College Literacy in Finance and Economics (College LIFE) Act

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my comments, Senator Stabenow be recognized, then Senator Salazar and Senator Reed be recognized. All of us seek to speak about our colleague, Senator Corzine.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, in a few weeks our good friend, Jon Corzine, will leave the Senate, where he so effectively represented New Jersey and its people over the past 5 years, to become Governor of his State. I have been privileged to serve with Senator Corzine on the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, to whose work he has brought an extraordinary combination of principle, vision, intelligence, and solid common sense. I wish to say a few words today about his spectacular work on that committee. For a while, I was privileged to serve as chairman of the committee, and I can tell you that no chairman could have a better fate than to have Jon Corzine as one of his members.

Prior to entering the U.S. Senate, Jon Corzine spent nearly a quarter of a century with Goldman Sachs, the New York investment bank, including five as its chairman and CEO. His long and wide-ranging experience in the financial markets made him especially well qualified to deal with the issues that came within the Banking Committee's jurisdiction. In very short order, it was apparent that whenever Jon Corzine's turn in a committee meeting came to put questions to witnesses, even the most confident and sophisticated among them listened more intently and responded more carefully.

Senator Corzine's contribution to the accounting reform and investor protection legislation known as Sarbanes-Oxley was invaluable. Along with Senator Dodd, who also serves on the committee, Jon Corzine was among the first members of the Senate to call for hearings on investor protection in the wake of the collapse of Enron Corporation. Those hearings took place in February and March of 2002, and Senator Corzine, along with others on the committee, Senator Dodd and others, played a critical role in shaping the reform legislation enacted 4 months later. I have done it before and I wish to again acknowledge the very substantial and significant contributions Jon Corzine made in helping to shape and develop that legislation. His work was invaluable.

Consistently in the work of the committee, Jon Corzine played a critical role in efforts to strengthen protections for investors in our capital markets. BusinessWeek, in fact, noted that his work in this area gave him ``an unusually high profile for a junior Senator.''

His contributions to the work of the committee were by no means focused only on these issues. Indeed, he touched virtually every issue in the committee's jurisdiction. He has worked vigorously to expand housing opportunities and the effectiveness of Federal housing programs. He has been a forceful spokesman for full funding for critical programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development-- section 8 vouchers, housing for the elderly, improved public housing, and other efforts to assist low-income homeowners and renters. It is indicative of his commitment, and in his statement here in the Chamber only a few minutes ago he again was making reference to how people who work at minimum wage can't afford an apartment in county after county across the country.

He led efforts to expand coverage of FHA insurance for multifamily housing, something especially relevant in States such as New Jersey where inflated housing costs affected previous program ceilings. He pressed for energy efficiency requirements in public and assisted housing, and he has remained committed to Federal action to assure secondary mortgage market liquidity and affordable housing.

Jon Corzine was an original cosponsor of the legislation to stop predatory lending practices and spoke forcefully in the committee's deliberation about the harsh and cynical techniques predatory lenders used to exploit vulnerable borrowers seeking mortgages and other credit. He has been one of the leaders in the Senate in the fight against Federal preemption of State consumer protection laws which are designed to protect our citizens against these practices.

He has been among the Senate's most outspoken advocates for public and private financial literacy programs to ensure that all Americans of all ages and all backgrounds have the skills to grasp the financial implications of the often complex credit card loans and other financial arrangements they are offered.

He has obtained Federal funding for financial education programs in elementary and secondary schools and was the leader in the ultimately successful efforts in 2003 to pass the Financial Literacy and Education Improvement Act, which incorporates many of his ideas. For his work on this issue, the JumpStart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy named him ``Federal Financial Literacy and Education Legislator of the Year.''

Throughout his tenure, Senator Corzine has been among our most articulate advocates for public transportation, whose importance in the day-to-day lives of his constituents he knows firsthand since he represents the most densely populated State in the Nation. He fought to preserve and enhance the Federal transit program as the new surface transportation authorization legislation was developed. As a result of his efforts, New Jersey will receive nearly $2.5 billion in transit formula funds from 2004 through 2009, a 50-percent increase over the amount the State received in the predecessor legislation.

