Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, for bringing this project to the attention of the ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. This project is quite costly for the authority and the State of New Jersey and will lead to the tripling of sewer rates for residents in 12 communities in the area. I believe that any funding assistance that the federal government can provide would be put to very good use.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, on November 30, 2004, President Bush signed the bipartisan Highlands Conservation Act into law to authorize up to $11 million per year over the next 10 years for land conservation partnership projects and open space purchases from willing sellers in the four-state Highlands Region. This law recognizes the national significance of land and water resources in the 3.5 million acre Highlands Region which stretches from northwestern Connecticut, across the lower Hudson River Valley in New York, through New Jersey and into east-central Pennsylvania. It will safeguard these critical resources to protect the pristine wilderness and wildlife of the Highlands. The value of the natural, recreational and scenic resources of the Highlands cannot be overstated. In a study of the New York-New Jersey Highlands region alone, the Forest Service found that 170 million gallons are drawn from the Highlands aquifers daily, providing quality drinking water for over 11 million people; 247 threatened or endangered species live in the New Jersey-New York Highlands region, including the timber rattlesnake, wood turtle, red-shouldered hawk, barred owl, and great blue heron. According to the U.S. Forest Service, over 14 million people visit the New York-New Jersey Highlands for outdoor recreation, more than Yellowstone National Park and our most heavily visited natural treasures.

Mr. CORZINE. I was proud to work with my colleagues in the Senate, Senators Lautenberg, Clinton, Schumer, Specter, Santorum, Lieberman and Dodd, and my colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman Frelinghuysen to enact the Highlands Conservation Act into law. To secure appropriations to match the authorization, we requested from the Interior Appropriations Committee $11 million to support open space protection in the four Highlands States for fiscal year 2006. Unfortunately, that funding was not included in the bill. This vital funding is needed to protect the Wyanokie Highlands, Scotts Mountain and Musconetcong Ridge in New Jersey, as well as to protect threatened areas in New York, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. It would also allow the USDA Forest Service to update its 1992 study of the Highlands Region to include the States of Connecticut and Pennsylvania. We would like to work with the chairman and ranking member to ensure they are protected. Will the Senators agree that should funding become available during the conference proceedings that they will work with us to secure funds to meet the goals of the Highlands Conservation Act and protect the Highlands, especially the New Jersey Region?

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the Senate Energy bill. I first want to commend and thank my colleagues, the Senators from New Mexico, for their hard work in getting this bill to the floor and ensuring fair debate on these important issues. They have worked tirelessly and in a bipartisan fashion to craft this bill and deserve our gratitude. This Nation needs an energy policy that steers us toward energy independence, innovation and conservation. Unfortunately, however, I believe the bill in the Senate does not embody a sound overall energy policy, and requires a no vote. The American people deserve an energy policy that truly reflects our national priorities and promotes energy independence. An effective energy policy must: reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil; address climate change in a meaningful way; promote energy efficiency through fuel efficiency; expand our use of renewable energy sources; and protect the United States Outer Continental Shelf from offshore drilling. Unfortunately, the bill we voted on today inadequately addresses these priorities. We need an aggressive strategy to wean this country off of its reliance on foreign sources of energy. But this bill does nothing to reduce this Nation's dependence on foreign oil, or provide any relief for the soaring prices at the gas pump. The bill includes an oil savings goal of only one million barrels per day by 2015, and does not even provide a mechanism for enforcement. This is unacceptable. It would take savings of three to five million barrels per day to truly reduce our energy dependence. I supported the amendment offered by Senator Cantwell to reduce imports of foreign oil by 40 percent over the next 20 years. Sadly, the majority of the Senate did not, and that amendment was not included in this bill. In addition, the bill includes an 8-billion gallon ethanol mandate that will actually increase gas prices for many Americans. The cost of living in New Jersey is already one of the highest in the Nation, and the ethanol mandate will essentially add a new gas tax for New Jersey's residents. Furthermore, although the bill includes a higher renewable fuel standard level, this will not necessarily lead to more energy security, as its proponents claim. Increasing these levels would not significantly reduce U.S. oil imports because each gallon of gasoline blended with ethanol to make gasohol has less energy in it than regular gasoline, requiring increased petroleum product imports to make up that energy loss. Producing ethanol also requires a significant amount of fossil fuel. Finally, a larger renewable fuel standard could force the expanded use of ethanol in areas, such as New Jersey, and hinder-- rather than help--state efforts to attain federal air quality standards. Instead of establishing a national ethanol mandate, we should reduce the Nation's consumption of oil. A simple and cost effective way of doing this, would be to raise CAFE standards. In fact, improving the fuel economy of passenger vehicles not only reduces our dependence on foreign oil, but cuts global warming emissions and saves consumers thousands of dollars annually at the gas pump. Americans currently consume a little over 20 million barrels of oil per day. Senator Durbin offered an amendment that would raise fuel economy standards from 27.5 to 40 miles per gallon by 2017 for all passenger vehicles and include SUVs in the passenger vehicle category. The amendment would also increase the standards for pickup trucks and other nonpassenger vehicles from 21 miles per gallon to 27.5 miles per gallon. Raising these standards would save over 95 billion gallons of oil by 2016. The Energy Information Administration projects that if we do nothing to raise CAFE standards, by 2020 Americans will be consuming 12 million barrels of oil per day for fuel use alone. If the Durbin amendment were passed, however, we would be saving 3 million barrels of oil per day or a reduction of 25 percent in gasoline consumption by the year 2020. Furthermore, if we had implemented the Durbin amendment in 2001, Americans would be saving $5 billion per year at the pump. This is an aggressive strategy that I feel is not only necessary, but long overdue. The Senate had an opportunity to make important choices with this bill, and if you do a cost-benefit analysis, it is clear the Senate has made many wrong choices. I supported stricter CAFE standards and more aggressive oil savings, yet these amendments were not included in the bill we voted on today. Instead, this bill does include a provision that I strongly opposed, the seismic inventory of the Outer Continental Shelf. I have been very clear about my opposition to any provision in this bill that will weaken the moratoria on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. As my colleagues know, I spent many hours on the Senate floor last week to ensure that no amendments were offered to weaken the moratoria. This step onto a slippery slope is only reemphasizing our dependency on oil and gas. It is important to note that New Jersey is a State that already does its part in supporting energy production and refining for the Nation. Along with traditional power plants, we have three nuclear power plants, support siting of an LNG terminal and are looking into alternative energy sources. And New Jersey is the East Coast hub for oil refining. New Jersey is doing its part. New Jersey recognizes the variety of ways to generate energy. It can be done without offshore drilling. Yet this bill includes a provision that would allow an inventory