drunk driving standards. We cannot sit idly by while so many of our children are exposed to unnecessary danger on our nation's roads. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of the Child Passenger Safety Act.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the nomination of Michael Chertoff to be Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. Mr. Chertoff has ably served the citizens of New Jersey in numerous capacities, as well as the Department of Justice and indeed the Nation. We will all be fortunate to have his tremendous skills at the helm of the Criminal Division. Mr. Chertoff has impeccable credentials, not the least of which is being a native New Jerseyan. He attended Harvard College, then Harvard Law School, where he was Editor of the Harvard Law Review. He then served as a Supreme Court law clerk. In both private practice and public service since then he has developed a reputation as a brilliant, tough, fair, and truly world class litigator, and earned the respect of his peers and adversaries. Indeed, one New Jersey paper has even suggested he might be New Jersey's ``Lawyer Laureate.'' While I should acknowledge that we might not agree on every issue, I consider Mr. Chertoff to be one of the finest lawyers my State has to offer. From 1990 to 1994, Mr. Chertoff served New Jersey exceptionally well as our U.S. Attorney, where he tackled organized crime, public corruption, health care fraud and bank fraud. Unlike his predecessors, as U.S. Attorney he continued to try cases himself, and his long hours and unending commitment to the job and the citizens of New Jersey were legendary. He tackled the highest-profile cases in a serious and thoughtful manner, and, despite being one of the youngest U.S. Attorneys in the Nation, raised the profile and reputation for excellence of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Newark. More recently, Mr. Chertoff has played a critical role in helping the New Jersey State legislature investigate racial profiling. As Special Counsel to the State Senate Judiciary Committee, he helped the committee probe how top state officials handled racial profiling by the State Police. His work was bipartisan and thoroughly professional, and helped expose the fact that for too long, state authorities were aware that statistics showed minority motorists were being treated unfairly by some law enforcement officials, and yet ignored the problem. Mr. Chertoff is one of our Nation's most competent and respected lawyers, with a very distinguished record of public and private service. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of his nomination.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Passenger Safety Act, a bill to ensure that our children are adequately restrained and protected in cars. I am pleased to join my colleague Congressman Frank Pallone of New Jersey, who has introduced this legislation in the House and who has a longstanding interest in child safety. I also want to recognize Senator Peter Fitzgerald's commitment to child safety. His recent hearing on the subject of child passenger safety laws shed important light on the need to encourage States to strengthen their laws, and I look forward to working with him to address this issue. No child should be placed at risk by a simple trip to the local grocer. No child should be in danger on a family trip to the beach. No child should be placed in jeopardy in the daily ride to school. Yet unfortunately, every year almost 1,800 children aged 14 and under die in motor vehicle crashes, and more than 274,000 kids are injured. In fact, traveling in a car without a seatbelt is the leading killer of children in America. Despite this compelling statistic, the lack of reasonable safety measures for kids in this country is staggering. We know that children who are not restrained are far more likely to suffer severe injuries or even death in motor vehicle crashes, yet approximately 30 percent of children ages four and under ride unrestrained, and of those who do buckle up, four out of five children are improperly secured. Only five percent of four- to eight-year-olds ride in booster seats. Unfortunately, States have done too little to protect child passengers, a conclusion documented in a recent study of child car safety laws by the non-profit National Safe Kids Campaign. This report rated the effectiveness of each State's laws in protecting children from injury in traffic accidents, and twenty-four of the fifty States received a failing grade, while only two States, Florida and California, received grades higher than a C. My own State of New Jersey's laws were ranked dead last in the survey, because the State does not require any protection for children aged five or older riding in the back seat. Among the study's alarming findings: no State fully protects all child passengers ages 15 and under, no States require children aged 6-8 to ride in booster seats, 34 States allow child passengers to rider unrestrained due to exemptions, and in many States, children are legally allowed to ride completely unrestrained in the back seat of a vehicle. Statistics like these make it clear that we need new Federal legislation. States are simply not doing enough to protect children in car accidents, especially older children. That is why today I am introducing a bill that would help ensure that all children are safely secured in cars, no matter where they live. The Child Passenger Safety Act would encourage States to enact laws requiring that children up to age eight are properly secured in a child car safety seat or booster seat appropriate to the child's age or size. The legislation also would encourage States to ensure that children up to the age 16 are restrained in a seatbelt, regardless of where they are sitting in the vehicle. States that do not meet these critical goals would be subject to the loss of Federal transportation funds, the same approach used to encourage States to establish strong drunk driving standards. We cannot sit idly by while so many of our children are exposed to unnecessary danger on our nation's roads. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of the Child Passenger Safety Act.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, this motion would recommit H.R. 1836 to the Finance Committee and direct the committee to report back promptly with an amendment that eliminates any income tax cut for those earning more than $500,000 a year, and uses the savings--approximately $24 billion a year, once fully effective, to establish a tax credit to help families afford the costs of long-term care. Over 12 million senior and disabled Americans need long-term care today. That number will double over the next 10 years. I believe that no one should have to spend down to Medicaid to afford long-term care, and no family should bear the burden alone. A tax credit, as I propose, would provide much-needed relief to the families who provide long-term care for their loved ones, and is surely a better and fairer use of the surplus. This is not about class warfare. This is about providing relief for our elderly and for the overburdened families who care for them. I thank Senators Grassley, Graham and Bayh for their leadership on this issue, and I hope my colleagues will agree that we should not provide a windfall for those earning more than half a million dollars a year, while ignoring the needs of so many families and the loved-one they struggle to care for. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.

Mr. CORZINE. I move to waive the Budget Act for consideration of the motion. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, the Mobile Telephone Driving Safety Act of 2001, to enhance highway safety by encouraging States to restrict the use of cell phones while operating a motor vehicle. The cell phone is an important and valuable type of technology that has grown increasingly popular throughout our nation. But as cell phone use has grown, so has a related problem, the increasing number of traffic accidents caused by drivers who are distracted by cell phone use. The risks of driving while talking on the phone were made very clear to many Americans when on April 29, 2001 a car containing model Nikki Taylor crashed into a utility pole. The driver of the car admitted that he had been distracted from operating the car when he tried to answer his cellular telephone. That few second distraction was all that was necessary to cause the crash. As a result, Ms. Taylor suffered severe and life-threatening injuries. Unfortunately, Ms. Taylor's case is just the most visible recent example of a much broader problem. Several studies have established that using a cell phone while driving substantially increases the risk of an accident. One, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, concluded that ``use of cellular telephones in motor vehicles is associated with a quadrupling of the risks of a collision during the brief period of a call''. The study goes on to say ``this relative risk is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit''. In response to the growing problem of cell phone use while driving, counties and municipalities around the country, including two municipalities in my own State of New Jersey, have banned the use of cell phones while driving on their roads. Just recently, Governor Pataki of New York endorsed similar statewide legislation. Yet, at this point, no State has actually enacted such a law. Many cite strong industry resistance to explain the failure of state legislatures to act. While some wireless industry representatives may resist cell phone driving safety legislation, the American people strongly support the idea. A recent poll by Quinnipiac University showed that 87 percent of New York voters support such a ban. This survey echoes the results from other surveys taken nationwide. In addition to preventing accidents and saving lives, a ban on cell phone use while driving also would help lower the cost of auto insurance. That is especially important to me because I represent a state in which insurance premiums are among the highest in the nation. The Mobile Telephone Driving Safety Act of 2001 is structured in a manner similar to other Federal laws designed to promote highway safety, such as laws that encourage states to enact tough drunk driving standards. Under the legislation, a portion of Federal highway funds would be withheld from States that do not enact a ban on cell phone use while driving. Initially, this funding could be restored if states act to move into compliance. Later, the highway funding forfeited by one state would be distributed to other states that are in compliance. Experience has shown that the threat of losing highway funding is very effective in ensuring that states comply. To meet the bill's requirements, States would have to ban cell phone use while driving. However, such a ban need not be absolute. It could include an exception where there are exceptional circumstances, such as the use of a phone to report a disabled vehicle or medical emergency. In addition, if a state makes a determination that the use of ``hands free'' cell phones does not pose a threat to public safety, such use could be exempted from the ban, as well. This is a necessary bill to keep our streets and highways safe. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, the Mobile Telephone Driving Safety Act of 2001, to enhance highway safety by encouraging States to restrict the use of cell phones while operating a motor vehicle. The cell phone is an important and valuable type of technology that has grown increasingly popular throughout our nation. But as cell phone use has grown, so has a related problem, the increasing number of traffic accidents caused by drivers who are distracted by cell phone use. The risks of driving while talking on the phone were made very clear to many Americans when on April 29, 2001 a car containing model Nikki Taylor crashed into a utility pole. The driver of the car admitted that he had been distracted from operating the car when he tried to answer his cellular telephone. That few second distraction was all that was necessary to cause the crash. As a result, Ms. Taylor suffered severe and life-threatening injuries. Unfortunately, Ms. Taylor's case is just the most visible recent example of a much broader problem. Several studies have established that using a cell phone while driving substantially increases the risk of an accident. One, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, concluded that ``use of cellular telephones in motor vehicles is associated with a quadrupling of the risks of a collision during the brief period of a call''. The study goes on to say ``this relative risk is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit''. In response to the growing problem of cell phone use while driving, counties and municipalities around the country, including two municipalities in my own State of New Jersey, have banned the use of cell phones while driving on their roads. Just recently, Governor Pataki of New York endorsed similar statewide legislation. Yet, at this point, no State has actually enacted such a law. Many cite strong industry resistance to explain the failure of state legislatures to act. While some wireless industry representatives may resist cell phone driving safety legislation, the American people strongly support the idea. A recent poll by Quinnipiac University showed that 87 percent of New York voters support such a ban. This survey echoes the results from other surveys taken nationwide. In addition to preventing accidents and saving lives, a ban on cell phone use while driving also would help lower the cost of auto insurance. That is especially important to me because I represent a state in which insurance premiums are among the highest in the nation. The Mobile Telephone Driving Safety Act of 2001 is structured in a manner similar to other Federal laws designed to promote highway safety, such as laws that encourage states to enact tough drunk driving standards. Under the legislation, a portion of Federal highway funds would be withheld from States that do not enact a ban on cell phone use while driving. Initially, this funding could be restored if states act to move into compliance. Later, the highway funding forfeited by one state would be distributed to other states that are in compliance. Experience has shown that the threat of losing highway funding is very effective in ensuring that states comply. To meet the bill's requirements, States would have to ban cell phone use while driving. However, such a ban need not be absolute. It could include an exception where there are exceptional circumstances, such as the use of a phone to report a disabled vehicle or medical emergency. In addition, if a state makes a determination that the use of ``hands free'' cell phones does not pose a threat to public safety, such use could be exempted from the ban, as well. This is a necessary bill to keep our streets and highways safe. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, let me say it is clear we have a need to take out an economic insurance policy on an economy for which the Federal Reserve judged it needed to reduce interest rates five times-- 2\1/2\ percent--in less than 4 months. I think there is clear need to address rising unemployment, making sure that consumer confidence stays secure. If we want to have those economic assumptions strong, we should pass this bill.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the overall bill. I congratulate Senators Grassley and Baucus for their effort at bipartisanship to put together a very complicated and difficult piece of legislation. I also have serious reservations which lead to a conclusion that I think we are overreaching, far overreaching relative to our financial stability. My read of this particular piece of legislation is that it will potentially bring grave concerns to marketplaces around the world when people do the analyses and see the great depth of backloaded tax cuts that are embedded in the bill. It is a very serious concern, particularly in a country that has been running the kinds of serious current account deficits that we have had over the last few years. That backs into concerns about our bond markets, as people analyze these numbers and see how they fit together, particularly in the context of an upcoming increase in defense expenditures that have not been allowed for in this bill. I have very serious concerns that we will return to periods of deficits--some say a ``deficit ditch.'' I think we need to be very mindful of that tonight as we go to the vote. It is more than just the principles that are involved, which I have serious concerns with, too, about the distribution, who gets the benefit. I think there are serious concerns about the financial underpinnings that this will provide for our Nation in the years ahead. I yield the floor.