He also succeeded in assuring priority treatment in terms of planning, funding, and execution under this new legislation for a new commuter rail tunnel under the Hudson River. This project, the Trans- Hudson Midtown Corridor, has been identified as a crucial investment for the region's mobility and security. As a result of his efforts, the National Transit Institute, which provides training, education, and clearinghouse services to support public transportation, will be maintained at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.

Senator Corzine was a leader in the effort to develop a Federal backstop for terrorism insurance after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Those attacks left such insurance widely unavailable and put businesses and commercial property owners at risk of future losses from terrorism without having insurance coverage. He recognized immediately this situation would create a drag on economic activity and again brought his expertise to bear in helping to develop the Federal legislation under which the Federal Government would share the risk of future terrorism losses with the industry.

Senator Corzine was one of the first to recognize the threat that identity theft poses both to consumers and to the integrity of the Nation's payment system. He has been a leader in the fight for safeguards on personal information, on protecting the privacy of our citizens.

Many of these things I have spoken about reflect a common theme, and that is Jon Corzine's concern for those left out and left behind. It has been a hallmark of his service in the Senate that he has sought to bring into the mainstream of American life those who have been left out of it. This concern for those, in a sense, who have been forgotten, was reflected in his work in the international arena, particularly the emphasis he placed on the situation in Darfur. Again and again, Jon Corzine took the floor of the Senate to bring to our attention the terrible things that were happening there and to push for measures to help alleviate that situation.

Finally, let me say what has distinguished Senator Corzine's service in the Senate over and above his many specific accomplishments is the dedication and vision and principles that underlie all his work. Before coming to

the Senate, he spent much of his professional life as an investment banker. But he brought to his responsibilities certain fundamental convictions about the nature of American society, a hopeful and optimistic vision of American life that first took place as he was growing up in a small farming community in central Illinois. It was there he has said he learned ``the meaning of hard work and the opportunities afforded by a strong education system.''

Jon Corzine went on to earn his B.A. as Phi Beta Kappa at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve where he served for 6 years. He attended the University of Chicago Business School at night, and not too much later he joined Goldman Sachs.

His many years in the financial markets have not dimmed Jon Corzine's vision of America as a nation grounded in opportunity--opportunity for a good education, for a decent job, a place to raise one's family and someday to retire with dignity, security, and self-respect. He has dedicated his efforts to advance programs that can make this vision a reality for all his fellow Americans.

When he announced his candidacy for Governor of New Jersey last December, Senator Corzine pledged he would ``fight like crazy to make sure that there is a view that government can be a partner in lifting up the lives of the rest of America.'' This is surely what he has done in the Senate.

In just 5 short years, notwithstanding his junior status in a body that sets a high premium on seniority--when I first came here I was very critical of the seniority system, but I have to admit that as time has gone by I have come to see the virtues of the system. Jon Corzine has had an impressive record of accomplishment. He has demonstrated the astute and principled leadership in the Senate that will most assuredly make him a distinguished Governor of the State of New Jersey in the service of all its people.

If I may be so bold as to address a word to the people of New Jersey, I simply say they have an extraordinary leader about to take over as the Governor of their State. I urge them to give Jon Corzine their backing and support so he can bring his vision to bear in the State of New Jersey.

When Woodrow Wilson became Governor of the State of New Jersey, he introduced a progressive agenda which became the model for the Nation. New Jersey went to the very forefront of the 50 States in addressing fairness and opportunity for its citizens and enhancing their quality of life. I say today, as we bid our dear colleague a fond farewell, Jon Corzine can provide that kind of leadership for New Jersey. He can move that State to the very forefront of the 50 States and make it a shining example of what can be accomplished when all of us pull together in order to enhance opportunity for each and every one. I wish him the very best as he leaves this body and in the years ahead.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield me 30 seconds?

I thank the very able Senator from California for her yielding to allow these tributes to be paid to Senator Corzine. I know she has been here quite a while waiting to speak on another issue. It was extremely gracious of her to do that. I wanted to recognize that and thank her very much.

Mr. President, today the Senate was presented with a false choice on the conference report to H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT Act. That is why I voted against the motion to invoke cloture. There is a better way that gives us the time we need to thoughtfully debate some very weighty constitutional and civil liberty issues. With 90 percent of the PATRIOT Act already permanently authorized, we can and should extend the provisions expiring on December 31, 2005, for 3 months.

