Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I call up amendment 257 at the desk.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to endorse the concepts about which the Senator from Florida has spoken this evening and to make the point that the economic necessity of this grows clearer every day. There is a need for a stimulative package, and it needs to be brought to bear in the quickest possible fashion. The apparentness of that need is reflected very clearly in the economic indicators we see reported almost daily, apart from what many people talk about in most of their conversations, which is the stock market, which is an important indicator of future economic conditions. We see a pattern of deterioration currently in place that needs to be focused on, particularly the pattern of layoffs coming out of corporate America. Those are broadening and are reflective of underlying recession business conditions, if not more broadly in the economy. This substantial deterioration is beginning to show up in consumer confidence numbers. At the end of last week we saw a deterioration in new home sales which reflects underlying consumer confidence. As we know, it is about 65 percent of our economic engine in the United States. These kinds of conditions are most properly underscored, most vividly underscored by actions taken by one of America's most important consumer companies, Procter & Gamble, which reported last week they would be laying off 9,500 people. This is another indication of growing economic weakness. Add to that that there are problems in our international sector, the reported deterioration in the Japanese economy. The central bank in Japan actually lowered their interest rates to zero percent trying to stimulate the economy. This is important because it demonstrates that if you only depend on monetary policy, as opposed to a combination of monetary and fiscal policy, you sometimes can lead the horse to water but it won't necessarily drink, and you won't get the kind of stimulus we need to make sure that this economy is secure; that we keep job growth increasing. International weakness is also one that we need to be concerned about, particularly in Asia, but we are seeing early signs of weakness in Europe as well. Right now we are depending far too much on monetary policy, where the Federal Reserve has moved, on a proportionate basis, actually faster, certainly than I have ever seen in my own personal experience, with three 50-basis-point cuts in interest rates in less than 2\1/2\ months, a very substantial move percentage-wise on interest rates. It is even more imperative that we move to have a fiscal stimulus as a partnership with the Federal Reserve to get that stimulus going. That needs to be substantial. It needs to be done efficiently and speedily. It needs to be sustainable. Too often, one-time cuts go into savings. Most economic thought would show that single one-time payments tend to go to savings as opposed to consumption. The plan Senator Graham and I are proposing is one that is intended to be substantial but sustainable through time. People can count on that tax cut over a longer period of time. It changes consumer confidence. It changes their way of how they are going to look at future earnings. They can discount that to the future. We think that will end up having a meaningful impact on current economic conditions. In fact, it is an economic insurance policy. If we are wrong and we are not in a recession, this is a good thing because it will boost economic growth. But if we fall into a slower period where recession actually takes place, and you never know that until after the fact, then we have a fiscal stimulus in place to go hand in hand with monetary policy. We believe strongly that this is a proposal that does reflect balance on many of the competing arguments we see. It is a direct lead-in from where the President suggested a 15- to a 10-percent cut. We just give it now as opposed to in future years. We think this is an important precondition to make sure we have a strong economy that will allow for all boats to rise on that rising tide. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to support the arguments and description of the program Senator Graham, my friend from Florida, has proposed.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the so-called paycheck protection amendment. This proposal, in my view, is little more than a thinly veiled attack on organized labor, and an attempt to undermine genuine campaign finance reform. The effect of this amendment would be to bury unions in a morass of bureaucratic red tape, and severely impede their ability to represent their membership. It would push unions further to the periphery of the political process, and hurt the working men and women they represent. It also may well be unconstitutional. Every day, associations and other organizations representing everything from chocolate manufacturers to retired people come to Capitol Hill to advocate for their members. These organizations use a variety of mechanisms to decide how they spend their money. Some give broad authority to their D.C. representatives. Others centralize authority with their president. Others operate through special boards or committees. It is not Congress's business to dictate to these organizations how they make their internal spending decisions. That is their business. And that is how it should be. But this amendment says that it is our business as politicians to tell unions how to make their internal spending decisions. The obvious intent is to harm unions' ability to function effectively in the political process. This doesn't just discriminate unfairly against unions. It undercuts their constitutional rights of free association and of free speech. As a result of the 1988 Beck case, all workers can already opt out of paying union dues. They can choose not to be in the union and to pay a fee that only covers costs associated with contract management