of all potential oil and natural gas resources in the entire Outer Continental Shelf, including areas off of the New Jersey coast. It is a slippery slope toward drilling, which would devastate New Jersey's beautiful beaches as well as its coastal tourism industry, an industry that supports over 800,000 jobs and generates $5.5 billion in revenue. And the seismic explosions are themselves dangerous to the environment and our offshore fisheries. That is why I voted with my Florida colleagues and others to strike the inventory provision from the bill. But that amendment failed. That was the wrong choice. It makes no sense to sacrifice the economies and environmental sanctity of coastal States for what many energy analysts have said would not end the long-term trend of growing dependency on foreign oil. It is the wrong analysis, and the wrong decision and just one more example of how this Energy bill includes wrong choices. Another problem with the bill before us is that it fails to effectively address a crucial issue that is paramount to our health, our environment, our economy and our way of life--climate change. The science is increasingly clear that greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity are changing the earth's climate. The rest of the industrialized world understands the danger of this problem. Unless Congress acts in a meaningful way, the effects of global warming may be devastating to the worldwide economy and environment. Recognition by the Senate that global warming is indeed a problem is a first step. However, we cannot stop here. I supported an amendment to ensure real, immediate action on global warming. This amendment would require a reduction in carbon dioxide emission levels to 2000 levels by the year 2010. But, this important program is not included in this bill. This is a significant failure and misses the opportunity to address a problem that, without quick action, we will pass on to our children and grandchildren. Finally, the underlying bill gives the Federal Government too much authority over the siting of liquefied natural gas terminals in their communities. I am very supportive of the proposed terminal in South Jersey, which is projected to provide energy to 4 to 5 million residences. Unfortunately, the State of Delaware has hampered the siting of this facility. These complications, however, do not justify ceding authority over New Jersey's choices about its energy supply to Washington. I am disappointed that the Senate failed to pass an amendment that would ensure States have authority over LNG terminal siting. As you can see, I have many concerns about this bill. But there are some provisions that are steps in the right direction. The Senate included an amendment, which I supported, that requires a 10 percent renewable portfolio standard. I am proud that New Jersey is one of the first States to adopt its own 20 percent portfolio standard, and I am pleased that the rest of the Nation will take a step to follow with this important effort to expand renewable energy sources. In addition, this bill includes important tax incentives that promote energy efficiency. I am especially pleased that I was able to secure provisions in the energy efficiency title that encourage the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the public housing authorities it oversees to increase energy efficiency in public housing projects. But these provisions are not enough to plug the weaknesses left in this bill. I voted this bill out of committee with the hopes that by bringing it to the Senate floor, my colleagues and I could greatly improve the bill. The committee markup was a fair and bipartisan process, and I was pleased to be a part of it. But if the goal is to create a comprehensive energy policy that will move this Nation in a direction of energy security and independence, then the bill we voted on today in the Senate will not achieve that goal. It is my hope that this bill will be improved in the conference committee, and I urge my colleagues to take these important issues into account as we move forward.

Mr. CORZINE

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

Mr. CORZINE. I object.

Mr. CORZINE. I thank my colleague, who is pointing out the legal argument about seaward lateral boundaries which are those that would end up applying in a practical sense where drilling might occur. There is also the reality of oil spills, some associated with drilling for natural gas which has occurred on more than a small percentage of situations in drilling for natural gas, and oil spills moved with the flow of the tides. As is shown in the map the Senator from Florida is presenting, not only do you have a legal boundary, you have a practical boundary because there are no boundaries in the water. And there are no boundaries for fish to swim. There are grave risks if the environmental and ecological elements of protection are not thought about. And there is a huge cost-benefit for many States with regard to how their economies and the quality of life and lifestyles are developed. That has to be put in measurement and measured against what is going to be gained. In the case of New Jersey and the Mid-Atlantic and North Atlantic region, earlier tests show very limited supplies of natural gas and oil on that Outer Continental Shelf. Why do we want to put ourselves at that kind of risk on a cost-benefit analysis? I ask the question, Is that the same kind of analysis at which my distinguished colleague from Florida has arrived?

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce my legislation, the Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act of 2005, to limit medical resident work hours to 80 hours a week and to provide real protections for patients and resident physicians who are negatively affected by excessive work hours. I feel strongly that as Congress begins to consider proposals to reduce medical malpractice premiums and improve quality of care, we must consider the role that excessive work hours play in exacerbating medical liability problems and reducing quality of care. It is very troubling that hospitals across the Nation are requiring young doctors to work 36 hour shifts and as many as 120 hours a week in order to complete their residency programs. These long hours lead to a deterioration of cognitive function similar to the effects of blood alcohol levels of 0.1 percent. This is a level of cognitive impairment that would make these doctors unsafe to drive--yet these physicians are not only allowed but in fact are required to care for patients and perform procedures on patients under these conditions. In fact, a study by Harvard Medical School researchers published in the October 28, 2004 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine found that medical residents made 35.9 percent more serious medical errors when they worked extended shifts of more than 24 hours. The Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act of 2005 will limit medical resident work hours to 80 hours a week. Not 40 hours or 60 hours--80 hours a week. It is hard to argue that this standard is excessively strict. In fact, it is unconscionable that we now have resident physicians, or any physicians for that matter, caring for very sick patients 120 hours a week and 36 hours straight with fewer than 10 hours between shifts. This is an outrageous violation of a patient's right to quality care. In addition to limiting work hours to 80 hours week, my bill limits the length of any one shift to 24 consecutive hours, while allowing for up to three hours of patient transition time, and limits the length of an emergency room shift to 12 hours. The bill also ensures that residents have at least one out of seven days off and `on-call' shifts no more often than every third night. Since I first introduced the Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act in the 107th Congress, the medical community and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, ACGME, specifically have taken critical steps to address the problem of excessive work hours. On July 1, 2003, the ACGME issued resident work- hour guidelines aimed at addressing this important issue. While I commend ACGME leadership for taking the initiative, I remain very concerned that the ACGME's policy lacks the enforcement mechanisms that are essential to ensure compliance with the new work hour rules. The ACGME's only sanction against hospitals that overwork residents or provide inadequate supervision is the threat of lost accreditation of residency programs. Medical residents who have already ``matched'' into a program and invested years there are understandably reluctant to report