Let me be clear, those of us advocating for a 3-month extension support reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. What we want to do is keep the law intact, exactly as it is right now, so that we can more carefully debate these important matters without feeling rushed by the impending adjournment of this session of Congress.

Like almost everyone in this Chamber, I voted for the PATRIOT Act shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks. I believed the PATRIOT Act would bolster the ability of Federal authorities to conduct criminal and intelligence investigations, to bar and expel foreign terrorists from the United States, to separate terrorists from their sources of financial support, to punish acts of terrorism, and to assist victims of the events of September 11. While I had reservations about some parts of this legislation, the need to address the obvious threat, combined with the fact that many of the more untested provisions in the act were set to expire on December 31, 2005, prompted me to vote for the bill.

The provision of greater investigative authority to our Nation's law enforcement officials is a matter that raises many issues, most particularly, the need to balance Government power and civil liberties. Certainly, there is a great onus upon the Department of Justice, DOJ, to utilize the awesome authority of the PATRIOT Act in a circumspect and cautious manner. At the same time, Congress has a responsibility to conduct vigorous oversight on the use of the PATRIOT Act's powers and to carefully debate any changes to these powers.

In the spring, in anticipation of the impending need to reauthorize the sunsetting provisions of the PATRIOT Act, I cosponsored S. 737, the Security and Freedom Enhancement, SAFE, Act of 2005. This thoughtful, bipartisan legislation was introduced by Senator Craig on April 6, 2005, and seeks to revise and improve--not eliminate--several of the more controversial provisions of the PATRIOT Act, including roving wiretaps, sneak-and-peek searches, and FISA orders for library and other personal records.

Many of the proposed revisions to the PATRIOT Act in S.737 were ultimately incorporated in some form into S. 1389, the Senate version of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization. S. 1389, the USA PATRIOT Act Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act, passed by unanimous consent in July and the Senate immediately appointed conferees so that the House and the Senate could begin discussing their very different visions of the reauthorization. Unfortunately, the House waited until November to appoint its conferees, which in large part is why we are now in the position of having very little time to debate and resolve the differences between the two bills.

The Senate's version of the PATRIOT Act attempted to deal with many of the civil liberties issues that have come to the fore since the passage of the PATRIOT Act. In particular, S. 1389 would require that the Department of Justice convince a judge that a person is connected to terrorism or espionage before obtaining their library records, medical records, or other sensitive information. It would require that targets of sneak-and-peek searches are notified within 7 days, instead of the undefined delay that is currently permitted under the PATRIOT Act. The Senate bill also would prohibit the issuance of ``John Doe'' roving wiretaps, which identify neither the person nor the place to be put under surveillance.

Additionally, S. 1389 would give the recipient of an order for sensitive personal information the right to challenge the order in court on the same grounds they could challenge a grand jury subpoena, as well as provide a right to challenge the gag order that currently prevents people who receive a request for records from speaking out even if they feel the Government is violating their rights. The legislation also requires increased reporting by the DOJ on its use of PATRIOT Act powers and sets a 4-year sunset on three provisions regarding roving wiretaps, business record orders, and ``lone wolf'' surveillance.

Unlike the Senate bill, the House version proposed to permanently reauthorize all but two of the expiring provisions--instead it sunsets FISA orders for library and other personal records and the roving wiretap provision after 10 years--and placed few, if any, limits on many of the expanded law enforcement powers in the PATRIOT Act.

Unfortunately, the conference report has removed or weakened some of the most important limits on enhanced investigative powers in the Senate bill, particularly those relating to FISA orders for library, medical, and other types of business records about people, National Security Letters, and notification of sneak-and-peek searches. We need to reauthorize the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act, but we need to do so with procedural safeguards like those in the Senate bill.

The Senate is known as the more contemplative body in Congress for a reason, and I think we should take the time we need to truly debate and discuss some important civil liberties issues that the conference report implicates. For this reason, I have cosponsored Senator Sununu's bill, S. 2082, which would extend the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act until March 31, 2006. I believe that 3 months is enough time for us to come back after the holidays and work out the differences between the House and Senate versions of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization. I would encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, it is a privilege to be here today to say a few words about my colleague and friend, Jon Corzine. He has honored this Senate and he has honored the people of New Jersey with his service.