and collective bargaining. No worker is forced to join the union. Therefore, no worker is forced to cover costs associated with political activities. And, I would add, the underlying legislation includes a provision that makes this very clear. In reality, this amendment is a deliberate attempt to undermine one of the key purposes of unions, advocating for their members not only with management, but with elected officials. The amendment goes well beyond what the Supreme Court required in the Beck decision. It would require union members to affirmatively agree to set aside a portion of their dues for political activities. And then it would require period reports spelling out details of those activities. These requirements would impose significant costs on unions and limit their ability to participate in the political process. It is important to remember that unions are democratic institutions. Decisions are made by majority vote or by duly elected representatives. Moreover, as I said earlier, nobody is forced to join a union. If you decide to join, as with other voluntary organizations, you accept the democratic decision-making process. It is absurd to join the NRA and ask that no funds be used for political activities. You cannot pay a reduced fee to simply receive American Rifleman magazine. And you cannot join the Sierra Club just for the tote bag. Similarly, political activities are a fundamental feature of a union's operations. Unions were formed in the first place to reduce the historic imbalance between workers and management, between most Americans and powerful, entrenched interests. By coming together, working families have an influential voice, and nowhere is the voice of labor unions more important than in the political arena. This amendment would, in effect, silence that voice, and in the process silence millions of working families. If we believe in the constitution right to free association, we cannot support this amendment. If we believe in the rights of working families to be heard, we cannot support this amendment. And if we believe in fundamental and equitable campaign finance reform, we cannot support this amendment.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my esteemed colleague, the senior Senator from New Jersey and a number of other colleagues in offering this amendment to reduce the exploding costs of political advertisements on the airwaves. As Senator Torricelli has articulated and effectively demonstrated, this amendment would guarantee that candidate advertisements are not preempted by more favored, high-spending advertisers and that candidates are given the lowest available rate for the reserved time. Mr. President, campaigns do cost too much. God knows, I know. To communicate with voters, at least in large States like New Jersey with multiple and expensive media markets, candidates must use television time. And television is very expensive. My campaign was charged as much as $55,000 for one 30-second spot alone in the weeks directly preceding the election. Others actually paid more. When I began my run for the Senate, I was generally unknown to the community at-large. I had enjoyed a successful business career, which I thought would make a contribution to the Senate, the Nation, and my community. But virtually no one in New Jersey knew who I was or, more importantly, where I stood on the issues. Meanwhile, my opponents included a former Governor and a former Congressman who were very well recognized throughout our State. The Governor had run five statewide campaigns and the latter had been in Congress 8 years and politics most of his adult life. Certainly their experience should not have been disqualifying, but neither should a lifetime of participation in the private sector preclude the possibility for government service. With that background, Mr. President, as you may know, New Jersey has no major in-State television market. Rather, north Jersey voters are served by New York City television stations while south Jersey voters are served by those from Philadelphia. The trend in television news coverage is to spend less and less time on State and local races, and the problem is exaggerated in New Jersey where stations from other States devote little airtime to covering New Jersey politics. As my senior colleague pointed out, in both the Philadelphia market and New York market, as we ran up to the primary, there was very little coverage. It averaged, if you looked across the two markets, 13 seconds per day during the 60 days leading up to the election. Think about that: 13 seconds a day for five candidates to express their points of view and get in front of the public. That is some debate. I do hope we can do something about it. Compounding matters, there is also a trend away from covering substantive issues, as Senator Torricelli remarked, in favor of covering elections in horseraces, who is up, who is down, what the polls say, not what the issues are. For those candidates, such as myself, who want to engage voters on the issues, the only option is to purchase time from the high priced, out-of-State broadcasters in our case. The end result is the candidates, especially challengers, those who have not previously held public office, must grapple with hugely expensive media costs to stand a chance. Let me be clear. Media exposure does not guarantee success. A bankrupt message will lose, despite a well-funded media campaign. I don't buy the argument you can buy an election. There are many examples of candidates who have spent significant amounts of money, only to lose. People who argue you can buy elections, in my view, underestimate the ability and the judgment of the voters. Still, while adequate exposure on television clearly is not sufficient to generate success, lack of exposure for many candidates almost certainly will guarantee failure, again, particularly for challengers and newcomers who might bring different experiences and perspectives to issues. Congress