Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Microbicides Development Act of 2005. I am very pleased to be introducing this bipartisan bill along with my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Obama, Bingaman, Cantwell, Clinton, Dodd, Durbin, Feinstein, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Leahy, Mikulski, Murray, Schumer, and Smith. I thank my colleagues for their support of this important legislation, which we believe is vital to the pursuit of combating the global HIV/ AIDS crisis. Today we are celebrating International Women's Day. Not only should we celebrate the achievements of women nationally and globally today, but we should also promise to redouble our efforts to improve the lives of women around the globe. I can't think of an issue more deserving of our attention in the United States Senate than that of the toll that HIV/AIDS is having on women and their children around the world. Today, nearly half of the 37 million adults now living with HIV worldwide are women. The U.N.'s new Epidemic Update released in late 2004 shows that women and girls are increasingly affected by the disease in each region of the world and the epidemic continues to worsen. Women are the new face of AIDS. Approximately 7,000 women are infected with HIV everyday. The biggest rise in HIV/AIDS among women is occurring in East Asia, which has seen a 56 percent infection rate increase, followed by the region of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Notably, these are areas of the world that are not currently included in the President's AIDS initiative (PEPFAR). I would like to note that later this week I will be introducing legislation to make India eligible for PEPFAR assistance. It is estimated that by 2010, India could have 20 million HIV infected individuals up from five million currently and women are at the center of the rapid growth of the disease. I would like to quote from a recent news article in USA Today, which discusses the HIV/AIDS vulnerabilities that women confront. ``In this male-dominated society, ironclad traditions surrounding marriage leave women little say over their sexual or reproductive lives. So many married men bring HIV home to their wives that married women are one of India's highest- risk groups. Nearly half of all new HIV infections occur in women, and studies indicate that 90 percent of women with HIV were virgins when they married and remained faithful to their husbands.'' This statement describes the plight of women in so many societies and countries where women simply do not have the economic or political power to insist that their husbands use condoms or abstain from having sex outside of marriage. The typical woman who gets infected with HIV has only one partner--her husband. This trend devastates families and puts children at risk. This astounding reality bears restating: The single greatest risk factor for a woman in the developing world of contracting the HIV virus is being married. Women need HIV-prevention tools that they can control to safeguard their health and that of their families and communities. Unfortunately, there exists absolutely no HIV or STD prevention method that is within a woman's personal control. Condom use must be negotiated with a partner. We are all aware that for too many women, particularly low- income women in the developing world and many in our own country who rely upon a male partner for economic support, there is no power of negotiation. We know these women are at risk--yet, we expect them to protect themselves without any tools. Today we have the opportunity to invest in groundbreaking research that can produce these tools, and ultimately, empower women. Microbicides are self-administered products that women could use to prevent transmission of STDs, including HIV/AIDS. I say ``could'', because due to insufficient research investments, no microbicides have been brought to market. This legislation would expand Federal investments for microbicide research at the National Institutes for Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). In addition to encouraging new investments in microbicide research, the Microbicides Development Act will expedite the implementation of the NIH's five-year strategic plan for microbicide research, as well as expand coordination among federal agencies already involved in this research, including NIH, CDC, and the United States Agency on International Development (USAID). Perhaps most importantly, the legislation calls for the establishment of a Microbicide Research and Development Branch within the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The National Institutes of Health, principally through the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), spends the majority of Federal dollars in this area. However, microbicide research at NIH is currently conducted with no single line of administrative accountability or specific funding coordination. In addition, other Federal agencies such as CDC and USAID undertake microbicides research and development activities. Because there is no Federal coordination, however, there is the risk that inefficiencies and duplication of effort could result. Through a variety of committees Congress has requested that NIH and its Office of AIDS Research provide Congress with a ``Federal coordination plan'' for research and development in this area, but formal submission of this plan has been repeatedly delayed. A unit dedicated to microbicide research and development at the NIH is essential to providing the appropriate staff and funding for the coordination of these activities at the NIH and across agencies. Microbicides may not be a magic bullet, but they are essential to addressing the HIV/AIDS crisis. With leading scientists concluding that a vaccine is likely to be at least 10 years away, we need to make a strong commitment to developing complementary prevention tools such as microbicides. Microbicides are a public health good for which the social benefits are high but economic incentives to private investment are low. Despite the potential market size, neither pharmaceutical nor major biotech companies have made large investments in the field because development is costly and the likelihood of finding an effective product is unknown. Like other public health goods, such as vaccines, public funding must fill the gap left by market failure. The cost of developing the existing pipeline of microbicide candidate products has been estimated at $775 million over five years. This investment should generate a number of safe, effective microbicides by 2010. Currently, however, U.S. Federal funding for microbicides is only about $88.8 million annually and is spread across all areas of microbicide research, not just product development. As for any pharmaceutical or health care product, the key to developing safe, effective, affordable and accessible microbicides is sufficient investment. If we are to realize the promise of microbicides and the lifesaving properties they may provide, then additional public funding must be made available for research and development. The Microbicide Development Act of 2005 will help us achieve this goal. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Microbicides Development Act of 2005. I am very pleased to be introducing this bipartisan bill along with my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Obama, Bingaman, Cantwell, Clinton, Dodd, Durbin, Feinstein, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Leahy, Mikulski, Murray, Schumer, and Smith. I thank my colleagues for their support of this important legislation, which we believe is vital to the pursuit of combating the global HIV/ AIDS crisis. Today we are celebrating International Women's Day. Not only should we celebrate the achievements of women nationally and globally today, but we should also promise to redouble our efforts to improve the lives of women around the globe. I can't think of an issue more deserving of our attention in the United States Senate than that of the toll that HIV/AIDS is having on women and their children around the world. Today, nearly half of the 37 million adults now living with HIV worldwide are women. The U.N.'s new Epidemic Update released in late 2004 shows that women and girls are increasingly affected by the disease in each region of the world and the epidemic continues to worsen. Women are the new face of AIDS. Approximately 7,000 women are infected with HIV everyday. The biggest rise in HIV/AIDS among women is occurring in East Asia, which has seen a 56 percent infection rate increase, followed by the region of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Notably, these are areas of the world that are not currently included in the President's AIDS initiative (PEPFAR). I would like to note that later this week I will be introducing legislation to make India eligible for PEPFAR assistance. It is estimated that by 2010, India could have 20 million HIV infected individuals up from five million currently and women are at the center of the rapid growth of the disease. I would like to quote from a recent news article in USA Today, which discusses the HIV/AIDS vulnerabilities that women confront. ``In this male-dominated society, ironclad traditions surrounding marriage leave women little say over their sexual or reproductive lives. So many married men bring HIV home to their wives that married women are one of India's highest- risk groups. Nearly half of all new HIV infections occur in women, and studies indicate that 90 percent of women with HIV were virgins when they married and remained faithful to their husbands.'' This statement describes the plight of women in so many societies and countries where women simply do not have the economic or political power to insist that their husbands use condoms or abstain from having sex outside of marriage. The typical woman who gets infected with HIV has only one partner--her husband. This trend devastates families and puts children at risk. This astounding reality bears restating: The single greatest risk factor for a woman in the developing world of contracting the HIV virus is being married. Women need HIV-prevention tools that they can control to safeguard their health and that of their families and communities. Unfortunately, there exists absolutely no HIV or STD prevention method that is within a woman's personal control. Condom use must be negotiated with a partner. We are all aware that for too many women, particularly low- income women in the developing world and many in our own country who rely upon a male partner for economic support, there is no power of negotiation. We know these women are at risk--yet, we expect them to protect themselves without any