violations that might result in the closure of their residency. Furthermore, the ACGME usually gives hospital administrators 90-100 days notice before inspecting a residency program. While the ACGME policy establishes more stringent work hours regulations, it fails to create effective enforcement and oversight tools. These rules are meaningless without enforcement mechanisms. That is why Federal legislation is necessary. The Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act of 2005 not only recognizes the problem of excessive work hours, but also creates strong enforcement mechanisms. The bill also provides funding support to teaching hospitals to implement new work hour standards. Without enforcement and financial support, efforts to reduce work hours are not likely to be successful. Finally, my legislation provides meaningful enforcement mechanisms that will protect the identity of resident physicians who file complaints about work hour violations. The ACGME's guidelines do not contain any whistleblower protections for residents that seek to report program violations. Without this important protection, residents will be reluctant to report these violations, which in turn will weaken enforcement. My legislation also makes compliance with these work hour requirements a condition of Medicare participation. Each year, Congress provides $8 billion to teaching hospitals to train new physicians. While Congress must continue to vigorously support adequate funding so that teaching hospitals are able to carryout this important public service, these hospitals must also make a commitment to ensuring safe work conditions for these physicians and providing the highest quality of care to the patients they treat. In closing I would like to read a quote from an Orthopedic Surgery Resident from Northern California, which I think illustrates why we need this legislation. I quote, ``I was operating post-call after being up for over 36 hours and was holding retractors. I literally fell asleep standing up and nearly face-planted into the wound. My upper arm hit the side of the gurney, and I caught myself before I fell to the floor. I nearly put my face in the open wound, which would have contaminated the entire field and could have resulted in an infection for the patient.'' This is a very serious problem that must be addressed before medical errors like this occur. I hope every member of the Senate will consider this legislation and the potential it has to reduce medical errors, improve patient care, and create a safer working environment for the backbone of our Nation's healthcare system. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce my legislation, the Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act of 2005, to limit medical resident work hours to 80 hours a week and to provide real protections for patients and resident physicians who are negatively affected by excessive work hours. I feel strongly that as Congress begins to consider proposals to reduce medical malpractice premiums and improve quality of care, we must consider the role that excessive work hours play in exacerbating medical liability problems and reducing quality of care. It is very troubling that hospitals across the Nation are requiring young doctors to work 36 hour shifts and as many as 120 hours a week in order to complete their residency programs. These long hours lead to a deterioration of cognitive function similar to the effects of blood alcohol levels of 0.1 percent. This is a level of cognitive impairment that would make these doctors unsafe to drive--yet these physicians are not only allowed but in fact are required to care for patients and perform procedures on patients under these conditions. In fact, a study by Harvard Medical School researchers published in the October 28, 2004 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine found that medical residents made 35.9 percent more serious medical errors when they worked extended shifts of more than 24 hours. The Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act of 2005 will limit medical resident work hours to 80 hours a week. Not 40 hours or 60 hours--80 hours a week. It is hard to argue that this standard is excessively strict. In fact, it is unconscionable that we now have resident physicians, or any physicians for that matter, caring for very sick patients 120 hours a week and 36 hours straight with fewer than 10 hours between shifts. This is an outrageous violation of a patient's right to quality care. In addition to limiting work hours to 80 hours week, my bill limits the length of any one shift to 24 consecutive hours, while allowing for up to three hours of patient transition time, and limits the length of an emergency room shift to 12 hours. The bill also ensures that residents have at least one out of seven days off and `on-call' shifts no more often than every third night. Since I first introduced the Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act in the 107th Congress, the medical community and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, ACGME, specifically have taken critical steps to address the problem of excessive work hours. On July 1, 2003, the ACGME issued resident work- hour guidelines aimed at addressing this important issue. While I commend ACGME leadership for taking the initiative, I remain very concerned that the ACGME's policy lacks the enforcement mechanisms that are essential to ensure compliance with the new work hour rules. The ACGME's only sanction against hospitals that overwork residents or provide inadequate supervision is the threat of lost accreditation of residency programs. Medical residents who have already ``matched'' into a program and invested years there are understandably reluctant to report violations that might result in the closure of their residency. Furthermore, the ACGME usually gives hospital administrators 90-100 days notice before inspecting a residency program. While the ACGME policy establishes more stringent work hours regulations, it fails to create effective enforcement and oversight tools. These rules are meaningless without enforcement mechanisms. That is why Federal legislation is necessary. The Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act of 2005 not only recognizes the problem of excessive work hours, but also creates strong enforcement mechanisms. The bill also provides funding support to teaching hospitals to implement new work hour standards. Without enforcement and financial support, efforts to reduce work hours are not likely to be successful. Finally, my legislation provides meaningful enforcement mechanisms that will protect the identity of resident physicians who file complaints about work hour violations. The ACGME's guidelines do not contain any whistleblower protections for residents that seek to report program violations. Without this important protection, residents will be reluctant to report these violations, which in turn will weaken enforcement. My legislation also makes compliance with these work hour requirements a condition of Medicare participation. Each year, Congress provides $8 billion to teaching hospitals to train new physicians. While Congress must continue to vigorously support adequate funding so that teaching hospitals are able to carryout this important public service, these hospitals must also make a commitment to ensuring safe work conditions for these physicians and providing the highest quality of care to the patients they treat. In closing I would like to read a quote from an Orthopedic Surgery Resident from Northern California, which I think illustrates why we need this legislation. I quote, ``I was operating post-call after being up for over 36 hours and was holding retractors. I literally fell asleep standing up and nearly face-planted into the wound. My upper arm hit the side of the gurney, and I caught myself before I fell to the floor. I nearly put my face in the open wound, which would have contaminated the entire field and could have resulted in an infection for the patient.'' This is a very serious problem that must be addressed before medical errors like this occur. I hope every member of the Senate will consider this legislation and the potential it has to reduce medical errors, improve patient care, and create a safer working environment for the backbone of our Nation's healthcare system. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Reserving the right to object, I would like to hear the last statement by the distinguished Senator from Nevada. Did you say that regardless of the Parliamentarian's judgment, it will be withdrawn?

Mr. CORZINE. Withdraw, precloture and postcloture?