recognized this media cost problem in 1971 when it required broadcasters to offer candidates the lowest price offered for a similar timeslot. Unfortunately, that legislation included a major loophole. Under the law, while local stations must offer a candidate the lowest available rate, the broadcasters are allowed to preempt those commercials and broadcast them at a later time--in the case in New Jersey and Philadelphia markets, maybe at 3 a.m., as opposed to prime time. To guarantee that an advertisement is shown at a particular time, candidates are forced to pay premium rates. These premiums have increased the price of on-air time dramatically. Not long ago, the Alliance for Better Campaigns issued a report entitled ``Gouging Democracy.'' I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary of this report be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE. According to this report, the cost of political advertising last year was $771 million, more than doubling the cost just 8 years ago in 1992. That is up from $375 million to almost $800 million. That is a conservative estimate. The fact is, media costs simply are growing out of control. This is a chart I would like to see for earnings of a company I formally represented. To avoid having campaign ads preempted, candidates are forced to pay prices above the lowest unit cost. Some 78 percent of the political ads on WNBC, a New York network affiliate--one of the prime spots for placing your ads in the New York media market--were purchased at a rate higher than the lowest published candidate rate for those timeslots in the fall of 2000. You will see here: WNBC--78 percent. So we compare it equally with Philadelphia, where you also have to run in New Jersey, and 91 percent of the ads were sold at or above those lowest unit costs. It is critical to remember that the public owns the airwaves. They are licensed to broadcasters but they belong to all of us. They are a public trust, gifted to the broadcasters for commercial use. The Television Bureau of Advertising, based on estimates supplied by CMR MediaWatch, estimates that ad revenues for the broadcast television stations in 1999 exceeded $36 billion. Seemingly, the public spectrum has proved profitable for the television broadcasters: $36 billion. Consequently, it is not unreasonable to ask the stations to make time available so candidates can communicate with the voters. An article by David Broder appearing in yesterday's Washington Post drives home the underlying motivation for this amendment. I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE. He writes: Common sense tells you that if the TV bill remains . . . exorbitant, politicians will continue the ``money chase'' under any rules that are in place. This amendment seeks to lower the cost of television to reduce that money chase by lowering the amount of money necessary to run for election. Many would argue if we truly want to get rid of this money chase in politics, we should guarantee free air time for public debate. I agree, but for today we argue only for TV time at the lowest cost per unit. That is all this amendment does. It requires broadcasters to make time available on a nonpreemptable basis at the lowest cost offered to anyone for that time period, and it requires the FCC to conduct periodic audits to ensure compliance. This does nothing more than enforce the original intent of Congress when it first required broadcasters to make time available at the lowest unit rate. This simple but powerful reform potentially will bring sanity to the cost of 21st century campaigns. I urge my colleagues, as Senator Torricelli has before me and others will after, to support this amendment.

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of the Wellstone-Cantwell States' Rights amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment which will allow States to attempt innovative approaches to campaign finance reform on their own initiative. The McCain-Feingold reform bill goes a long way towards reforming the campaign system. This amendment allows States to go even further. It would allow States to use money from their own treasuries, to ensure that campaigns are funded with clean money. Money that is free from the taint of special interest. As you well know, States have historically acted as engines of reform. Some States, including New Jersey, have adopted strong public financing systems allowing candidates a level playing field when seeking statewide office. However, when it comes to campaigns for Federal office, these States hands are tied. According to the Federal Election Campaign Act, Federal candidates are not allowed to take part in those financing systems. This amendment is remarkably simple. It allows States to extend to Federal candidates public funding solutions already available to candidates seeking State office. The fundamental reason McCain-Feingold is important is that it holds the promise to reduce the amount of dirty money in the campaign process, to reduce any appearance of impropriety on the part of representatives elected to do the people's work. Some States have already realized that public financing is the necessary next step in the equation, that public money is clean money. However, states find themselves restrained in enacting a solution. This amendment will not cost the U.S. Government a penny. It does not mandate public financing in any way. In fact, the United States already provides public support for candidates seeking the presidency. And this amendment does not propose to extend the same financing to all Federal candidates. Rather it allows States the freedom to offer public financing and a more level playing field for candidates seeking Federal office. Do we allow States the freedom to determine the format of their own campaign finance systems? Or do we allow reform to end with McCain-Feingold, to end with the Congress? New Jersey has an excellent public financing system for gubernatorial candidates. Allowing