tools. Today we have the opportunity to invest in groundbreaking research that can produce these tools, and ultimately, empower women. Microbicides are self-administered products that women could use to prevent transmission of STDs, including HIV/AIDS. I say ``could'', because due to insufficient research investments, no microbicides have been brought to market. This legislation would expand Federal investments for microbicide research at the National Institutes for Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). In addition to encouraging new investments in microbicide research, the Microbicides Development Act will expedite the implementation of the NIH's five-year strategic plan for microbicide research, as well as expand coordination among federal agencies already involved in this research, including NIH, CDC, and the United States Agency on International Development (USAID). Perhaps most importantly, the legislation calls for the establishment of a Microbicide Research and Development Branch within the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The National Institutes of Health, principally through the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), spends the majority of Federal dollars in this area. However, microbicide research at NIH is currently conducted with no single line of administrative accountability or specific funding coordination. In addition, other Federal agencies such as CDC and USAID undertake microbicides research and development activities. Because there is no Federal coordination, however, there is the risk that inefficiencies and duplication of effort could result. Through a variety of committees Congress has requested that NIH and its Office of AIDS Research provide Congress with a ``Federal coordination plan'' for research and development in this area, but formal submission of this plan has been repeatedly delayed. A unit dedicated to microbicide research and development at the NIH is essential to providing the appropriate staff and funding for the coordination of these activities at the NIH and across agencies. Microbicides may not be a magic bullet, but they are essential to addressing the HIV/AIDS crisis. With leading scientists concluding that a vaccine is likely to be at least 10 years away, we need to make a strong commitment to developing complementary prevention tools such as microbicides. Microbicides are a public health good for which the social benefits are high but economic incentives to private investment are low. Despite the potential market size, neither pharmaceutical nor major biotech companies have made large investments in the field because development is costly and the likelihood of finding an effective product is unknown. Like other public health goods, such as vaccines, public funding must fill the gap left by market failure. The cost of developing the existing pipeline of microbicide candidate products has been estimated at $775 million over five years. This investment should generate a number of safe, effective microbicides by 2010. Currently, however, U.S. Federal funding for microbicides is only about $88.8 million annually and is spread across all areas of microbicide research, not just product development. As for any pharmaceutical or health care product, the key to developing safe, effective, affordable and accessible microbicides is sufficient investment. If we are to realize the promise of microbicides and the lifesaving properties they may provide, then additional public funding must be made available for research and development. The Microbicide Development Act of 2005 will help us achieve this goal. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of Senator Kennedy's amendment that would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for gradual increases in the Federal minimum wage. An increase in the Federal minimum wage is long overdue. It has now been over 7 years since Congress last raised the minimum wage to its current level of $5.15 per hour. Since that last increase, Congress's failure to adjust the wage for inflation has reduced the purchasing power of the minimum wage to record low levels. In fact, after accounting for the loss of real value due to inflation, the purchasing power of the minimum wage has not been this low since the wage increase of 1945. When Congress last raised the minimum wage in 1996, the wage was raised from $4.75 to its current $5.15. At the time, this modest increase had real results. The adjustment increased the take home pay of nearly 10 million hard working Americans. But with inflation, the real dollar value of that increase is long gone. So that we are clear, raising the minimum wage is a family issue. So often in this body we talk about family issues. This is our chance to act. No family gets rich from earning the minimum wage. In fact, the current minimum wage does not even lift a family out of poverty. A person earning the current minimum wage, working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, earns only $10,700--nearly $4,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. Seven out of every 10 minimum wage workers are adults, and 40 percent of minimum wage workers are the sole breadwinners of their families. Moreover, a disproportionate number of minimum wage workers are women. Sixty percent of the 11 million minimum wage workers are women, and many are single mothers who must put food on the table, make rent payments, and provide childcare. Increasing the minimum wage by a mere $1.50 per hour would mean an extra $3,000 a year for working families. These additional dollars can provide tangible help to these families in the form of groceries, rent, and the ability to pay one's utility bills. The problems posed by our insufficient minimum wage are stark in my home State of New Jersey. According to New Jersey Department of Labor statistics, there are just over 181,000 people making minimum wage in the State. While some States have set higher minimum wage levels, New Jersey is like most States--its minimum wage mirrors the Federal minimum wage. But New Jersey is also different because the cost of living in New Jersey far exceeds the national average and working families in the State are unable to make ends meet at the current minimum wage. As a result, minimum wage workers in New Jersey are worse off than minimum wage workers living in other parts of the country. Let me quantify the severity of this problem in a high-cost State such as New Jersey. Last year, Legal Services of New Jersey released a self-sufficiency study that found that--without private or public assistance--a New Jersey family of four needs a yearly salary of anywhere from $37,516 to $56,670 to make ends meet. Now remember, as I mentioned earlier, an individual earning the current minimum wage, working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, earns only $10,700. What that then means is that in New Jersey, a family of four that has both parents working full-time for the minimum wage would still face an annual shortfall likely in excess of $20,000 in order to cover basic living needs. While the Kennedy amendment seeks to provide a real wage increase to workers that will help them keep up with the rising cost of living in our Nation, the Santorum amendment offered by my Republican colleagues is a cruel hoax on hard-working Americans. It is politics over policy, and it is just plain wrong. The Santorum amendment only provides about half of the minimum wage increase of the Kennedy amendment. It also denies minimum wage, overtime and equal pay rights from over 10 million workers. The Santorum amendment will increase the minimum wage by a mere $1.10 per hour. This amendment will benefit only 1.8 million workers--5.5 million fewer than the Kennedy amendment. The difference between an increase to $7.25 and an increase to $6.25 for a minimum wage worker has a real impact on people's lives, particularly in a State such as New Jersey. It means on average 15 fewer months of child care; over a year less of tuition at a community college; 10 fewer months of heat and electricity; 6 fewer months of groceries; and 5 fewer months of rent. The Santorum amendment denies more than 10 million workers minimum wage, overtime pay and equal pay rights by ending individual Fair Labor Standards coverage and raising the enterprise coverage threshold to $1 million from $500,000. The Santorum amendment would be the death of the 40-hour workweek and the American weekend. After the Administration's denial last year of overtime protections for 6 million workers, this proposal would further undermine overtime protections by allowing employers to refuse to pay workers up to 10 hours of earned overtime pay every 2 weeks. That means a pay cut of $3,000 a year for a median income earner-- $43,000 per year--and an $800 pay cut for minimum wage workers. Employers are already free to offer more flexible schedules under current law--the only difference is that now they have to pay workers overtime when they work more than 40 hours in a week. Finally, the Santorum amendment prohibits states from providing stronger wage protections than the Federal standard for tipped employees like waiters and waitresses. There are some items in the Santorum amendment that can help our small businesses. But this amendment has been so bloated down with provisions that are harmful to American workers that as a whole it is not just bad for workers, it is ultimately bad for business. All of our hard working families nationwide need and deserve a minimum wage that reflects the increased cost of living in America. It is the least we can do for people who work hard and make a positive contribution to our great Nation. Let's not dishonor them or their efforts. I urge my colleagues to support the Kennedy amendment.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, before I call up my amendment, let me compliment the Senator from Massachusetts for his continued argument on behalf of the men and women who work very hard for a living, are put into difficult circumstances because of medical care costs, and end up in a situation that is extraordinarily heavy handed and insensitive to the realities of what is going on with the cost of health care. I compliment him and the Senator from Illinois for looking after our men and women in uniform. All of these are areas where the overall Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act is missing the point. So much of what is occurring in the personal bankruptcy area is a function of personal situations, things that are circumstances beyond the control of the individual. I will talk about another one, economically distressed caregivers, in my amendment. It is impossible to think that we need to use a means test as the basis of how we are solving this problem, particularly when we are taking a completely unbalanced approach and not looking seriously at corporate bankruptcy. Now we read in the paper today, we have these protection trusts that are offshore, and we even learn they are onshore. It was published in the New York Times today about how the wealthy can protect their assets, not even using the homestead. They just set up a trust and it is automatic. They can avoid it. But someone who has grave medical difficulties, and in my amendment, the long-term care situation, there is a lack of fairness that people are just not addressing when we are talking about Bankruptcy Code changes that really are harsh on those people most vulnerable in our society. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, economically distressed caregivers are those who have incurred substantial medical debt on behalf of dependent or nondependent family members. This is the easy thing, taking care of mom and dad. It is a normal value concept in America that people look after their seniors. Sometimes that comes at an enormous cost to those families' ability to maintain their employment status or reduced hours or wage levels. Many people have to go on the unemployment rolls. There are an estimated 44 to 50 million family caregivers in our country, a large number. Nobody really knows the number. These Americans spend anywhere from a few hours a week to 40 hours a week or more taking care of a loved one, sick or disabled. These individuals provide an enormous service to our society because the costs they take up are not borne by the broader society through Medicaid or other areas, and they provide an enormous benefit to their families. The economic estimate of this value is over $257 billion annually. According to the National Family Caregivers Association, in my home State, there are 830,000 or so family caregivers. So New Jersey has 830,000 of these people in a population of about 8.5 million. Almost 10 percent of the population is involved with family caregiving. The estimated value is just shy of $8 billion. That unpaid care comes with a real cost. According to Harvard Law School Professor Elizabeth Warren, whom I know Senator Kennedy has quoted a number of times in the presentation, approximately 125,000 American families in this long-term care situation, family caregiving situation, go and declare bankruptcy each year because of their inability to work. It is really a Hobson's choice about whether they take care of their families or go to work. It puts them in an incredible position of choosing what they think is right for their family or whether they deal with the economic system, which now, according to the means test, will put them into chapter 13. It is an incredible thing that we are foisting on the American people. I have one anecdote everybody should look to regarding the practical reality of these situations. A young lady from Blackwood, NJ, wrote to my office talking about this bill. She is 31 years old and the sole caregiver for her husband, who is 47 and has Lou Gehrig's disease. He is in a long-term care situation. He will be there for as long as he is able to sustain himself with this tragic disease. They have four young daughters, 11, 7, 2, and 6 weeks old. She is the sole caregiver. She has $40,000 in medical bills, with untold numbers ahead of her. The financial strain for her and her children will put her into bankruptcy. Is this a lady who ought to go directly to chapter 13 because she doesn't meet the median income standard? It is inconceivable in my mind that we are prepared to let those who are doing very well in life set up these protection trusts that we know about, which protect the wealthy who have fancy homes and homestead rebate situations, and the young woman in Blackwood cannot protect herself, her four daughters, and take care of her husband. This is outside of the realm of reason, and it doesn't make sense economically for the country because what is going to happen is this individual is going to be on charity care or Medicaid to take care of the medical bills of her husband, who has Lou Gehrig's Disease. They are going to turn somewhere, and we are going to pay for it. We have taken away the opportunity for that individual to take care of her family. And $257 billion worth of long-term caregiving is the estimate we have in this society. We are going to put that at risk through this bill. We ought to amend that. We ought to have standards set with regard to individuals who are giving care to their families and those they are responsible for and take care of these 125,000 folks who declare bankruptcy each year and make sure they are not forced into chapter 13. This is a mistake. It is essential that people recognize what we are doing here in a practical sense--undermining that safety net provided to families and individuals. I hope my colleagues will support my amendment and support Senator Kennedy's because the broader question of medical care is a driving force in over 50 percent of all of the bankruptcies in this country. It is hard to imagine that we are going to put folks into this indentured servitude, which is only going to lead to most of them using other social services in the country and will rack up even higher costs in Medicaid and charity care. The cost is going to come out, and the credit card companies are going to benefit. It doesn't seem to be a sensible economic practice.

Mr. CORZINE. The Senator from Massachusetts asks the correct question. What is the problem we are addressing here? Is it a narrow problem of a few abusers of the credit system--and the estimates I see are 10 percent or less--and when we address that, are we encompassing far too many people who are situationally disadvantaged by how the bankruptcy system would work in future circumstances? The Reserve and Guard folks who the Senator from Illinois talked about, the people who are dealing with an out-of-control cost structure in our medical system or long-term caregivers--44 million people who are looking after seniors and disabled in this country are getting not a whit paid for from that. We are going to impose a cost on them that we are going to end up paying back in the Medicaid system? It is just bad economics. It is not even smart public policy, saying, let's do an accounting estimate of what the cost is and the way it is today, where people are providing $257 billion worth of aid, and we are going to turn around and force that into a system. I don't know. Where I came from, we like to look at the costs and the benefits, and we try to identify the right side of the equation. In my view, this bankruptcy bill is not taking into account these very important situational circumstances. It is going to raise enormously the cost of doing health care business in this country and the cost of recruitment in our military, and the only people who will benefit are the guys who have the smart lawyers who will teach them how to put protective trusts together and move to Florida or wherever the homestead protections are the highest. It is a disaster economically, as well as for individuals' lives. I appreciate the question. We ought to try to work to amend this legislation so we are dealing with the 10 percent of the people who are trying to avoid paying their bills. Most people do not want to be in bankruptcy. I ask unanimous consent that a Consumer Federation of America be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE. May I inquire how much time is available?

Mr. CORZINE. Let me start by saying, I don't understand why we are trying to solve a problem on large swathes of our society in the case of the economically distressed caregivers--there were 44.125 million in bankruptcy last year--why we think 5 percent of the population or 10 percent of the population, of those that are using the bankruptcy laws need to have a whole adjustment in how we approach putting people into bankruptcy to take care of a small percentage of individuals, when in fact including the consideration of deductions of expenses that would go under chapter 13, why we don't want to encourage families to take care of their individuals. I hope my colleagues will support the Corzine amendment which takes care of economically distressed caregivers. Amendment No. 28

Mr. CORZINE. This amendment deals with the economically distressed caregivers. There are 44 million of those in America. Mr. President, $257 billion is saved each year by family caregiving. If we value families, we ought to protect them under the harsh changes we are implementing here. I hope people will say we want to reward that. There are 125,000 bankruptcies a year from distressed caregiving. This is one where family values and all of the things that people claim they care about are represented. This ought to be carved out from the bankruptcy reform. I hope my colleagues will support this. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Darfur Accountability Act. This is an issue that I and a number of my colleagues have as much passion about and as much conviction and concern as anything that we could speak about on this floor. As we stand here today, 225,000, maybe more, Darfurians in the Sudan have died over the last 2 years. A million and three quarters are displaced, living in camps. Senator Brownback is a cosponsor of the Darfur Accountability Act, along with Senators DeWine, Talent, Dodd, Durbin, Feingold, and Lieberman--a bipartisan basis. All believe strongly and passionately that we need to act now. This bill, which we will be introducing today, provides the tools, the authorities to confront the crisis of humanity that is taking place in Darfur. It can be a reflection of our Nation's commitment to live up to the most solemn promise of our time and our Nation's values--to never stand by quietly while genocide goes forth, while genocide rages in a part of the world. ``Never again'' is the rallying cry we have all heard from the tragedy of World War II, from the response and understanding of the tragedy of Rwanda and genocides across history. Man's horrific treatment of his fellow man in genocide must be stood up against, must be pushed back against. We must say no. It has been more than 7 months since the resolution introduced by Senator Brownback and myself declaring the atrocities in Darfur to be declared genocide passed the Senate. It has been more than 7 months since the House of Representatives passed a similar resolution. And it has been 6 months since Secretary of State Colin Powell made the same declaration. Genocide continues. Just 1 month ago a U.N. commission confirmed a litany of atrocities that have become all too familiar in this situation: Government forces and