I did not know Jon before he came here. I heard about his campaign. I heard about his success on Wall Street. I, frankly, must confess, I did not know what quite to expect. Having seen the movie ``Wall Street,'' I almost thought that Michael Douglas would walk in the door in a $3,000 suit and with expensive accoutrements.

Jon surprised us all because he is not like that. He might have found his success on Wall Street, but his values were formed in the heartland of America and in the U.S. Marine Corps. He believes very deeply in values that are important and central to our party and to the people of this country: the notion of opportunity for all and the notion that this is a community, not just a collection of individuals.

His service in this body has exemplified those values and made us all extraordinarily proud. I served with Jon on the Senate Banking Committee. As the chairman and ranking member at various times of the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, I was familiar with all of Jon's efforts in making real progress on issues of importance to the people of New Jersey and the people of this country.

My friend and colleague, Senator Sarbanes, has pointed out some of these, and I would like to, for the Record, amplify again what Jon has done.

The Federal Housing Administration Multifamily Housing Program provides insurance to those seeking to build multifamily rental housing. The program has played a critical role in the development of affordable multifamily rental housing. However, as the cost of building new housing has dramatically increased in recent years, Federal multifamily mortgage insurance loan limits have failed to keep pace with inflation.

In 2002, Senator Corzine led the way to secure passage of a provision to raise FHA multifamily loan limits by indexing them to the annual construction cost index to ensure that the program keeps pace with inflation.

In 2003, Senator Corzine further improved the FHA multifamily loan program by securing passage of legislation to boost those limits in high-cost communities around the country.

Specifically, his legislation raised the loan limits in high-cost areas to 140 percent of the statutory base limit and by 170 percent on a project-by-project basis.

These increases have been vitally important in the construction and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing in high-cost States such as New Jersey and my own State of Rhode Island where the shortage of affordable housing has become a crisis.

Jon recognizes that at the heart of every family's efforts to educate their children, to find work, to hold work, is the need for safe and affordable housing. Senator Corzine has been on the vanguard of that effort. I salute him for that.

He has also been particularly concerned about housing for veterans. The Veterans' Administration Home Loan Program provides access to home financing for veterans who often, because of their time spent serving our Nation, have not had the opportunity to build up the credit they need to qualify for a conventional mortgage. Senator Corzine's legislation to increase veterans' home purchasing power, which became law as part of the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2004, raised the loan limits available under the VA Home Loan Program to allow veterans to obtain mortgages of up to $333,700, the same level available in the traditional mortgage market.

Finally, the Senator from New Jersey has been a fierce advocate for mass transit funding, not in his home State of New Jersey but across this country. He has been particularly effective, though, in helping his home State.

Senator Corzine was instrumental in providing legislation to help build a commuter rail tunnel under the Hudson River as part of the recently passed Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. The language that Senator Corzine included will expedite the proposed rail tunnel under the Hudson River and require the Federal Transit Administration to sign a Full Funding Grant Agreement with New Jersey Transit that will provide the Federal funding needed to complete the tunnel, and in so doing not only will he assist the people of New Jersey, but he will assist the economy of this Nation, since so much is dependent upon transit access through New Jersey to the Eastern Seaboard, Boston, New York and down to Washington.

We all are going to miss Senator Corzine immensely in the Senate, but he is going forth now to a mission that is equally important; that is, to serve the people of New Jersey as their Governor. I know he will be successful. And I know those values of opportunity and community and fairness and tolerance and decency that exemplified his service in the Senate will mark him as a remarkable Governor for the State of New Jersey.

I yield the floor.

I thank my friend from Vermont.

Mr. President, when this bill left the Senate, under the leadership of Senators Specter and Leahy, we had a balanced bill with provisions which protected both our security and our liberty. We are all very much in their debt for the bill that left the Senate a few months ago. But what now has come back to the Senate is a bill which contains provisions which could sweep into the net of a fishing expedition the most private records of innocent Americans. The conference report amends section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. This is one of many examples, and 3 minutes only allows one example. Section 215 permits the Government to seek court orders, to compel the production of any tangible thing, including library and medical records, in foreign intelligence investigations. Under the new provision, the Government need not describe, much less identify, a particular person to whom the records relate. The PATRIOT Act's standard in the conference report fails to narrow the scope of records that the Government can subpoena to less than the entire universe of records of people who, for instance, patronize the library or visit a doctor's office.