the State to extend this system to include Federal candidates holds a great deal of promise. In New Jersey, candidates seeking public financing agree to a funding cap that keeps pace with inflation. Then, for every dollar raised by the candidate, the State matches him with two. When all is said and done, the candidate has to do one-third of the fundraising. Imagine all the additional time you could spend engaging with voters about the issues that affect their lives as opposed to overburdened with fundraising responsibilities. Politicians can spend less time on the fundraising circuit and more time on the campaign trail. The Democratic candidate for governor, Mayor James McGreevey, stopped fundraising for the June primary in January. This amendment will allow States like New Jersey to pick up where McCain-Feingold leaves off. It allows State governments to create a truly level playing field in the States and serve as examples to the Nation of realistic and forward-looking approaches to campaign finance reform. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, yesterday, I joined with my distinguished colleague from New Jersey, Senator Toricelli, in welcoming the President of the United States to our State of New Jersey. I was very pleased that the President decided to visit our State, and out of respect for him I decided to go to New Jersey to welcome him personally. In my view, it is critical that members of both parties work together in a positive and constructive way to address our Nation's problems. Although the President and I disagree on a number of issues, I sincerely want to cooperate with him wherever possible to help the people of New Jersey and all Americans, and I appreciated the chance to spend some time with him. Unfortunately, because I was in New Jersey with the President, I missed a vote on the motion to table the Wyden amendment, No. 78. This amendment would have made nondischargeable certain debts arising from the exchange of electric energy in response to the recent crisis in California. If I had been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the motion to table. Like Senator Feinstein, I am concerned that by interjecting ourselves into this issue and giving a priority to certain creditors, we could trigger a rush to bankruptcy court that could force California utilities into bankruptcy.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, in introducing the legislation to establish a new 10-percent tax bracket. This bill would provide a simple, fair, and fiscally responsible tax cut that can be enacted quickly, and that can provide an important insurance policy against the risk of an economic slowdown, a slowdown that to most observers appears to be more real and potentially deeper than perceived even as early as in January of this year. To me, there is little question that our economy needs stimulus, fiscally as well as monetarily, to return to a moderate growth path. The question for policymakers is how to make that happen. Some, including Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, have questioned whether Congress is capable of enacting a tax cut quickly enough to prevent a recession or even help lift us out of one on a timely basis. I think we can. In any case, as many other economists, Chairman Greenspan has argued that tax cuts would be helpful once an economic downturn is upon us, if a tax cut were implemented expeditiously. To make any tax cut effective as an economic insurance policy, Congress and the President need to reach agreement quickly. To facilitate such an agreement, we are proposing that Congress defer consideration of the long list of worthy, and maybe some less worthy, tax cut proposals currently under debate, and, for now, adopt a very straightforward, simple approach. President Bush has already proposed the creation of a new 10-percent rate bracket for income of up to $12,000 for couples who are currently taxed at 15 percent. The corresponding level for single taxpayers, under the President's proposal, would be $6,000. However, as originally proposed, the Bush rate cut would not be fully effective until 2006. Senator Graham and I are proposing to immediately--and retroactively for this year--create a 10-percent rate bracket and increase the threshold of that bracket to $19,000 for married taxpayers and $9,500 for individuals. There are several reasons why this 10-percent compromise makes sense to us. First, it provides equitable relief to taxpayers at all different income levels. All couples with income tax liabilities would save $950 annually or have their tax liability eliminated entirely. Second, middle-class families are more likely to spend a tax cut than the wealthier families favored under some aspects of the President's plan. Our proposal would be more effective in boosting the economy now. Third, our proposal would put roughly $60 billion of the annual non- Social Security surplus into a retroactive tax cut. This is the amount that economists tell us is needed to achieve a noticeable economic impact this year. At this level, we would expect that tax cut to boost GDP by one-half to three-quarters of a percentage point. Fourth, because of its simplicity, the proposal could be debated, enacted, and implemented very quickly. I think the latter is very important. In fact, if the President and the bipartisan congressional leadership were to come to an agreement, announce an agreement on this package, business and consumer confidence in private spending could be bolstered almost immediately. Later, once the proposal is signed into law, withholding tables could be adjusted in a matter of weeks. That is where the simplicity comes in. By contrast, many of the President's and Congress's proposals are not only controversial and would draw lengthy debate, but would take much longer to be able to be implemented into law. Finally, while providing a real economic stimulus up front, the cost of our proposal is something that is doable