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I wish to say that I have nothing but the highest respect for the Senator from Virginia, and I fully appreciate that he is acting absolutely in good faith. I would like to hear what the unanimous consent is we are agreeing to so that once and for all, it is clear.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to speak against this amendment and the direction this amendment would take. I will try to give my reasons, but I very much respect and admire the courtesy the distinguished Senator from Virginia and others have provided so that we could have this debate. I believe it is truly one of those fundamental debates that we need to have with regard to both energy independence and how we look holistically at our economies and how our people will be able to continue to maintain their way of life, their quality of life, in its broadest context. This really gets at the heart of that matter as it relates to the people of New Jersey. I actually believe, for folks up and down our coastlines and a lot of different areas, I could go through the 127 miles of coastline, the $31 billion of GNP we have in the State, the 800,000 jobs in the tourism industry. That is very focused in the State of New Jersey. But the reality is that we have made other choices with regard to energy independence that I think and many think could attack that need that the distinguished Senator from Virginia so ably talked about, that we need to protect America's role and its ability to have that independence. We have said we do not think changing mileage standards, we do not think developing even stronger efficiency standards, is the way we are going to go because we have cost-benefit tradeoffs. Now, I do not agree with those cost-benefit tradeoffs, but they were implied in the decisions we have taken in writing this bill. Those of us who are so dependent, as I tried to outline and my distinguished colleagues from Florida talked about in their economy, many of us are very dependent in our own economy on the kinds of things that could be threatened with regard to the kind of action we take. We had to make some tradeoffs. We made judgments and some choices about whether it was better to put at risk something that is incredibly important not only for the economy but the environment and the quality of life of the people who live in these communities, or do we say that we will protect those and take other choices that will produce the energy independence that we have? From our perspective in New Jersey, I believe this is a bad cost-benefit analysis. I can understand how someone can make that argument, but to those 836,000 folks dependent on the tourism industry, I cannot make that argument. There is another argument being made about States rights. That is probably too simple a way, but leave it to the legislature of one State or another. I look at these planning areas--and I do not know much about oceanography and how the tides move and the sea moves, but there is a reason that we have planning areas, the mid-Atlantic, the South Atlantic, and we did not do it by States because water does not know borders. The fisheries that are involved in those planning areas--it is not just Virginia or New Jersey that is impacted by a decision that is taken. If there is an oilspill or if some of the fisheries are destroyed because of the seismic explosions that test the capacity for oil and gas in these areas, it has impact beyond simple borders. This is something that needs to be considered not just from a State point of view, but we need to do this in a cooperative fashion. So I think there is a cost-benefit problem. How do we define borders and boundaries and oceans? Finally, it strikes me that we are not focused on some of the things that would allow us to deal with our energy independence, which is absolutely essential. I do not understand why we think this is the trade we need to make versus other trades when there is so much at stake for so many with regard to these coastal economies. I thank the Senator from Virginia for bringing this debate to the Senate floor. It is a healthy one, and I look forward to working with him in the future, hopefully in a positive way, on our energy dependence.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. One minute and 5 seconds? That is the time allotted by the Chair? Let me, then, be brief. I rise today as a cosponsor in support of the amendment offered by Senators martinez and Nelson that will keep the door closed to offshore drilling. The amendment strikes language in the bill that would allow a seismic inventory of all potential oil and natural gas resources in the Outer Continental Shelf, including areas off of the New Jersey coast. The people of New Jersey strongly oppose allowing such an inventory and I voted against this provision during the committee markup. New Jersey recognizes that taking inventory of these resources is a step onto a slippery slope toward the eventual drilling off the New Jersey coast; resources that are currently protected by the Outer Continental Shelf, or OCS, moratoria. After all, why would anyone conduct an inventory unless they have the intention to drill if resources are found? ``Inventory'' is just bureaucratic-speak for an open door to drilling off of our coast. I have long fought to maintain the bipartisan, two-decades-old moratorium on drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. Any drilling, or even the threat of drilling, poses a real threat to the New Jersey environment, economy, and way of life. Drilling would leave the New Jersey coast and its waters vulnerable to oil spills, drilling discharges and damage to coastal wetlands. The environmental effects of an ecological disaster know no State boundaries. Oil spills are not fleeting environmental sound bites. These accidents linger for years, causing sustained environmental harm. In addition, coastal tourism is our second largest industry. It generates more than $31 billion in spending, directly and indirectly and supports more than 836,000 jobs; more than 20 percent of total State employment. Coastal tourism in New Jersey generates more than $16.6 billion in wages and brings in more than $5.5 billion in tax revenues to the State. New Jersey already holds its own in supporting energy production and refining. We have three nuclear power plants. We are the East Coast hub for oil refining. We are growing our energy business, but exploiting our shore is a step we refuse to take. This is not just an issue for my State. Protecting the moratoria on drilling is important to maintaining the integrity of the coastline of the United States. Allowing drilling in anyone area affects all the surrounding areas. Tides move across State borders. Fisheries and fish do not recognize State borders. This issue affects us all, and we must protect the integrity of the moratoria at all costs. The inventory is not only dangerous because it starts us on the slippery slope towards drilling, but also because the methods used to conduct the inventory, including seismic surveys, can disrupt marine ecosystems and damage our local fisheries. Dr. Chris Clark, Director of the Bioacoustics Research Program at Cornell University, has called seismic testing ``the most severe acoustic insult to the marine environment . . . short of naval warfare.'' The impulses from the explosive shock waves used have been shown to cause harm to many species of marine life and have been equated with exploratory dynamite. It is not only dangerous but also costly. The inventory is estimated to cost U.S. taxpayers $1 billion. There is no need to conduct an invasive, environmentally harmful inventory when the Minerals Management Service already provides an estimate of oil and natural gas reserves in the Outer Continental Shelf. The MMS estimate is noninvasive and does not harm the environment. So I say to my colleagues, we have no need for a seismic inventory--we already know about the resources off our shores. According to the most recent study, the resources are few and far between. In fact, the MMS estimated that the Atlantic contains only eight percent of the Nation's undiscovered natural gas. In addition, in 2000, the MMS estimated the entire Mid-Atlantic region only contains 196 million barrels of oil, enough to last the country barely 10 days. Why would any east coast State want to risk their coastal economies for another inventory when we already know what's out there? Ten days worth of oil will do nothing to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. This administration already has a reputation for threatening the moratoria. On May 31, 2001, the Minerals Management Service released a request for proposals to conduct a study of the environmental impacts of drilling in the Atlantic. The stated purpose of the study was to examine ``areas with some reservoir potential, for example off the coast of New Jersey, and in the area formerly known as the Manteo Unit off North Carolina . . . in anticipation of managing the exploitation of potential and proven reserves.'' Allow me to repeat that last part. The study was ``in anticipation of managing the exploitation of potential and proven reserves.'' Needless to say, the request created quite an uproar in my State. One local headline read, ``Specter of drilling offshore is back, angering Jersey.'' New Jerseyans were outraged, as were the members of the New Jersey delegation here in Washington. My colleagues and I urged the administration to rescind the request, and were successful. But the threat still lingers, and this inventory will be the beginning of the unraveling of the moratoria and the eventual drilling off the New Jersey shores. Past congresses and Presidents have ruled out Atlantic drilling for years, and we are not going to allow it now. American taxpayers should not have to pay for studies that amount to nothing more than oil industry fantasies. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment so that we can protect our Nation's precious coastlines and ocean waters.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, Senator Brownback and I have submitted a resolution to designate July 15-17, 2005 as a National Weekend of Prayer and Reflection to draw attention to the genocide and Crimes Against Humanity occurring in Darfur, Sudan, and to find a solution to this great moral challenge. The resolution calls upon the people of the United States to pray and reflect. Churches, synagogues, mosques, other communities of faith, and all individuals of compassion will join together to acknowledge, observe, and reflect upon the crimes against humanity that continue to occur in Darfur, so that we can together end the genocide and bring about lasting peace to Sudan. The Congress and administration have already defined the atrocities in Darfur as genocide. Estimates of the death toll range from 180,000 to 400,000. More than two million people have been displaced from their homes, including over 200,000 refugees in Chad. Recent accounts of these atrocities, as reported by Doctors without Borders, include documented rapes by soldiers and government-backed militia. Many religious and human rights leaders, communities, and institutions throughout the world have already spoken out, and called for an end to the genocide. In my own state, thousands participated in a Darfur Sabbath Weekend on May 14-15, 2005, when clergy and congregations throughout New Jersey addressed this crisis during their worship services. With my friend and colleague Representative Donald Payne, I was privileged to visit a mosque, a synagogue, a Catholic rectory, an African American Baptist Church and a United Methodist Church during those two days. Whatever the denomination, we spoke to each other in the same language, and committed ourselves to the same determination to act according to our words and the dictates of our universal conscience. That profound experience impels me to this broader outreach. I want to take this opportunity to urge my fellow members of Congress to join me in saying, ``never again.'' Never again, will we accept the slaughter of fellow human beings. Never again, will we stand by as systematic crimes are inflicted upon humanity. I ask that you join me, Senator Brownback and people all across the globe in supporting this unified movement to tell the world that humanity will never again allow genocide to occur.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New Mexico for this courtesy. I am extraordinarily proud to have the friendship, the moral support, and the leadership of Dr. Therman Evans, who opened our session today with a prayer. This is an individual who is a true man for all seasons--a physician, a minister, an entrepreneur, a chief of a village in Ghana--an extraordinary man who is leading his flock and ministering in a ministry of wholeness, one that deals with the complete aspect of a human being's life and sets a tone and a message for the community in Linden, NJ, and much more broadly across New Jersey and Pennsylvania. He is truly a unique and wonderful individual. We welcome him. I am truly honored to call Dr. Therman Evans my friend. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I would like to begin my remarks by thanking Chairman Domenici and Senator Bingaman, the ranking member, as well as their staffs, for the hard work and excellent effort they have made in preparing an energy bill. Their leadership has allowed the Senate to come together on a comprehensive energy policy that is of paramount importance to our Nation's future security and economic interests. While there are provisions in this bill about which I am troubled, I did vote for it in committee and would like very much to do so here on the floor. But there are some reservations I have. There are some things that were omitted, some that have actually been included and others that might be included about which I would like to speak, one in particular is one of great importance to the State of New Jersey. I see my esteemed colleague Senator Frank Lautenberg here as well. He will be speaking about this issue. That is the threat of oil and gas drilling off the coast of southern New Jersey's 127 miles of shore. All of you heard Senators Nelson and Martinez speak on the floor earlier this week about Florida's treasured coast and how important it is to Florida's environment and economy that its coast be protected from any weakening of the moratoria on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. My colleagues from Florida should take every step necessary to protect their beaches and coastal waters. As a Senator from a coastal State where tourism is the second largest industry, I think Senator Lautenberg and I also want to take every step necessary to protect the New Jersey shore from any effort to weaken the longstanding, bipartisan moratorium that exists on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. As I understand it, the chairman and ranking member have both agreed to oppose any amendments that open up the OCS moratoria on submerged lands off of Florida's coast. I am, of course, pleased that recognition was taken in that instance. But it is a bit disconcerting that the rest of the moratoria on offshore drilling was not addressed. Many OCS areas still seem vulnerable to something that could destroy that moratoria, and that is a problem. It is a problem for the State of New Jersey. I think it is for many, if not all, of the other coastal States that are protected by the moratoria. This has been a priority of mine since I have been in the Senate. Along with Senator Lautenberg, I introduced the Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism Anti-Drilling Act in the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses. This bill would make permanent the moratoria on drilling in the Mid- and North Atlantic Planning Areas, as opposed to having it be an issue that is dealt with year to year in the appropriations process or by Executive order. I know, with certainty, the people of New Jersey--I mean with certainty--do not want to see oil and gas rigs off their coast. The Jersey Shore is one of the fastest growing parts of the State of New Jersey. It is in the most densely populated State already. The New Jersey shore is one of those things that defines our State. We want to maintain the beauty and cleanliness of our beaches as well as protect our fishing grounds as they make up a huge portion of our State's revenue. The New Jersey Department of Commerce calculates that tourism in our State generates more than $31 billion in spending. Almost all of that is focused on our shore. It directly and indirectly supports 836,000 jobs, more than 20 percent of the total State employment. In addition, it generates about $16.6 billion in wages and $5.5 billion in tax revenues for the State. It is a big deal for us, a very big deal. If we are going to take a risk with our shoreline, we must first look at the cost-benefit analysis. Any threat of drilling, any threat to New Jersey's environment and economy compel me to stand here and make sure people understand how important it is to us. New Jersey is not alone in this. This is something that people recognize up and down the eastern seaboard and on the western coast. New Jersey is already a State that is carrying a heavy load in terms of supporting the energy production needs and the refining needs of this Nation. We have three nuclear powerplants. We export energy. We have many traditional powerplants, and support siting of an LNG terminal. We are also a place that has been supportive of alternative energy. We are moving in the direction toward all of those things that promote efficiency. New Jersey is the east coast hub for oil refining, for the chemical industry. We are doing our part in growing and sustaining the Nation's energy resources. But risking and exploiting our shore, to do that is a step too far. I repeat, it is a step too far, risking what I think no one else would do if it were related to their economy, their people's quality of life, their people's needs. I am not the only Senator who has concerns about amendments to this bill that will weaken the moratorium. I have been in contact with a number of coastal State Senators. We will have a letter that speaks against any changes to the current OCS moratoria. My concern about some of the provisions of the bill, including the inventory provision, are reinforced by some of the rumblings I hear about trying to move further in opening up this Outer Continental Shelf. I fear we are on a slippery slope that would lead to eventual drilling off the New Jersey coast, which is of great concern and will lead to the kinds of actions that can stand in the way of the overall bill. It will not be just a New Jersey issue; it will be a broader issue. Given the minimal benefit of offshore drilling--at least based on the science that has been applied to this issue--I don't see the need to be threatening over 800,000 jobs and the state revenues I mentioned earlier for what the Minerals Management Service (MMS) estimated in 2000 to be roughly 196 million barrels of oil off our coast. That, by the way, is enough to fuel this country's needs for only 10 days. The MMS also estimated a mean of only 2.