militias conducted indiscriminate attacks, including killing of civilians, torture, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence, pillaging and forced displacement throughout Darfur. It has been going on for 2 years. The report stated that the atrocities were ``conducted on a widespread and systematic basis,'' and that the ``magnitude and large-scale nature of some crimes against humanity, as well as their consistency over a long period of time, necessarily imply that these crimes result from a central planning operation.'' This is public policy in the Sudan--public policy. Maybe more compelling is a series of articles, two of which I will put into the Record, that are reflective of the public and transparent and dogged coverage by a New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof, which document completely the nature of the atrocities going on, including, unfortunately, some of the pictorial efforts that bring forth the certainty that genocide is taking place. I will submit a column written on February 23, ``The Secret Genocide Archive,'' which carries pictures in the New York Times of some of the outcomes of our failure to act. Then there is a second column which I will put into the Record. It is in today's paper, March 2, 2005, ``The American Witness,'' where a U.S. marine on the ground, a captain in the Marine Corps, is citing and stating and documenting the continuation of this tragedy in the lives of these people in Darfur. I ask unanimous consent that these articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, we are truly at a historic moment. The U.N. Commission confirmed that these atrocities were continuing even as it was doing its investigation. By the way, we just released from the U.S. State Department a report on human rights practices in countries around the world. The February 28 report reconfirmed our own Government's view that what is taking place is genocide. We bear the responsibility that came out of the Holocaust to remember the horrors that lead to genocide. That is why we passed the genocide convention, and it is time to act. That is what this accountability act is all about. It has a lot of detail in it. But the fact is, it is to get us up and moving. I could use a little more graphic language. We have no right to stand by while human life is being taken day after day and displacement is taking place day after day. All over this country, people of faith of all denominations, student groups, and people from all walks of life are speaking out about this in our churches, our community centers, everywhere. They expect our Government and the international community to act. The time to act is now. Let me describe the legislation, if I may. First, it reconfirms that genocide continues in Darfur. Last week, Human Rights reported new accounts of rapes, tortures, and mutilations from eyewitnesses. This needs to be dealt with. There is little doubt whatsoever that this continues. Again, I refer to the Kristof articles, which are very graphic in their explanation. Reflecting on time, I will not go through the details. There are many of these accounts. There is no reason to turn our backs on this issue. Remember the imperative: Never again. This legislation offers specifics about how the genocide should be stopped. It calls for a military no-fly zone in Darfur. This discussion about no-fly zones has been going on for the better part of a year. It is time to make sure that we as an international community, as a nation, stand up and say, let's implement that. Recent reports state that as recently as January, the Government of Sudan used aircraft and helicopters to impose its desire in implementing its genocide on the people of Darfur along with the jingaweit militia, which are notorious about implementing this. The legislation also lays out the report for the African Union mission in Darfur. In September of last year, the Senate passed an amendment by Senator DeWine and myself that sets aside $75 million in aid to the African Union so they could accelerate their monitoring and assistance on the ground in Darfur. So far, we have begun to use some of those resources. I think at this point it is about $20 million. Unfortunately, the authorization was for 3,300 African Union troops on the ground, but there are about 1,800 there today. This is 7 months after our efforts to get this done. We need to stop the killing now. That means we need to get the troops on the ground now; we have to spend the money now. It is absolutely time that we stand up and take notice and move on this issue. The legislation also provides specifics about what should be done in a new U.N. Security Council resolution, including sanctions that have previously been threatened by the council but never imposed. For instance, we have an arms embargo against the government in Darfur. We don't have an arms embargo against the Government of Sudan. We have one in Darfur. So they can get the guns and military equipment into Khartoum, and I guess we think somehow they are not going to use it where they are actually taking the lives of the people in Darfur. It is crazy that we have such a limited and ineffectual arms embargo on Sudan. We need to act. It is clear that we needed it last summer, and it is clear that we need it today. I was offered the opportunity to visit Darfur last August during that 30-day period when the U.N. Security Council was examining whether Sudan was moving to correct some of the problems, get control of the jingaweit, and actually respond to the international community's imperative that they change their actions. It was clear then that the only thing that was moving the Sudanese Government was the transparency that both journalists and the international community were providing the people who were on the ground, but they had no real interest in stopping the jingaweit or the tragedy on the ground in Darfur. None. It was only pressure from the outside that was going to have any impact on moving forward. Unfortunately, from that moment on, we have stepped back. We said we were going to do things, and we did not. Guess what. The tragedy continues and has accelerated in many places, particularly south Darfur. It is time to act. I will save going through the rest of the pieces of legislation, but I hope my colleagues will keep in mind that we have had over 200,000 deaths and one and three-quarter million people displaced, more or less. Nobody is certain of the numbers. Estimates are that 10,000 people die a month in Darfur. Do we have to wake up and understand that we have ``Rwanda 2'' on our hands to act? Do we have to have some incredible tragedy at a single point in time for us to act? It is time to put down serious accountability requirements on the Government of Sudan and to act to stop the killing in Darfur. I can only say that there is nothing that reflects our moral values in this country more than standing up to genocide. Our humanity is being challenged, the very essence of who we are as human beings. Genocide is evil. It should be stopped, and we should remember the imperative: Never again. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague from Colorado. His maiden speech was as brilliant as his life has been. It is an honor to serve with him, when I think about the story of his family and its presence and contribution to this country and the power with which he speaks for those he represents in rural America. This will be one of many speeches that make a great impact on our country. I am honored to serve with him and congratulate him on his initial voyage.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Darfur Accountability Act. This is an issue that I and a number of my colleagues have as much passion about and as much conviction and concern as anything that we could speak about on this floor. As we stand here today, 225,000, maybe more, Darfurians in the Sudan have died over the last 2 years. A million and three quarters are displaced, living in camps. Senator Brownback is a cosponsor of the Darfur Accountability Act, along with Senators DeWine, Talent, Dodd, Durbin, Feingold, and Lieberman--a bipartisan basis. All believe strongly and passionately that we need to act now. This bill, which we will be introducing today, provides the tools, the authorities to confront the crisis of humanity that is taking place in Darfur. It can be a reflection of our Nation's commitment to live up to the most solemn promise of our time and our Nation's values--to never stand by quietly while genocide goes forth, while genocide rages in a part of the world. ``Never again'' is the rallying cry we have all heard from the tragedy of World War II, from the response and understanding of the tragedy of Rwanda and genocides across history. Man's horrific treatment of his fellow man in genocide must be stood up against, must be pushed back against. We must say no. It has been more than 7 months since the resolution introduced by Senator Brownback and myself declaring the atrocities in Darfur to be declared genocide passed the Senate. It has been more than 7 months since the House of Representatives passed a similar resolution. And it has been 6 months since Secretary of State Colin Powell made the same declaration. Genocide continues. Just 1 month ago a U.N. commission confirmed a litany of atrocities that have become all too familiar in this situation: Government forces and militias conducted indiscriminate attacks, including killing of civilians, torture, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence, pillaging and forced displacement throughout Darfur. It has been going on for 2 years. The report stated that the atrocities were ``conducted on a widespread and systematic basis,'' and that the ``magnitude and large-scale nature of some crimes against humanity, as well as their consistency over a long period of time, necessarily imply that these crimes result from a central planning operation.'' This is public policy in the Sudan--public policy. Maybe more compelling is a series of articles, two of which I will put into the Record, that are reflective of the public and transparent and dogged coverage by a New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof, which document completely the nature of the atrocities going on, including, unfortunately, some of the pictorial efforts that bring forth the certainty that genocide is taking place. I will submit a column written on February 23, ``The Secret Genocide Archive,'' which carries pictures in the New York Times of some of the outcomes of our failure to act. Then there is a second column which I will put into the Record. It is in today's paper, March 2, 2005, ``The American Witness,'' where a U.S. marine on the ground, a captain in the Marine