within the current context of our budget. The cost of our proposal is roughly $700 billion. This would not preclude further debt reduction, tax cuts, or spending priorities, such as improvements in education, as the President has suggested, and prescription drug coverage, or increases in defense spending. By contrast, the President's original proposal provides very limited stimulus up front--only $21 billion in 2001--yet threatens to starve the Government of needed resources in later years, especially when our obligations to Social Security and Medicare begin to grow substantially. Our 10-percent compromise asks both parties to temporarily give up their favorite tax cut proposals in the interests of a quick compromise which would benefit the country, which would apply the principle that a rising tide lifts all boats. We do not accept the common wisdom that Washington is incapable of acting quickly. There is a need. When it really matters, we know we can keep things simple, and we can get things done, and make them happen. I congratulate Senator Graham. And I very much appreciate the opportunity to introduce this legislation. We look forward to working with the Congress to try to get a quick and stimulative and simple proposal through the Congress.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, in introducing the legislation to establish a new 10-percent tax bracket. This bill would provide a simple, fair, and fiscally responsible tax cut that can be enacted quickly, and that can provide an important insurance policy against the risk of an economic slowdown, a slowdown that to most observers appears to be more real and potentially deeper than perceived even as early as in January of this year. To me, there is little question that our economy needs stimulus, fiscally as well as monetarily, to return to a moderate growth path. The question for policymakers is how to make that happen. Some, including Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, have questioned whether Congress is capable of enacting a tax cut quickly enough to prevent a recession or even help lift us out of one on a timely basis. I think we can. In any case, as many other economists, Chairman Greenspan has argued that tax cuts would be helpful once an economic downturn is upon us, if a tax cut were implemented expeditiously. To make any tax cut effective as an economic insurance policy, Congress and the President need to reach agreement quickly. To facilitate such an agreement, we are proposing that Congress defer consideration of the long list of worthy, and maybe some less worthy, tax cut proposals currently under debate, and, for now, adopt a very straightforward, simple approach. President Bush has already proposed the creation of a new 10-percent rate bracket for income of up to $12,000 for couples who are currently taxed at 15 percent. The corresponding level for single taxpayers, under the President's proposal, would be $6,000. However, as originally proposed, the Bush rate cut would not be fully effective until 2006. Senator Graham and I are proposing to immediately--and retroactively for this year--create a 10-percent rate bracket and increase the threshold of that bracket to $19,000 for married taxpayers and $9,500 for individuals. There are several reasons why this 10-percent compromise makes sense to us. First, it provides equitable relief to taxpayers at all different income levels. All couples with income tax liabilities would save $950 annually or have their tax liability eliminated entirely. Second, middle-class families are more likely to spend a tax cut than the wealthier families favored under some aspects of the President's plan. Our proposal would be more effective in boosting the economy now. Third, our proposal would put roughly $60 billion of the annual non- Social Security surplus into a retroactive tax cut. This is the amount that economists tell us is needed to achieve a noticeable economic impact this year. At this level, we would expect that tax cut to boost GDP by one-half to three-quarters of a percentage point. Fourth, because of its simplicity, the proposal could be debated, enacted, and implemented very quickly. I think the latter is very important. In fact, if the President and the bipartisan congressional leadership were to come to an agreement, announce an agreement on this package, business and consumer confidence in private spending could be bolstered almost immediately. Later, once the proposal is signed into law, withholding tables could be adjusted in a matter of weeks. That is where the simplicity comes in. By contrast, many of the President's and Congress's proposals are not only controversial and would draw lengthy debate, but would take much longer to be able to be implemented into law. Finally, while providing a real economic stimulus up front, the cost of our proposal is something that is doable within the current context of our budget. The cost of our proposal is roughly $700 billion. This would not preclude further debt reduction, tax cuts, or spending priorities, such as improvements in education, as the President has suggested, and prescription drug coverage, or increases in defense spending. By contrast, the President's original proposal provides very limited stimulus up front--only $21 billion in 2001--yet threatens to starve the Government of needed resources in later years, especially when our obligations to Social Security and Medicare begin to grow substantially. Our 10-percent compromise asks both parties to temporarily give up their favorite tax cut proposals in the interests of a quick compromise which would benefit the country, which would apply the principle that a rising tide lifts all boats. We do not accept the common wisdom that Washington is incapable of acting quickly. There is a need. When it really matters, we know we can keep things simple, and we can get things done, and make them happen. I congratulate Senator Graham. And I very much appreciate the opportunity to introduce this legislation. We look forward to working with the Congress to try to get a quick and stimulative and simple proposal through the Congress.