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas for the entire Mid-Atlantic region. Compare that to areas already open to drilling in the Gulf--not those adjacent to Florida--that contain 18.9 billion barrels of oil and 258 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. I don't know what kind of cost-benefit analysis is being taken to be pushing forward with this offshore inventory, when the studies have already shown the great capacity of one area versus what is expected to be found off of New Jersey's coast. We want to protect this moratoria. It is an issue I take very seriously. We hear there is the potential for weakening the moratoria in another way by providing for potential amendments that allow States to opt out of the moratoria and possibly even revenue-sharing amendments that would encourage states to opt out of the moratoria. Allowing States to opt out would be detrimental to States' neighbors. This is an argument long understood and argued by Florida. New Jersey's coastline, obviously, is very close to other States. Tides move across state borders and fisheries don't recognize state borders. One State's choice could end up being detrimental to another. We have ample reason to say that coastal states ought to be concerned about this issue. In fact, we have, for planning purposes, divided up the country into planning areas. The Mid-Atlantic and the North Atlantic OCS Planning Areas, which extend from North Carolina to Maine, is of most concern to New Jersey. But I understand the same arguments from everyone else in every other planning area. Water does not recognize the borders we have established in a political contest. We need to protect the offshore moratoria so that we can protect our beaches and our shores as we go forward. Mr. President I have here a bipartisan, bicameral ``Dear Colleague'' letter from almost every member of the New Jersey Congressional Delegation that expresses the concern of those who represent New Jersey that this moratoria be sustained. I also have a bipartisan letter signed by over 100 Members of the House of Representatives, both sides of the aisle, stating their strong support for the legislative moratoria on activity in submerged lands of the Outer Continental Shelf. I ask unanimous consent that these two letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE. This is a big deal for the State of New Jersey. It is for anyone who is exposed to the coast and has a tremendous amount of industry and tourism that is the livelihood of those individuals who live near the shore. We can avoid the conflict as it relates to the overall energy policy. But it is the responsibility of those who are to defend the interests of our State, to stand up firmly to protect our economy, to protect our environment, to protect our quality of life. We do not need this conflict with regard to this bill. I hope my colleagues will keep that in mind in the days ahead. Otherwise, there will be those who have to fight in ways that are not our preferred approach especially when we would like to get a bipartisan energy bill to go forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, these letters indicate the bipartisan, bicameral support to protect the current OCS moratoria. Moving in the direction of ending the moratoria will bring unnecessary opposition to the overall objective. Residents of coastal States should not have to fear the specter of oil rigs off their beaches. Again, I thank the Chair and ranking member for their leadership on the bill, and I look forward to working with them. I hope they will join me in protecting our precious coastlines.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I first thank Chairman Domenici and the ranking member, Senator Bingaman, as well as both of their staffs on the Energy Committee for all of their hard work on preparing an energy bill. Their leadership has allowed tbe Senate to come together to develop a comprehensive energy policy that is paramount to our Nation's future national and economic security. With reservation on some issues, I supported the Energy Committee bill. I rise today to speak about one of those particular issues--one of great importance to the people of New Jersey--the threat of oil and gas drilling off the coast of New Jersey's 127 miles of shore. All of my colleagues heard Senator Nelson and Senator Martinez speak on the floor this week about Florida's treasured coasts and how important it is to Florida's environment and economy that its coasts be protected from any weakening of the moratoria on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. My colleagues from Florida should take every step necessary to protect their beaches and coastal waters. As a Senator from a coastal State where tourism is the second largest industry, I, too, will take every step necessary to protect the Jersey shore from any effort to weaken the longstanding bipartisan moratoria on drilling in the OCS. As I understand it, the chairman and ranking member have both agreed to oppose any amendments that would open up the OCS moratoria in the submerged lands off of Florida's coast. I am, of course, opposed to any such exemptions from the moratoria, so I am pleased that both Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman have also taken that position. That being said, I find it more than a little disconcerting that the rest of the moratoria on the OCS still remain vulnerable to similar amendments that seek to weaken or destroy the moratoria. As you may know, protecting the OCS moratoria has been a priority of mine since my tenure began in the Senate. Along with Senator Lautenberg, I introduced the Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism Anti Drilling Act, COAST, in the 107th, 108th and 109th Congresses. This bill would make permanent the moratoria on OCS drilling in the Mid- and North Atlantic planning areas. I know with certainty the people of New Jersey do not want to see oil and gas rigs off of our coast. As one of the fastest growing regions in the most densely populated State in the country, the New Jersey shore relies on the beauty and cleanliness of its beaches and the protection of its fishing grounds for a huge part of our State's revenue. The New Jersey Department of Commerce calculates tourism alone generates more than $31 billion in spending, directly and indirectly supports more than 836,000 jobs, more than 20 percent of total State employment, generates more than $16.6 billion in wages, and brings in more than $5.5 billion in tax revenues to the State. Any drilling or even the threat of drilling poses a real threat to New Jersey's environment, economy, and way of life. Remember, New Jersey is a State that already holds its own in supporting energy production and refining for the Nation. We have three nuclear power plants, many traditional power plants, support siting of an LNG terminal, and we are debating wind alternatives. And New Jersey is the East Coast hub for oil refining. We are growing our energy businesses. But risking and exploiting our shore is a step too far. I am not the only Senator who has concerns about the amendments to this energy bill that would weaken the OCS moratoria. I have been in contact with many coastal State Senators who agree that this bill must not include any provisions that undermine the moratoria. My concern is reinforced by the inventory provision already included in the underlying bill. I am strong1y opposed to this provision and voted against it during committee markup. I consider this provision a step onto a slippery slope toward the eventual drilling off the New Jersey coast and other areas currently under the OCS moratoria and possibly exposing our beaches and fisheries to unnecessary risks from adjacent locals. Give the minimal benefit and significant downside of drilling off the coast of New Jersey, I do not believe it is worth threatening over 800,000 New Jersey jobs to recover what the Minerals Management Service estimated in 2000 to be 196 million barrels of oil, only enough to last the country barely 10 days and 2.