Corps, is citing and stating and documenting the continuation of this tragedy in the lives of these people in Darfur. I ask unanimous consent that these articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, we are truly at a historic moment. The U.N. Commission confirmed that these atrocities were continuing even as it was doing its investigation. By the way, we just released from the U.S. State Department a report on human rights practices in countries around the world. The February 28 report reconfirmed our own Government's view that what is taking place is genocide. We bear the responsibility that came out of the Holocaust to remember the horrors that lead to genocide. That is why we passed the genocide convention, and it is time to act. That is what this accountability act is all about. It has a lot of detail in it. But the fact is, it is to get us up and moving. I could use a little more graphic language. We have no right to stand by while human life is being taken day after day and displacement is taking place day after day. All over this country, people of faith of all denominations, student groups, and people from all walks of life are speaking out about this in our churches, our community centers, everywhere. They expect our Government and the international community to act. The time to act is now. Let me describe the legislation, if I may. First, it reconfirms that genocide continues in Darfur. Last week, Human Rights reported new accounts of rapes, tortures, and mutilations from eyewitnesses. This needs to be dealt with. There is little doubt whatsoever that this continues. Again, I refer to the Kristof articles, which are very graphic in their explanation. Reflecting on time, I will not go through the details. There are many of these accounts. There is no reason to turn our backs on this issue. Remember the imperative: Never again. This legislation offers specifics about how the genocide should be stopped. It calls for a military no-fly zone in Darfur. This discussion about no-fly zones has been going on for the better part of a year. It is time to make sure that we as an international community, as a nation, stand up and say, let's implement that. Recent reports state that as recently as January, the Government of Sudan used aircraft and helicopters to impose its desire in implementing its genocide on the people of Darfur along with the jingaweit militia, which are notorious about implementing this. The legislation also lays out the report for the African Union mission in Darfur. In September of last year, the Senate passed an amendment by Senator DeWine and myself that sets aside $75 million in aid to the African Union so they could accelerate their monitoring and assistance on the ground in Darfur. So far, we have begun to use some of those resources. I think at this point it is about $20 million. Unfortunately, the authorization was for 3,300 African Union troops on the ground, but there are about 1,800 there today. This is 7 months after our efforts to get this done. We need to stop the killing now. That means we need to get the troops on the ground now; we have to spend the money now. It is absolutely time that we stand up and take notice and move on this issue. The legislation also provides specifics about what should be done in a new U.N. Security Council resolution, including sanctions that have previously been threatened by the council but never imposed. For instance, we have an arms embargo against the government in Darfur. We don't have an arms embargo against the Government of Sudan. We have one in Darfur. So they can get the guns and military equipment into Khartoum, and I guess we think somehow they are not going to use it where they are actually taking the lives of the people in Darfur. It is crazy that we have such a limited and ineffectual arms embargo on Sudan. We need to act. It is clear that we needed it last summer, and it is clear that we need it today. I was offered the opportunity to visit Darfur last August during that 30-day period when the U.N. Security Council was examining whether Sudan was moving to correct some of the problems, get control of the jingaweit, and actually respond to the international community's imperative that they change their actions. It was clear then that the only thing that was moving the Sudanese Government was the transparency that both journalists and the international community were providing the people who were on the ground, but they had no real interest in stopping the jingaweit or the tragedy on the ground in Darfur. None. It was only pressure from the outside that was going to have any impact on moving forward. Unfortunately, from that moment on, we have stepped back. We said we were going to do things, and we did not. Guess what. The tragedy continues and has accelerated in many places, particularly south Darfur. It is time to act. I will save going through the rest of the pieces of legislation, but I hope my colleagues will keep in mind that we have had over 200,000 deaths and one and three-quarter million people displaced, more or less. Nobody is certain of the numbers. Estimates are that 10,000 people die a month in Darfur. Do we have to wake up and understand that we have ``Rwanda 2'' on our hands to act? Do we have to have some incredible tragedy at a single point in time for us to act? It is time to put down serious accountability requirements on the Government of Sudan and to act to stop the killing in Darfur. I can only say that there is nothing that reflects our moral values in this country more than standing up to genocide. Our humanity is being challenged, the very essence of who we are as human beings. Genocide is evil. It should be stopped, and we should remember the imperative: Never again. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague from Colorado. His maiden speech was as brilliant as his life has been. It is an honor to serve with him, when I think about the story of his family and its presence and contribution to this country and the power with which he speaks for those he represents in rural America. This will be one of many speeches that make a great impact on our country. I am honored to serve with him and congratulate him on his initial voyage.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ann- Catherine Blank, a State Department fellow who has been working with my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the bill which I am about to introduce.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that would designate New Jersey's elite urban search and rescue team, New Jersey Task Force One, as part of the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System. I am proud to be joined by my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Frank Lautenberg, in introducing this legislation today. And I am also pleased that my colleague, Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen, has introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives. New Jersey Task Force One is a team comprised of career and volunteer fire, police, and EMS personnel from all 21 counties in New Jersey. The primary mission of the NJTFO is to provide advanced technical search and rescue capabilities to victims who are trapped or entombed in collapsed buildings. The NJTFO is a world-class operation whose response system mirrors the Federal Emergency Management Agencies guidelines on urban search and rescue and the appropriate National Fire Protection Association Standards. The training, commitment, and expertise of the NJTFO has saved lives. In fact, New Jersey Task Force One was one of the first units to arrive on the scene at the World Trade Center on September 11, and they bravely conducted search, rescue, medical, and planning and logistics operations on site. In this era of terrorism and heightened homeland security we should be doing all we can to show our commitment to our first responders. This designation would do just that for New Jersey Task Force One. More importantly, by making NJTFO a part of the National Urban Search and Rescue Team they would be eligible for Federal funding that is vital to helping them fulfill their mission. The honor of joining the other 28 members of the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System is a recognition that the NJTFO is more than deserving of. I urge the Senate to enact this legislation and ask for a copy of this bill to be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Tsunami Early Warning and Relief Act, to significantly decrease losses in the event of a future tsunami anywhere in the world. This bill would direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, to establish and administer a Global Tsunami Disaster Reduction Program, based on the successful program which NOAA operates in the Pacific Ocean. I traveled to South and Southeast Asia in the wake of last year's Indian Ocean tsunami that led to the death of more than 160,000 people and a widespread humanitarian crisis. What I witnessed in Indonesia, Thailand and Sri Lanka was the most incredible destruction I have ever seen. I can only imagine that the devastation from the tsunami rivals Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the level of sheer destruction, damage, displacement and loss of life. Around the world, and right here in the United States, highly populated coastal areas are vulnerable to potential devastation on the scale of the Indian Ocean tsunami. As we continue to assist our South Asian friends in their reconstruction effort, we must also do everything in our ability to reduce human, ecological and economic damage in the event of another tsunami. We cannot allow such a natural disaster to separate families, orphan children and destroy livelihoods once again. There is no magic solution. Coastal areas, by nature, will face significant damage if a tsunami strikes. However, an advance warning would go a long way to reduce the loss of life in particular. Had governments in South Asia been able to inform their citizens of the approaching tsunami, tourists would not have been tanning on the beach and coastal markets would not have been obliviously going about their everyday business. While they would not have been perfect, rudimentary coastal evacuations could have taken place--and as a result we would not see the awful human cost that I witnessed this January. We currently operate an effective warning system in the Pacific Ocean, which warns our citizens and coastal governments about potential tsunami threats faced in Hawaii, Alaska and West Coast states. This system utilizes a sophisticated network of buoys in the Pacific Ocean that monitor rising and falling water levels. Using this data, and seismic observation of the ocean floor, NOAA is able to adequately assess the threat posed to coastal residents by natural activity in the Pacific and inform emergency service agencies in regions that face imminent threats. The Tsunami Early Warning and Relief Act would expand NOAA's successful Pacific tsunami monitoring and communications program to the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, Indian Ocean, and other areas around the world that are vulnerable to tsunamis. Furthermore, this legislation expands NOAA's Tsunami Ready Program, which disseminates tsunami communications to coastal communities and coordinates evacuation strategies for these regions. In conclusion, expansion of tsunami warning and readiness programs are critical to the lives and livelihoods of coastal residents in the United States and around the world. For all of us, the devastating aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami is a call to action that we must improve our reflexes when it comes to tsunamis. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation, and other tsunami warning systems proposed by my colleagues, and to move forward as quickly as possible so that we never again have to see the devastation, death, broken families and orphaned children that we see right now in South Asia. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Tsunami Early Warning and Relief Act be a printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that would designate New Jersey's elite urban search and rescue team, New Jersey Task Force One, as part of the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System. I am proud to be joined by my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Frank Lautenberg, in introducing this legislation today. And I am also pleased that my colleague, Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen, has introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives. New Jersey Task Force One is a team comprised of career and volunteer fire, police, and EMS personnel from all 21 counties in New Jersey. The primary mission of the NJTFO is to provide advanced technical search and rescue capabilities to victims who are trapped or entombed in collapsed buildings. The NJTFO is a world-class operation whose response system mirrors the Federal Emergency Management Agencies guidelines on urban search and rescue and the appropriate National Fire Protection Association Standards. The training, commitment, and expertise of the NJTFO has saved lives. In fact, New Jersey Task Force One was one of the first units to arrive on the scene at the World Trade Center on September 11, and they bravely conducted search, rescue, medical, and planning and logistics operations on site. In this era of terrorism and heightened homeland security we should be doing all we can to show our commitment to our first responders. This designation would do just that for New Jersey Task Force One. More importantly, by making NJTFO a part of the National Urban Search and Rescue Team they would be eligible for Federal funding that is vital to helping them fulfill their mission. The honor of joining the other 28 members of the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System is a recognition that the NJTFO is more than deserving of. I urge the Senate to enact this legislation and ask for a copy of this bill to be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Tsunami Early Warning and Relief Act, to significantly decrease losses in the event of a future tsunami anywhere in the world. This bill would direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, to establish and administer a Global Tsunami Disaster Reduction Program, based on the successful program which NOAA operates in the Pacific Ocean. I traveled to South and Southeast Asia in the wake of last year's Indian Ocean tsunami that led to the death of more than 160,000 people and a widespread humanitarian crisis. What I witnessed in Indonesia, Thailand and Sri Lanka was the most incredible destruction I have ever seen. I can only imagine that the devastation from the tsunami rivals Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the level of sheer destruction, damage, displacement and loss of life. Around the world, and right here in the United States, highly populated coastal areas are vulnerable to potential devastation on the scale of the Indian Ocean tsunami. As we continue to assist our South Asian friends in their reconstruction effort, we must also do everything in our ability to reduce human, ecological and economic damage in the event of another tsunami. We cannot allow such a natural disaster to separate families, orphan children and destroy livelihoods once again. There is no magic solution. Coastal areas, by nature, will face significant damage if a tsunami strikes. However, an advance warning would go a long way to reduce the loss of life in particular. Had governments in South Asia been able to inform their citizens of the approaching tsunami, tourists would not have been tanning on the beach and coastal markets would not have been obliviously going about their everyday business. While they would not have been perfect, rudimentary coastal evacuations could have taken place--and as a result we would not see the awful human cost that I witnessed this January. We currently operate an effective warning system in the Pacific Ocean, which warns our citizens and coastal governments about potential tsunami threats faced in Hawaii, Alaska and West Coast states. This system utilizes a sophisticated network of buoys in the Pacific Ocean that monitor rising and falling water levels. Using this data, and seismic observation of the ocean floor, NOAA is able to adequately assess the threat posed to coastal residents by natural activity in the Pacific and inform emergency service agencies in regions that face imminent threats. The Tsunami Early Warning and Relief Act would expand NOAA's successful Pacific tsunami monitoring and communications program to the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, Indian Ocean, and other areas around the world that are vulnerable to tsunamis. Furthermore, this legislation expands NOAA's Tsunami Ready Program, which disseminates tsunami communications to coastal communities and coordinates evacuation strategies for these regions. In conclusion, expansion of tsunami warning and readiness programs are critical to the lives and livelihoods of coastal residents in the United States and around the world. For all of us, the devastating aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami is a call to action that we must improve our reflexes when it comes to tsunamis. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation, and other tsunami warning systems proposed by my colleagues, and to move forward as quickly as possible so that we never again have to see the devastation, death, broken families and orphaned children that we see right now in South Asia. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Tsunami Early Warning and Relief Act be a printed in the Record.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate is considering legislation designed to prohibit discrimination in health insurance and employment based on genetic information. In the last decade, biomedical researchers have made great strides in genetic research. While these discoveries are critical to researching treatments and, ultimately, discovering cures for many diseases, this information also has the potential to be used to deny health care insurance or employment to an individual who has a genetic predisposition to an illness. That is why we must make it illegal for employers and health insurers to discriminate against individuals on the basis of their genetic information. S. 306 is an important step, but it is only a first step. Any legislation addressing this issue must include strong enforcement and deterrence mechanisms. As this legislation moves forward, I hope its enforcement provisions will be strengthened. Without strong accountability provisions, there is little to deter employers and health insurers from using genetic information inappropriately. In addition, I hope that when this legislation is conferenced, the conferees will find ways to strengthen the privacy provisions. It is essential that our laws keep pace with technological advances and that we continue to protect the privacy of our citizens. Advances in technology cannot place fundamental American rights at risk. Despite my concerns about the enforcement and privacy provisions, I believe this legislation is a critical first step and look forward to working with my colleagues to continue addressing the important issue of genetic discrimination.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the confirmation of Michael Chertoff to be Secretary of Homeland Security. He is an extraordinary professional and a remarkably talented lawyer. He is highly intelligent, honorable, and impartial. He is also a straight shooter, which is exactly what we need right now in this position. He is also a personal friend. Mr. Chertoff has impeccable credentials--not the least of which is being a native New Jerseyan. He attended Harvard College and Harvard Law School, where he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. He then served as a Supreme Court law clerk. In private practice and public service, he developed a reputation as a brilliant, tough, fair, and truly world class litigator, and earned the respect of his peers and adversaries. Indeed, one New Jersey paper has even suggested he might be New Jersey's ``Lawyer Laureate.'' In recent years, Judge Chertoff has served as Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division and circuit judge for the Third Circuit. In each of these capacities and throughout his career, he has served our Nation exceptionally well. So when Judge Chertoff told me recently that this position, as Secretary of Homeland Security, is the most important task he has ever undertaken in his public career, I took notice. Given his commitment to public service and the distinguished results of his remarkable career, this statement speaks for itself. I wish to emphasize one particular aspect of Judge Chertoff's career: his role in helping the New Jersey State legislature investigate racial profiling. As special counsel to the State senate Judiciary Committee, he led the committee probe into how top State officials handled racial profiling by the State Police. His work was bipartisan, objective, balanced, and thoroughly professional, and helped expose the fact that for too long, State authorities were aware that statistics showed minority motorists were being treated unequally by some law enforcement officials, and yet ignored the problem. This landmark