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the resolution that would overturn worker safety regulations designed to prevent ergonomic injuries. OSHA's new ergonomic standard addresses the nation's most serious job safety and health problem--work related musculoskeletal disorders. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 1999 more than 600,000 workers suffered serious workplace injuries caused by repetitive motion and overextension. These injuries can be painful and disabling, and can devastate people's lives. Workers in a wide variety of jobs and locations are affected, from textile workers in New Jersey to white collar workers throughout our nation. These are real people and their lives are being affected in very real ways. At the same time, their injuries impose huge costs on our economy as a whole, roughly $50 billion a year. Mr. President, OSHA has been working to address ergonomic problems for 10 years, under both Republican and Democratic administrations. In fact, the agency first began its involvement under Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole. At the time, Secretary Dole called repetitive strain injuries, and I quote, ``one of the nation's most debilitating across- the-board worker safety and health illnesses of the 1990's.'' Unfortunately, after going through a very lengthy rulemaking process, critics of OSHA's efforts have continually put roadblocks in the agency's path. These critics have questioned the seriousness of the ergonomics problem and called repeatedly for additional scientific studies. It's been a strategy of denial and delay. Now, however, there's no longer an excuse for inaction. This January, the National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine released a report documenting the severity of the problem. The report confirmed that workplace exposures do, indeed, cause musculoskeletal disorders and that OSHA's approaches to the problem are effective. This should not have been a surprise to anybody, but now its undeniable. Mr. President, I realize that many businesses are concerned that OSHA's regulations will impose costs. And it's true that, according to the Department of Labor, employers will pay roughly $4.5 billion annually. Yet, Mr. President, employers also will reap significant savings when employees avoid repetitive motion and other injuries--savings that are estimated to exceed $9 billion annually, more than twice the up-front costs. Mr. President, let me be clear: I am not ready to endorse every dot and comma in OSHA's regulations. But even if some of the burdens of OSHA's regulations are excessive, the answer is not to completely eliminate the regulations. It's to fix them, either administratively or, if necessary, through appropriately crafted legislation. By contrast, this resolution adopts a sledge hammer approach. It will kill the entire OSHA regulations and effectively block the agency from pursuing any other regulation that is substantially similar. That just goes too far. I am new to the Senate and have spent most of my adult life in the private sector. So I want to emphasize that I know most businesses, or at least most successful businesses, do care about their employees. They want to do the right thing. And they realize that businesses do better when employees are healthy. Unfortunately, some businesses are less responsible. And it's our job to protect their workers. Because if we don't do it, nobody will. And the result will be more injuries, and more needless suffering. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution. And I want to thank Senator Kennedy and many of my other colleagues for their leadership on this important issue.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I would like to speak before we enter some amendments. I compliment my colleagues, Senators McCain, Murray, Hollings, and Breaux, for their hard work and dedication in bringing this bill on pipeline safety to the floor. I appreciate their leadership on this important issue, one that is certainly vital to the constituency I represent in New Jersey, and, unfortunately, one that has affected their lives in a very significant way. I rise today, however, because of concerns about some of the important aspects of this legislation. In its current form, I believe the bill does not go far enough to ensure the safety and integrity of gas and oil pipelines around our Nation, particularly in New Jersey; and does not do enough to provide information to the communities living near those pipelines. Several years ago, my own State of New Jersey was the site of a major pipeline explosion. On March 24, 1994, a natural gas pipeline exploded in Edison, NJ, at 12 midnight. Families living in the nearby Durham Woods apartment complex awoke to a deafening roar. They ran out of their homes and saw a wall of flame several hundred feet high. These flames were so high they were visible in both New York City and Pennsylvania. I ask you to think about that--flames were visible in both New York and Pennsylvania. Many of the residents who awoke that night thought a nuclear bomb had detonated. Miraculously, only one person died. However, scores more suffered injuries due to burns or smoke inhalation. Many more lost their homes and all their possessions. There was millions of dollars in damages, and the explosion itself left a crater 60 feet deep. At another point, I would like to submit to the record accountings of the explosion from the New York Times and the Washington Post. This explosion was caused by a natural gas pipeline that was buried in the earth. What concerns me is that there were no reports of digging in the area nor were there reports of any other disturbances that could have set off the explosion. As harrowing as this tragedy was, it is not the only one. There have been other