One example of that: The Government could seek all of a doctor's records, if it has an allegation that some unidentified patient of the doctor was sending money to an organization in the Middle East that was being looked at as part of a foreign intelligence investigation and the government thought that reviewing all of the records of that doctor might help identify that unidentified person.

Therefore, the Government argues, all of that doctor's records are relevant to a foreign intelligence investigation.

The same thing with library records; all of a library's records would be subject to being turned over to the Government if the Government has an allegation that somebody, one unidentified person, is using that library for some purpose; for instance, its computer, to have access to some organization in the Middle East that is involved in a terrorist organization. Everybody's library records would be swept into that net.

When this bill left the Senate, it had protective provisions against that. There had to be a showing, not just of relevance to a foreign intelligence investigation, there had to be a showing that the records sought were relevant and either pertained to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, were relevant to the activities of a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of an authorized investigation, or pertained to an individual in contact with or known to be a suspected agent. In other words, the order had to be linked to some identifiable individual or suspected agent. Those protections are missing.

This is not the first time that Congress has addressed this issue. For instance, the Internal Revenue Code places limitations on what it calls ``John Doe'' summons for the production of certain taxpayer records.

Under 26 U.S.C. 2709 any summons which:

Does not identify the person with respect to whose

liability the summons is issued may be served only after a

court proceeding in which the Secretary establishes that--

(1) the summons relates to the investigation of a

particular person or ascertainable group or class of persons,

(2) there is a reasonable basis for believing that such

person or group or class of persons may fail or may have

failed to comply with any provision of any internal revenue

law, and

(3) the information sought to be obtained from the

examination of the records or testimony (and the identity of

the person or persons with respect to whose liability the

summons is issued) is not readily available from other

sources.

Some kind of narrowing language should be included in the Patriot Act for 215 orders. Without it, the PATRIOT Act authorizes the rankest kind of fishing expedition.

In addition to the problem with the standard for issuing 215 order, a gag order can be imposed by the FBI to prevent the library from telling people that their records were turned over. That means innocent Americans might never know that the government was looking into their reading habits or medical records. Further, while some argue that the recipient of a gag order could challenge that gag order in court, the conference report is not at all clear on this point. During staff negotiations, language that would have clarified the right to challenge a gag order was rejected. The idea of a permanent, unreviewable restraint on the First Amendment rights of American citizens is deeply troubling.

To add insult to injury, if the library wanted to seek legal advice, this conference report requires the library to tell the government who it had consulted even if the lawyer consulted had turned down the case.

The conference report is similarly flawed in its treatment of National Security Letters or NSLs. NSLs compel phone companies and banks, for example, to turn over certain customer records. The government can issue an NSL without going to court. And, like 215 court orders, NSLs can be issued without identifying anyone in particular that the government suspects is a terrorist or spy. Again, the government does not have to show any connection between the records sought and a person who the government thinks is a terrorist or spy. And like 215 orders, the government can impose a gag order on the recipient of an NSL.

While the conference report does permit recipients of NSLs to challenge gag orders in court, it severely constrains the court's discretion to review the gag order, potentially rendering the review meaningless. Under the conference report, if the Attorney General or another specified senior official certifies that disclosure may endanger national security or harm diplomatic relations, the court may modify or set it aside it only if it finds ``bad faith'' on behalf of the government.

And, like 215 court orders, if the recipient of an NSL wanted to seek legal advice before turning over records, the conference report would require the recipient to tell the government who they had consulted.

Also troubling about the NSL authority is that there is no requirement that the government destroy records acquired with an NSL that are irrelevant to the investigation under which they've been gathered. These are records that relate to innocent Americans. The government should be required to destroy them if they contain no relevant material.

I outlined many of my concerns in a December 7th letter to the Chairman and Ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I'd ask consent that a copy of that letter be placed in the record.