racial profiling investigation demonstrated Judge Chertoff's ability to balance the State's responsibility to provide for the public safety with protecting our citizens' civil liberties. Judge Chertoff is uniquely positioned to undertake the enormous challenges that come with the position of Secretary of Homeland Security. Particularly important to the citizens of New Jersey is his understanding of the critical importance of allocating our homeland security resources to those areas of the country where the risks and vulnerabilities are greatest. New Jersey is on the front lines of terrorism. We lost 700 people on September 11, 2001. Two of the 9/11 terrorists were based in New Jersey, and the anthrax that hit this institution originated in New Jersey. The Post Office in Hamilton, NJ, where the anthrax was sent, has taken years to clean up and will finally reopen next week. The costs are expected to be $72 million for decontamination and $27 million for the refurbishment of the facility. Newark Liberty Airport, and Port Newark, and the Ports of Philadelphia and Camden are critical vulnerabilities. New Jersey is home to rail lines, bridges, and tunnels to New York City, as well as chemical plants and nuclear facilities. Atlantic City has the second highest concentration of casinos in the country, and between tourists and those who work there, is visited by as many as 300,000 people. Wall Street and other financial services firms house important front and back office operations, including clearance and settlement services, and other operations essential to the functioning of America's capital markets in Newark, Jersey City, and Hoboken. And, last summer, Newark was one of three locations including New York City and Washington, DC--that was put on Orange Alert for a possible terrorist attack as intelligence suggested that the Prudential building in downtown Newark could be a target. Yet despite these growing threats to New Jersey from anthrax to the Orange Alert, and the ever-expanding costs associated with protecting the most densely populated State in the country--remarkably homeland security grants to New Jersey were cut in 2005. Funding was reduced from $93 million in 2004 to $61 million in 2005. Newark will see a 17-percent reduction in funds, from $14.9 million to $12.4 million. And, incredibly, Jersey City's homeland security funds will drop by 60 percent, from $17 million in 2004 to $6.7 million in 2005. These cuts leave New Jersey home of countless companies and people who keep our economic engine moving; home of one of the most active and exposed ports in the country; home of one of the busiest airports in America; home of our Nation's new Homeland Security Secretary--36th in the Nation in per capita homeland security funding. I was pleased that the President's budget called for an allocation of homeland security funding based on risk and vulnerability. This commonsense approach mirrors the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Senator Frank Lautenberg and I have introduced legislation that would require that homeland security funding be allocated along these lines. This bill grants the Department of Homeland Security the authority it needs to keep us safe and will allow Michael Chertoff to be an outstanding Secretary of Homeland Security. Judge Chertoff also understands the critical importance of protecting our chemical facilities. Only a week ago, the former Deputy Homeland Security Advisor to the President testified to this committee that industrial chemicals are ``acutely vulnerable and almost uniquely dangerous,'' presenting a ``mass-casualty terrorist potential rivaled only by improvised nuclear devices, certain acts of bioterrorism, and the collapse of large, occupied buildings.'' He added that chemical plant security ``should be the highest critical infrastructure protection priority for the Department of Homeland Security in the next two years.'' There are other critical issues that the nominee will face and that I am confident he is prepared to take on. Our rail lines are woefully unprotected and recent accidents have demonstrated the risk that rail transport of toxic chemicals could be attacked by terrorists. There is important work remaining at TSA, where airport screening is far from complete and where too little attention has been paid to ground transportation. And the Department of Homeland Security has not yet adequately confronted the vulnerabilities of our ports. The checklist is long and the issues complex. And in my view, Judge Chertoff is the best person to address them. One of the critical issues to be addressed by the new Secretary of Homeland Security will be civil liberties. I strongly believe that we as a nation can be both secure and free. Given Judge Chertoff's work on racial profiling in New Jersey, I am confident that he will pursue law enforcement strategies that are both effective and unbiased. His stated commitment to respecting recent Supreme Court decisions on detainees assures me that he will always pursue terrorists within the context of our laws and treaty obligations. And his public as well as private calls for a new approach to detainees is indicative of a thoughtful and open-minded professional. While I fully understand the concerns raised by my colleague from Michigan, I am disappointed that it delayed this confirmation vote. The Congress has an obligation to oversee how this administration is treating detainees, in Guantanamo and around the world. Access to FBI memoranda on this topic are critical to this oversight. But this particular document has nothing to do with Judge Chertoff's qualifications for this critical position. Indeed, I have confidence that Judge Chertoff--who has called for more open discussion on the topic of detention--will work closely with Congress so that we can come to a full understanding of what has happened and where we go from here. No one knows what the future may bring. The terrorist threat shifts, and we are constantly learning about new vulnerabilities. At this critical moment, I believe that Judge Chertoff has the kind of commitment, intellect, and imagination that we need as someone who is focused on keeping us safe, as someone who understands that homeland security means identifying the greatest risks and vulnerabilities and making them a priority, as someone who recognizes that, in protecting ourselves, we cannot sacrifice our basic principles and values. Mr. President, I am confident that Michael Chertoff is that person.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, in both support and the introduction of the Risk- Based Homeland Security Funding Act. I think this is simply urgent. It is fundamental to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, as Senator Lautenberg mentioned. Quoting language that was in that Commission report: Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. Quoting further: [F]ederal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. In fact, I believe we should relabel the bill. I had a little argument with my colleague from New Jersey. I think we ought to call it the Common Sense Homeland Security Act. It is only common sense. I think there is a consensus among all those who seriously contemplate this issue that we need to be smart and strategic about how we allocate our limited homeland security resources. This is not a local issue, although people will often argue that we are trying to speak only from parochial interests. I think you have to think about this as protecting America where we are most vulnerable. It is a national issue. Our economic assets are at stake. In New Jersey, that 2-mile stretch Senator Lautenberg spoke about in his comments has the Port of Newark, which is really what is often labeled the Port of New York. Mr. President, 80 percent of all of the incoming cargo containers that come into that east coast port are in Newark and Elizabeth. So you hear about the Port of New York and New Jersey. It is really the Port of New Jersey and Elizabeth. And that is in that 2-mile stretch. Then on the other end of that 2-mile stretch is Liberty International or Newark Airport, which is, depending on which year and the number of flight landings, the third or fourth busiest airport in America--the busiest airport in the metropolitan region of New York and New Jersey. In between, there are rail lines, chemical plants, oil refineries, all the economic assets that are important to the economic distribution of assets across the east coast. It is incredible, as Senator Lautenberg talked about, that this particular area is seeing these cuts. Newark is getting cut 17 percent from 2004 to 2005, and, unbelievably, Jersey City is getting cut 64 percent, from $17 million down to about $6 million in homeland security, State, and local grants. It is very hard to justify. You look at your constituents and say we are talking about the threat-based allocation of risk, and we see these kinds of cuts given the kind of serious concerns that we have. It is a national issue, it is not just a New Jersey issue because if that airport and that port come down, it has a major long-term impact on the economy of the Nation. It is important. I note, as Senator Lautenberg did, the Senator from Virginia has ports that have a major impact on more than just Virginia's economic well-being. The airports have more than just an economic impact on the individual State. We have to think about what the ripple impact is as we go forward. So we have to prioritize. I am pleased the President cited almost the same language in his budget yesterday. Concentrating Federal funds for State and local homeland security assistance programs on the highest threats and vulnerabilities and needs is the Presidential goal. We need to translate that into specific legislative authority so we do not come up with formulas that are revenue sharing based. Forty percent of the funds currently allocated are based on just equal allocation to the States. Nice idea, but we ought to do that in other areas, not with regard to homeland security where we ought to deal with the national economy, the national strategic interests of the country. So I hope we can take this act, this commonsensical approach, and implement it. By the way, I also wonder why we are cutting 30 percent to our State and local communities. The first responders are the first line of defense in protecting the American people and in responding to these attacks. We certainly saw that in the 9/11 case. I hope we can have a strong debate in Congress about how we are allocating within the expenditures we have with regard to homeland security. In my view, there is too much ignoring of the reality of the need to fund our local responders, making sure their communications