pipeline explosions across this country: in the States of Arizona, Washington, Michigan, New Mexico and others. These tragedies, with their accompanying loss of life, are the basis for everyone's concern. I applaud their efforts. However I believe there is more that we can do to prevent these explosions. First, we should ensure that oil and natural gas pipelines are inspected on a regular basis so that flawed lines can be recognized early, repaired, or replaced. My first amendment will require both oil and gas pipelines to be inspected every 5 years. The pending legislation does require pipeline operators to adopt a program for integrity management, which includes periodic assessments of the integrity of hazardous liquid and natural gas pipelines. I am concerned that this does not go far enough. There is no definition of what constitutes ``periodic.'' It could allow inspections every 5 years, every 7 years, or every 50 years for that matter. That is just not good enough. After all, lives and property are at stake. GAO reported that 226 people have been killed between 1989 and 1998, over 1,000 injured, and $700 million in property damage. I know the Office of Pipeline Safety has issued regulations regarding the inspection of certain liquid pipelines and is considering regulations concerning natural gas pipelines. I am concerned however about how long it has taken for these regulations to be issued and whether they will seriously be followed through. I am also concerned they do not require inspections to be conducted at a sufficient enough frequency. In my view, therefore, it is time to pass strong legislation to make safety the priority it deserves to be. I will also be offering an amendment which will give communities that live near pipelines more information about them. Again, I understand the pending bill does include some enhanced right-to-know provisions, and I congratulate the sponsors for that, but I believe we should go further. We need, for example, ongoing reports from pipeline companies about their efforts to prevent or minimize pipeline risks. We also need companies to tell communities how frequently testing occurs and what those tests find. Then we need to enact liability provisions that will impose fines on all pipeline operators following oil spills. Another problem is that currently, pipeline oil spills that occur on land alone are not a violation of any Federal law. We need to ensure that when such spills occur, fines are levied as a way to prevent future releases. Lastly, I believe we need to deal with the certification of pipeline operators. We have laws that license the drivers of cars and the pilots of planes. We need a Federal law, in my view, that provides standards for operators of pipelines as well. The principles contained in these suggestions have been supported by many environmental and pipeline reform groups, as well as by almost the entire delegation from the State of New Jersey. They also have been supported by many Members of the House of Representatives. I hope my colleagues join me today in ensuring that we make sure we no longer have another Edison disaster. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, before I read the amendment, I will preface it by expressing my gratitude to Senator McCain and Senator Breaux for their cooperation in working to address what all Members believe is an extraordinarily important issue with regard to inspections. I think all Members will be better served because of the efforts all Members, cooperatively and in a bipartisan way, brought forward. The amendment reads: The assessment period shall be no less than every 5 years unless the DOT IG, after consultation with the Secretary determines -- There is not a sufficient capability or it is deemed unnecessary because of more technically appropriate monitoring or creates undue interruption of necessary supply to fulfill the requirements under this paragraph. Let me say I hope the other issues with regard to certification-- particularly inspectors and operators, consideration of civil liabilities--are things that will be considered as we progress with regard to this legislation. But I think this is a major step forward. I am very grateful to the sponsors for their willingness to consider the efforts we are bringing to bear on inspections. I thank my colleagues.

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

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of John Ashcroft to be Attorney General. I have given a great deal of thought to this nomination and have considered it very seriously. As a new Senator, I did not serve with Senator Ashcroft, so I do not know him personally. However, I personally attended the nomination hearings and listened carefully to the testimony. I also reviewed many of the statements prepared by supporters and opponents of the nomination, and heard from a large number of my constituents in New Jersey. After considering all the facts, I concluded that Senator Ashcroft, while in many ways a very fine and distinguished public servant, simply is not the right person for the job. Let me take a few moments to explain my thinking. In general, I believe that a President's choice for a Cabinet position deserves deference. However, the position of Attorney General deserves special scrutiny. As head of the Justice Department, the Attorney General has the unique responsibility to interpret the law on behalf of the executive branch, to investigate and prosecute suspected criminals, to uphold our civil rights laws, to represent the government before the Supreme Court through the Office of the Solicitor General, and to manage immigration, among many other critically important responsibilities. In addition, the Attorney General, while serving the President, also must maintain a degree of independence from politics, so that he or she can pursue wrongdoing within the government. The Attorney General is the people's lawyer. For all these reasons, it is imperative that