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas for the entire Mid-Atlantic region. This level of estimated production can in no way be justified. In comparison, areas off the Gulf of Mexico already open to drilling contain 18.9 billion barrels of oil and 258.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. There are other amendments being floated about which cause even greater concerns with regard to weakening the moratoria. One of these potential amendments would allow States to opt out of the moratoria. Allowing States to opt out of the moratoria could be detrimental to a State's neighbors--an issue Florida has long understood and argued. New Jersey's coastline is very close in proximity to other States' coasts. Tides move across State borders. Fisheries and fish don't recognize State borders. New Jerseyans have more than ample reason to be concerned if a nearby State decided to opt out of the moratoria and allow drilling off its coast. As you can see, we appear dangerously close to the beginning of the breakup of the OCS moratoria. This should not occur, and I am prepared to fight any amendment promoting a weakening of the moratoria. These actions are as threatening to New Jersey's economy as killing ethanol is for corn growing States. I am also prepared to fight any amendment that would provide a revenue-sharing incentive for States to opt out of the moratoria. There is much that is good in this bill and many good amendments to be considered, especially those offered by Senator Cantwell and Senator Bingaman. I have a bipartisan, bicameral Dear Colleague letter from the New Jersey delegation expressing our concern with the inventory included in this bill, as well as these moratoria-threatening amendments I have been discussing. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act. In the United States, more than 300,000 women are raped each year and an estimated 25,000 to 32,000 become pregnant as a result. That is why I am reintroducing the Compassionate Assistance in Rape Emergencies Act, or CARE Act. This bill will ensure that women who are survivors of sexual assault have access to the medical care they need, including emergency contraception. Emergency contraception reduces a woman's risk of becoming pregnant by up to 89 percent when taken within 72 hours of the assault. I want to be clear: emergency contraception does not end a pregnancy. Instead, emergency contraception works before a pregnancy can occur. There is widespread consensus in the medical community that emergency contraception is safe and effective. Yet, New Jersey is one of only six States that legally require all medical providers to offer this care to rape survivors. Before this law, one-third of New Jersey's hospitals did not provide this vital medication. New Jersey's law should be the national standard. The bill would require that all hospitals that receive Federal funding offer information and access to emergency contraception for victims of rape. In January of this year I, along with 21 Senators, wrote a letter to the Department of Justice asking that they include information about emergency contraception in their national protocol for sexual assault hospital examinations. But they did not. In all 141 pages, the protocol fails to provide sexual assault victims with access to this needed information and treatment. The protocol instead leaves the door open for health care professionals to decide whether or not to discuss certain treatment options. Today, I want to close that door. In order to provide comprehensive medical care, hospitals must also provide quick access to preventive medication that helps protect victims of sexual assault from potentially fatal sexually transmitted diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis B. We have an obligation to protect sexual assault victims from these life threatening infections. We must not sit idly by while so many sexual assault survivors are deprived the medical care they need and deserve. Once these survivors seek treatment we ought to make sure that they get the treatment they need. Ideology should never stand between patients and the care they deserve. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act. In the United States, more than 300,000 women are raped each year and an estimated 25,000 to 32,000 become pregnant as a result. That is why I am reintroducing the Compassionate Assistance in Rape Emergencies Act, or CARE Act. This bill will ensure that women who are survivors of sexual assault have access to the medical care they need, including emergency contraception. Emergency contraception reduces a woman's risk of becoming pregnant by up to 89 percent when taken within 72 hours of the assault. I want to be clear: emergency contraception does not end a pregnancy. Instead, emergency contraception works before a pregnancy can occur. There is widespread consensus in the medical community that emergency contraception is safe and effective. Yet, New Jersey is one of only six States that legally require all medical providers to offer this care to rape survivors. Before this law, one-third of New Jersey's hospitals did not provide this vital medication. New Jersey's law should be the national standard. The bill would require that all hospitals that receive Federal funding offer information and access to emergency contraception for victims of rape. In January of this year I, along with 21 Senators, wrote a letter to the Department of Justice asking that they include information about emergency contraception in their national protocol for sexual assault hospital examinations. But they did not. In all 141 pages, the protocol fails to provide sexual assault victims with access to this needed information and treatment. The protocol instead leaves the door open for health care professionals to decide whether or not to discuss certain treatment options. Today, I want to close that door. In order to provide comprehensive medical care, hospitals must also provide quick access to preventive medication that helps protect victims of sexual assault from potentially fatal sexually transmitted diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis B. We have an obligation to protect sexual assault victims from these life threatening infections. We must not sit idly by while so many sexual assault survivors are deprived the medical care they need and deserve. Once these survivors seek treatment we ought to make sure that they get the treatment they need. Ideology should never stand between patients and the care they deserve. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I join with Senator Kennedy and others today in introducing an urgent and critical piece of legislation, the Student Fairness Act. This bill would provide rebates to the many college students who will be receiving a dramatic reduction in their Federal financial aid come the return of classes this September. Due to an obscure change made in December of 2004 to a complicated and little-known formula used by the Department of Education to determine Pell Grant eligibility and allotment, many students will see a surprising increase in their expected family contribution, EFC, and a decrease in their Pell Grants. We must act now to prevent these decreases in aid from pricing our students out of college, forcing them to postpone their education and put their career goals on hold. These changes to the tax tables, at the behest of the Administration, have the effect of cutting $300 million from the successful Pell grant program, upon which more than 5 million students nationwide rely. It is projected that, as a result of these cuts, 1.3 million students will see a reduction in their Pell grants and a projected 90,000 more will become ineligible entirely for Pell grant assistance. According to a survey performed by the New York Times, some students could lose up to $6,000 in financial aid and the average family will have to pay an extra $1,700 before clearing the eligibility bar. Although the situation is imminent, this is not the first time the Senate has acted to block such changes to the Pell Grant award formula. I successfully secured language in the FY04 Onmibus Appropriations bill that blocked the administration from carrying out a similar plan for the 2004-2005 school year. The same provision, however, was dropped during the conference deliberations of the FY05 Omnibus Appropriations bill. In response, I, along with 31 of my Senate colleagues, introduced S. 187, the Ensuring College Access for All Americans Act, which would have prevented the new calculations from reducing Pell Grants for the 2005-2006 academic year. Alas, the Senate has not acted with enough haste, and by now many financial aid departments have already determined their student aid packages based on the new figures. Students are beginning to realize the harsh reality of rising college tuitions matched by a government unwilling to support its own future leaders. Our only remaining option is to provide these students with these rebates so that they will not lose their financial aid for the coming school year. This bill calls on the Secretary of Education to calculate the increase in a student's expected family contribution due to the tax table modifications and then provides each such student with a rebate equal to that increase. The legislation would hold harmless any student whose expected family contribution decreased or stayed the same as a result of the changes. Furthermore, the rebate would be treated in the same manner as other financial assistance for tax purposes and would not affect future Pell Grant eligibility. In addition, our bill has recently received the endorsement of the Campaign for America's Future, an organization that has been a great advocate for students and has been actively collecting stories from American students about the incredible impact of financial aid on their lives. I thank the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators for their help in crafting this bill and their support in helping students receive the financial aid they deserve. I urge my colleagues to pass the Student Fairness Act immediately to prevent any student from putting off college because their financial aid has suddenly and mysteriously disappeared. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I join with Senator Kennedy and others today in introducing an urgent and critical piece of legislation, the Student Fairness Act. This bill would provide rebates to the many college students who will be receiving a dramatic reduction in their Federal financial aid come the return of classes this September. Due to an obscure change made in December of 2004 to a complicated and little-known formula used by the Department of Education to determine Pell Grant eligibility and allotment, many students will see a surprising increase in their expected family contribution, EFC, and a decrease in their Pell Grants. We must act now to prevent these decreases in aid from pricing our students out of college, forcing them to postpone their education and put their career goals on hold. These changes to the tax tables, at the behest of the Administration, have the effect of cutting $300 million from the successful Pell grant program, upon which more than 5 million students nationwide rely. It is projected that, as a result of these cuts, 1.3 million students will see a reduction in their Pell grants and a projected 90,000 more will become ineligible entirely for Pell grant assistance. According to a survey performed by the New York Times, some students could lose up to $6,000 in financial aid and the average family will have to pay an extra $1,700 before clearing the eligibility bar. Although the situation is imminent, this is not the first time the Senate has acted to block such changes to the Pell Grant award formula. I successfully secured language in the FY04 Onmibus Appropriations bill that blocked the administration from carrying out a similar plan for the 2004-2005 school year. The same provision, however, was dropped during the conference deliberations of the FY05 Omnibus Appropriations bill. In response, I, along with 31 of my Senate colleagues, introduced S. 187, the Ensuring College Access for All Americans Act, which would have prevented the new calculations from reducing Pell Grants for the 2005-2006 academic year. Alas, the Senate has not acted with enough haste, and by now many financial aid departments have already determined their student aid packages based on the new figures. Students are beginning to realize the harsh reality of rising college tuitions matched by a government unwilling to support its own future leaders. Our only remaining option is to provide these students with these rebates so that they will not lose their financial aid for the coming school year. This bill calls on the Secretary of Education to calculate the increase in a student's expected family contribution due to the tax table modifications and then provides each such student with a rebate equal to that increase. The legislation would hold harmless any student whose expected family contribution decreased or stayed the same as a result of the changes. Furthermore, the rebate would be treated in the same manner as other financial assistance for tax purposes and would not affect future Pell Grant eligibility. In addition, our bill has recently received the endorsement of the Campaign for America's Future, an organization that has been a great advocate for students and has been actively collecting stories from American students about the incredible impact of financial aid on their lives. I thank the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators for their help in crafting this bill and their support in helping students receive the financial aid they deserve. I urge my colleagues to pass the Student Fairness Act immediately to prevent any student from putting off college because their financial aid has suddenly and mysteriously disappeared. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, over 4,700 people, mostly African American, were victims of lynching in the United States between 1882 and 1968. This represents one of the low points in our history as a Nation--a time when our Nation turned away from its responsibility to our fellow citizens and failed to do the right thing. We condemn these terrible crimes and ask forgiveness for the failure of the Senate to act. We are reminded that our history is not perfect and that the Senate made a costly mistake, calculated not in dollar figures but in human lives. I am deeply saddened by the fact that during a time when our commitment to justice for all Americans was tested the U.S. Senate failed to enact antilynching legislation to stop this brutal, tragic, and senseless violence. And so I join my colleagues in this apology. It would be a mistake to see lynching as distant history for that is simply not the case. Lynching occurred in the United States until 1968 and was committed in 46 States, including New Jersey. Lynching was used to kill, humiliate, and dehumanize African Americans and, to a lesser extent, other minorities. It was intended to teach minorities a lesson--that if they did not follow the established social code of conduct between the races and classes, they too might suffer this fate. Indeed, there are countless stories of African American teenage boys who were allegedly lynched for talking back to a White man or looking at a White woman. Those acts were seen as transgressions in the eyes of lynch mobs who failed to understand one of the most central tenets of our great Nation--that we are all equal under the Constitution and laws of the United States of America. In reality, it was not only the lynch mobs that failed to understand that we are all equal. State and local governments also failed to uphold this democratic principle. Although State and local laws prohibited murder and other violent crime, State and local officials failed to enforce these laws when they applied to lynching victims. And so lynching continued through the first half of the 20th Century as our society and government failed to hold the people who committed these crimes accountable. Mr. President, lynching also continued because many communities implicitly sanctioned such events. We are not talking about secret affairs held under cover of darkness by men wearing hoods to hide their identity. We are talking about public spectacles held in town squares during broad day-light with no attempt by the participants to shield their identity. Indeed, there are countless stories of community celebrations surrounding lynching: of businesses closed so locals could attend, of postcards sent out commemorating these horrific events, and of souvenirs such as pieces of hanging rope sold to onlookers. American Presidents asked the Senate, on seven separate occasions, to enact antilynching legislation to stop the violence. From 1900 to 1950, approximately 200 antilynching bills were introduced in Congress. And between 1920 and 1940, the U.S. House of Representatives passed three such bills. But the Senate remained silent and it was that silence that prevented the enactment of a Federal antilynching law. This resolution is an acknowledgement that the Senate, in failing to pass a Federal antilynching law, ceased to protect many American citizens. While Federal legislation may not be the ideal solution in all areas of criminal justice, it has been essential in the realm of civil rights. When States have failed to enforce their own criminal laws because of local pressure or bias, the Federal Government has frequently established laws to vindicate the civil rights of all Americans. Mr. President, I strongly believe that it is not enough for us to stand here and apologize for things that happened in the past. We must use this recognition of the Senate's past inaction to motivate us to enact laws today that protect the basic civil rights of all Americans, such as the Local Law Enforcement Act of 2005. This bill, which I am proud to cosponsor, will strengthen the ability of the Federal, State, and local governments to investigate and prosecute hate crimes based on race, ethnic background, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and disability. I urge all my colleagues to support this bill, a true test of the commitment of the Senate to do the right thing.