As I and my fellow Senate Democratic conferees said in a December 8th letter to the Chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the conference report falls short of what the American people have every reason to expect Congress to achieve in defending their rights while advancing their security. Congress should not rush ahead to enact flawed legislation to meet a deadline that is within our power to extend. We owe it to the American people to get this right. If three more months are needed to make this an acceptable bill, then we should take and prudently use that time.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated December 7, 2005.

Mr. President, although we will miss him greatly in the Senate, I join my colleagues in congratulating Senator Jon Corzine on his election as Governor of New Jersey. It has been a pleasure to serve with Jon on the Intelligence Committee and to work with him on issues of corporate accountability. He has been a strong and determined leader here, and I know he will continue to make the people of New Jersey proud in his new position.

Jon Corzine has led a distinctly American life. He grew up on a family farm. He served his country in the Marine Corps Reserves. He had extraordinary success in business as a self-made man. And he has continued to serve his country in public life, first as a Senator and soon as a Governor. Jon loves America and fights for what he believes is best for our people.

In the Senate, Jon has used the financial expertise he gained at Goldman Sachs to become a singularly credible voice for corporate reform. He was a driving force on the landmark Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, which cracked down on corporate abuses such as those that led to the Enron and WorldCom scandals. He has been a leader on strengthening oversight of the mutual fund industry and on protecting the financial privacy of Americans. Jon has also been at the forefront of promoting financial literacy, so that Americans can manage their personal finances wisely.

Working with Jon on the Intelligence Committee, I have seen Jon's piercing mental acumen and commitment to protecting our country. Following the September 11 attacks, which took a heavy toll on his State, Jon recognized the weakness of our system of chemical plant security. He seized that issue and did not let go. In October, Congress finally passed mandatory security requirements at chemical plants based on Jon's work. That this necessary improvement in our security will be substantially improved is due to his tenacity.

On every issue, Jon has been outspoken in support of policies that benefit working Americans. He has fought for universal health care, for expanded student aid, and for full funding for education programs. Jon has also been a passionate voice for human rights around the world. Just last month, the Senate approved the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, which Jon sponsored with Senator Brownback, to help stop the genocide in the Sudan.

During his short time in the Senate, Jon Corzine has made a big impact. His is a unique voice that will be personally missed. I join my colleagues in saluting Jon on his election as Governor and in wishing him well in his new position.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fair Access to Clinical Trials, FACT, Act. I want to begin by thanking Senator Grassley, Senator Johnson, and Senator Wyden for joining me in introducing this legislation. Our bill will create an electronic databanks for clinical trials of drugs, biological products, and medical devices. Such a databank will ensure that physicians, researchers, the general public, and patients seeking to enroll in clinical trials have access to basic information about those trials. It will require manufacturers and other researchers to reveal the results of clinical trials so that clinically important information will be available to all Americans, and physicians will have all the necessary information to make appropriate treatment decisions for their patients.

Events of the past year have made it clear that such a databank is needed. First, serious questions were raised about the effectiveness and safety of antidepressants when used in children and youth. It has now become clear that the existing data indicates that these drugs may very well put children at risk. However, because the data from antidepressant clinical trials was not publicly available, it took years for this risk to be realized. In the meantime, millions of children have been prescribed antidepressants by well-meaning physicians. While these drugs undoubtedly helped many of these children, they also led to greater suffering for others. Recently, it has been suggested that the risk of antidepressants might even extend beyond children.

The news is similarly disturbing for a popular class of painkillers known as Cox-2 inhibitors. These medicines, taken by millions of Americans, have been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events, such as heart attack and stroke. It has been suggested that one of these medicines, which has since been pulled from the market, may be responsible for tens of thousands of deaths.

Unfortunately, antidepressants and Cox-2 inhibitors are just two examples of a story that has become all too common. It has been suggested that negative data might actually have been suppressed; and if this is discovered to be the case, those responsible should be dealt with harshly. However, because of what is known as ``publication bias,'' the information available to the public and physicians can be misleading even without nefarious motives. The simple fact is that a study with a positive result is far more likely to be published, and thus publicly available, than a study with a negative result. Physicians and patients hear the good news, but rarely the bad news. In the end, the imbalance of available information hurts patients.