the Attorney General be an individual not only of unquestioned personal integrity, but someone who will be broadly perceived as administering justice and enforcing the law fairly and impartially for all people. Unfortunately, after examining Senator Ashcroft's record, I have serious concerns about whether as Attorney General he would be able to set aside his long-standing and strongly held views and perform his duties in a fully objective, fair and impartial manner. I base this conclusion on several prior instances in which Senator Ashcroft's view of the law and the facts seem to have been heavily biased and colored by his ideology. Perhaps most importantly, in 1997, he led the opposition to Judge White of the Missouri Supreme Court by making a series of accusations that were inaccurate. For example, he claimed that Judge White opposed the death penalty and believed that ``it apparently is unimportant . . . how clear the evidence of guilt.'' This was very unfair, as Judge White voted to affirm death sentences in the vast majority of cases that had come before him, and had unequivocally assured the Judiciary Committee that he was prepared to impose the death penalty. In fact, in the case that Senator Ashcroft used to criticize Judge White, the Judge's decision was based not on opposition to the death penalty, but on a reasoned analysis of serious constitutional problems that he believed had prevented the defendant from receiving a fair trial. This was a clear example of Senator Ashcroft's ideology coloring his interpretation of the facts. Senator Ashcroft's strong ideological approach also seemed to skew his views in the case of Bill Lann Lee, a nominee to head the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Senator Ashcroft said he voted again Lee because of ``serious concerns about his willingness to enforce'' a Supreme Court decision limiting preferences for minority companies in awarding government contracts, and the Senator adopted a highly restrictive interpretation of that decision, challenging Mr. Lee's interpretations of the Court's instructions and guidance. However, this challenge appears to have been based on Senator Ashcroft's own ideological opposition to affirmative action, not the law or the Court's direction. In another case, when he served as attorney general of Missouri, Senator Ashcroft sought to invalidate a State law that authorized nurses to engage in various practices, including the dispensing of contraceptives. Senator Ashcroft, a strong opponent of abortion, argued that this was unconstitutional. Yet there was no constitutional authority for this position, and it was rejected by the Missouri Supreme Court on a unanimous vote. Again, Senator Ashcroft's strongly held ideological views had skewed his views of the law and led to a highly subjective and biased conclusion with little objective merit. These are just a few of many examples in which Senator Ashcroft demonstrated an inability to move beyond his own views and reach a fair, objective and balanced conclusion about the merits of a legal position. If history is any guide, his enforcement of the law will be seriously biased by his ideological views. This, in my view, disqualifies him for a position as Attorney General, for which fairness, objectivity and balance are perhaps the most important qualities. In a period in our nation's history in which we need to come together after a divisive election, I believe it would be a mistake to select an Attorney General whose tendency to view the law ideologically could aggravate our nation's divisions. For all these reasons, I oppose this nomination.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Christine Todd Whitman to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Christine Todd Whitman has a long and distinguished record of public service, and has made many important contributions to my State of New Jersey. She is well qualified to head the EPA, and I urge my colleagues to support her nomination. Governor Whitman is highly articulate and persuasive. She genuinely cares about the issues, and she knows how to make an impact. Governor Whitman has been a leader in protecting New Jersey's 127- mile shoreline and in fighting for cleaner air, guarding against the kind of pollution that knows no state boundaries. As an individual and a Governor, she has demonstrated a strong commitment to preserving open space. The Administrator of EPA has the primary responsibility for ensuring that our air and water is clean, our natural resources are preserved, and our public health protected. It is a difficult job. It often requires a careful evaluation of highly complex scientific data, and an ability to translate that data into detailed policies. It needs someone who will fight internal battles to make environmental protection a budget priority. It needs someone who will work with local communities and businesses to find mutually acceptable solutions to environmental problems. And it needs someone who, when necessary, will be tough on polluters and force them to do the right thing. I believe that Governor Whitman has the background, the experience and the skills necessary to do the job, and to do it well. I know that we will not always agree on every policy issue. This became clear during the hearing on her nomination in the Environment and Public Works Committee. In fact, I was concerned by some of her answers with respect to the need for tough enforcement against polluters and the need to ensure that environmental decisions adequately respect the rights of minorities and other disadvantaged groups. However, I remain hopeful that Governor Whitman will use her considerable skills to be a strong environmental advocate, and I look forward to working with her to ensure that EPA remains committed to strong and effective enforcement of our environmental laws. With that, I want to conclude my remarks and wish Governor Whitman the best of luck as she undertakes this important new challenge.