equipment can talk to each other, making sure they have the kinds of equipment that would be able to respond, as was so heroically done by the people who responded to the 9/11 tragedy. All this has to be put in the context of real-life experiences, though. And Senator Lautenberg talked about that. Seven hundred people in our community died. This is a hot issue in the State of New Jersey because it impacted families, and it still is very much a live part of their community. People want to see action. They want to see changes as we go forward. And they want to see us be particularly focused on those places where there are risks. It is hard for New Jerseyans to understand when you put the city of Newark on the highest alert, singled out, along with New York City and Washington, DC, one day, and then get your homeland security funds cut by 20 percent or so 6 months later when the allocation comes out according to a formula, as apposed to thinking about where risks are. It is hard for the people not only in Newark, but we have Hamilton, NJ, which had a post office that was the site where all the anthrax letters were sent out. We had to shut it down. We spent $60 million cleaning up that post office, just like we had to clean up the Hart Building here in Washington. And people say, I do not really understand why we are not concerned about what is going on with regard to risk in New Jersey when we have these kinds of practical realities: 700 of our citizens, orange alerts for Newark, Hamilton post office, and I could go on and on. There are a number of instances--Atlantic City, where the way the formula works is, if you are not a town of 225,000 people, you do not get considered for these grants. We have about 40,000 people in Atlantic City, but that does not take into account the people who come and visit there, which is about 100,000 on average a day; and then all the people who work there, which is about another 40,000. So you are getting up toward those numbers. And on peak days it can be 300,000 people. It is the second highest concentration of casinos in the country. I think we need to bring common sense to where we are focusing homeland security dollars. I think that is what this act is about. I am thrilled that we have Michael Chertoff who is stepping in as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I do not think there is a smarter guy, a more objective, intellectually honest individual. I think he will push forward with commonsense approaches to allocation and recommendations. Finally, this bill does not cover other programs. It does not include the COPS Program, fire grants, other things where you need to be reflective of the needs of general revenue sharing approaches. This is dealing with homeland security the same way we deal with national security. There we identify what we think the threats are and apply the resources to match those needs. We need to bring common sense to this. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation. It is very straightforward and a simple reflection of the 9/11 Commission Report, a reflection of the words the President put in his budget report. I think it is appropriate as to how we should move forward with regard to funding for homeland security allocations.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, in both support and the introduction of the Risk- Based Homeland Security Funding Act. I think this is simply urgent. It is fundamental to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, as Senator Lautenberg mentioned. Quoting language that was in that Commission report: Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. Quoting further: [F]ederal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. In fact, I believe we should relabel the bill. I had a little argument with my colleague from New Jersey. I think we ought to call it the Common Sense Homeland Security Act. It is only common sense. I think there is a consensus among all those who seriously contemplate this issue that we need to be smart and strategic about how we allocate our limited homeland security resources. This is not a local issue, although people will often argue that we are trying to speak only from parochial interests. I think you have to think about this as protecting America where we are most vulnerable. It is a national issue. Our economic assets are at stake. In New Jersey, that 2-mile stretch Senator Lautenberg spoke about in his comments has the Port of Newark, which is really what is often labeled the Port of New York. Mr. President, 80 percent of all of the incoming cargo containers that come into that east coast port are in Newark and Elizabeth. So you hear about the Port of New York and New Jersey. It is really the Port of New Jersey and Elizabeth. And that is in that 2-mile stretch. Then on the other end of that 2-mile stretch is Liberty International or Newark Airport, which is, depending on which year and the number of flight landings, the third or fourth busiest airport in America--the busiest airport in the metropolitan region of New York and New Jersey. In between, there are rail lines, chemical plants, oil refineries, all the economic assets that are important to the economic distribution of assets across the east coast. It is incredible, as Senator Lautenberg talked about, that this particular area is seeing these cuts. Newark is getting cut 17 percent from 2004 to 2005, and, unbelievably, Jersey City is getting cut 64 percent, from $17 million down to about $6 million in homeland security, State, and local grants. It is very hard to justify. You look at your constituents and say we are talking about the threat-based allocation of risk, and we see these kinds of cuts given the kind of serious concerns that we have. It is a national issue, it is not just a New Jersey issue because if that airport and that port come down, it has a major long-term impact on the economy of the Nation. It is important. I note, as Senator Lautenberg did, the Senator from Virginia has ports that have a major impact on more than just Virginia's economic well-being. The airports have more than just an economic impact on the individual State. We have to think about what the ripple impact is as we go forward. So we have to prioritize. I am pleased the President cited almost the same language in his budget yesterday. Concentrating Federal funds for State and local homeland security assistance programs on the highest threats and vulnerabilities and needs is the Presidential goal. We need to translate that into specific legislative authority so we do not come up with formulas that are revenue sharing based. Forty percent of the funds currently allocated are based on just equal allocation to the States. Nice idea, but we ought to do that in other areas, not with regard to homeland security where we ought to deal with the national economy, the national strategic interests of the country. So I hope we can take this act, this commonsensical approach, and implement it. By the way, I also wonder why we are cutting 30 percent to our State and local communities. The first responders are the first line of defense in protecting the American people and in responding to these attacks. We certainly saw that in the 9/11 case. I hope we can have a strong debate in Congress about how we are allocating within the expenditures we have with regard to homeland security. In my view, there is too much ignoring of the reality of the need to fund our local responders, making sure their communications equipment can talk to each other, making sure they have the kinds of equipment that would be able to respond, as was so heroically done by the people who responded to the 9/11 tragedy. All this has to be put in the context of real-life experiences, though. And Senator Lautenberg talked about that. Seven hundred people in our community died. This is a hot issue in the State of New Jersey because it impacted families, and it still is very much a live part of their community. People want to see action. They want to see changes as we go forward. And they want to see us be particularly focused on those places where there are risks. It is hard for New Jerseyans to understand when you put the city of Newark on the highest alert, singled out, along with New York City and Washington, DC, one day, and then get your homeland security funds cut by 20 percent or so 6 months later when the allocation comes out according to a formula, as apposed to thinking about where risks are. It is hard for the people not only in Newark, but we have Hamilton, NJ, which had a post office that was the site where all the anthrax letters were sent out. We had to shut it down. We spent $60 million cleaning up that post office, just like we had to clean up the Hart Building here in Washington. And people say, I do not really understand why we are not concerned about what is going on with regard to risk in New Jersey when we have these kinds of practical realities: 700 of our citizens, orange alerts for Newark, Hamilton post office, and I could go on and on. There are a number of instances--Atlantic City, where the way the formula works is, if you are not a town of 225,000 people, you do not get considered for these grants. We have about 40,000 people in Atlantic City, but that does not take into account the people who come and visit there, which is about 100,000 on average a day; and then all the people who work there, which is about another 40,000. So you are getting up toward those numbers. And on peak days it can be 300,000 people. It is the second highest concentration of casinos in the country. I think we need to bring common sense to where we are focusing homeland security dollars. I think that is what this act is about. I am thrilled that we have Michael Chertoff who is stepping in as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I do not think there is a smarter guy, a more objective, intellectually honest individual. I think he will push forward with commonsense approaches to allocation and recommendations. Finally, this bill does not cover other programs. It does not include the COPS Program, fire grants, other things where you need to be reflective of the needs of general revenue sharing approaches. This is dealing with homeland security the same way we deal with national security. There we identify what we think the threats are and apply the resources to match those needs. We need to bring common sense to this. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation. It is very straightforward and a simple reflection of the 9/11 Commission Report, a reflection of the words the President put in his budget report. I think it is appropriate as to how we should move forward with regard to funding for homeland security allocations.