Our bill would correct the imbalance of information, and prevent manufacturers from suppressing negative data. It would do so by creating a two-part databank, consisting of an expansion of clinicaltrials.gov--an existing registry that is operated by the National Library of Medicine, NLM--and a new database for clinical trial results.

Under the FACT Act, the registry would continue to operate as a resource for patients seeking to enroll in clinical trials for drugs and biological products intended to treat serious or life-threatening conditions--and for the first time, it would also include medical device trials. The new results database would include all trials, except for preliminary safety trials, and would require the submission of results data.

Our legislation would enforce the requirement to submit information to the databank in two ways. First, by requiring registration as a condition of Institutional Review Board, IRB, approval, no trial could begin without submitting preliminary information to the registry and database. This information would include the purpose of the trial, the estimated date of trial completion, as well as all of the information necessary to help patients to enroll in the trial.

Once the trial is completed, the researcher or manufacturer would be required to submit the results to the database. If they refuse to do so, they would be subject to monetary penalties or, in the case of federally funded research, a restriction on future funding. It is my belief that these enforcement mechanisms will ensure broad compliance. However, in the rare case where a manufacturer does not comply, this legislation also gives the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, the authority to publicize the required information.

Let me also say that any time you are collecting large amounts of data and making it public, protecting patient privacy and confidentiality must be paramount. Our legislation would in no way threaten that privacy. The simple fact is that under this bill, no individually identifiable information would be available to the public.

I believe that the establishment of a clinical trials databank is absolutely necessary for the health and well-being of the American public. But I would also like to highlight two other benefits that such a databank will have. First, it has the potential to reduce health care costs. Studies have shown that publication bias also leads to a bias toward new and more expensive treatment options. A databank could help make it clear that, in some cases, less expensive treatments are just as effective for patients.

In addition, a databank will ensure that the sacrifice made by patients who enroll in clinical trials is not squandered. Many patients would be less willing to participate in trials if they understood that the data are unlikely to be made public if the results of the trial are negative. We owe it to patients to make sure that their participation in a trial will benefit other individuals suffering from the same illness or condition.

The problems associated with publication bias have recently drawn more attention from the medical community, and there is broad consensus that a clinical trials registry is one of the best ways to address the issue. Accordingly, the American Medical Association, AMA, has recommended the creation of such a databank, and the major medical journals have established a policy that they will only publish the results of trials that were registered in a public database before the trial began. Our legislation meets all of the minimum criteria for a trial registry set out by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

To its credit, the pharmaceutical industry has also acknowledged the problem, and has created a database to which manufacturers can voluntarily submit clinical trials data. I applaud this step. However, if our objective is to provide the public with a complete and consistent supply of information, a voluntary database is unlikely to achieve that goal. Some companies will provide information, but others may decide not to participate. We need a clinical trials framework that is not just fair to all companies, but provides patients with peace of mind that they will receive complete information about the medicines they rely on.

The American drug industry is an extraordinary success story. As a result of the innovations that this industry has spawned, millions of lives have been improved and saved in our country and around the globe. Because of the importance of these medicines to our health and well- being, I have consistently supported sound public policies to help the industry to succeed. This legislation aims to build upon the successes of this industry, and help ensure that the positive changes to our health care system that prescription drugs have brought are not undermined by controversies such as the ones now surrounding antidepressants and Cox-2 inhibitors, which are at least in part based on a lack of public information. This bill will help ensure that well- informed patients will use new and innovative medicines.

I look forward to working with industry, physicians, the medical journals, patient groups, and my colleagues--including the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy--to move this legislation forward. This bill has already been endorsed by the National Organization for Rare Disorders, Consumers Union, the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the National Women's Health Network. I thank these organizations for lending their expertise as we crafted this legislation.

The creation of a clinical trials databank is a critical step toward ensuring the safety of drugs, biological products, and devices in this country--but it should not be the end of our efforts. I believe that other steps are necessary to fully restore patient confidence in the safety of the medicines they rely on. I have already announced my intention to introduce another piece of legislation that will create an Office of Patient Protection within the FDA, which will be responsible for ensuring the safety of prescription drugs once they are on the market. I look forward to introducing this bill in the coming weeks.

Clinical trials are critical to protecting the safety and health of the American public, and for this reason, trial results must not be treated as information that can be hidden from scrutiny. Recent events have made it clear that a clinical trials databank is needed. Patients and physicians agree that such a databank is in the interest of the public health. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I am hopeful that it will become law as soon as possible.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I voted against cloture on the PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report. I want to make clear that this vote was not about whether I support reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act--I do. This vote was about whether I thought that the significant and unnecessary invasions into the privacy rights of all Americans were necessary to protect our national security--I do not.

Last July, the Senate passed by unanimous consent a PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill. I supported that bipartisan, compromise bill. Even though it did not contain all the privacy protections I would have liked, it took a lot of steps towards improving the problems in the PATRIOT Act that have become evidence since its passage. If that bill was on the floor today, I would support it.

But it is not. What we do have on the floor is a conference report that fails to address some of the most serious problems with the PATRIOT Act. For example, its version of Section 215 allows the Government to obtain library, medical, gun records, and other sensitive personal information on a mere showing that those records are relevant to an authorized intelligence investigation. That is it. Relevance is all that is required. The Senate bill, on the other hand would have established a three part test to determine whether the records have some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy. This seemingly small change will help prevent investigations which invade the privacy of American citizens that may have no connection to any suspected terrorist or spy. This is an important restriction.

In addition, unlike the Senate bill the conference report provides no mechanism for the recipient of a Section 215 order to challenge the accompanying automatic, permanent gag order. The FISA, Foreign Intelliegence Surveillance Act, court reviews are simply not sufficient. They have the power only to review the Government application for the underlying Section 215 order. They do not have the power to make an individualized determination about whether a gag order should accompany it. So the recipient of a Section 215 order is automatically silenced forever. How is that fair? How is that consistent with our democratic principles?

The conference report doesn't provide judicial review of National Security Letters either. The Senate bill did. Judicial review is one of our best checks on unnecessary Government intrusion into individual privacy. Why deny it to our citizens?

Lastly, I would like to mention the problem with the conference reports provisions on the so-called sneak-and-peek search warrants. Unlike the Senate bill, the conference report does not include any protections against these warrants. Rather than requiring that the government notify the target of these warrants within 7 days, as the Senate bill did, the conference report requires notification within 30 days of the search. Thirty days. That is an awfully long time to go before learning that you have been the subject of a Government search.

These are just a few of the problems with the conference report. They are

the most significant problems. Those in support know that it is flawed, but they are creating artificial time pressure to force us to approve the bill, flawed as it may be.

I realize that 16 provisions of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire. I certainly do not want that to happen. But passing this conference report is not the only way to prevent their expiration. That is why I have cosponsored legislation to extend those provisions by three months to allow us time to fix the problems with the conference report. If that effort fails and the PATRIOT Act expires, the blame rests only with the White House and leadership that controls the House and the Senate. There was and remains a simple, unified way to get this done, and they rejected it.

There is no reason why we cannot be safe and free. The Senate bill accomplished this. And, I will keep working with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that whatever legislation we ultimately pass to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act also accomplishes this.

Mr. President, knowing Jon Corzine as I think I do, if he had known he was going to have to sit through all these speeches after he spoke, he would have come down here a lot later at night, I suspect, or certainly waited until we got out of town, because that is the nature of this Senator, Governor to be.

I have listened to my colleagues and I listened to his speech. He left us with some important warnings, some important pleas, which I hope colleagues will take seriously. I would incorporate

into my comments about Jon all of the things Senator Sarbanes said. They were a wonderful summary of what he did and how he did it, his accomplishments.

He did veterans, and he has been a passionate advocate for public transportation. He was instrumental in housing. These are the sorts of signal accomplishments you can measure, which he can point to and colleagues have, that define the few years he has been here.

I say a word or two about the things that helped push him in the direction of accomplishing those goals. What has always struck me about Jon Corzine and the thing that has been singled out in a number of comments made by my colleagues is the quality of the person, almost an improbable quality when you measure it against the profession he chose for so many years.

Maybe a comment about Wall Street, certainly a comment that I know Jon Corzine would articulate any number of different times in different ways, that we don't think of people traditionally, with the obvious exceptions, a Bob Rubin, some others. Jon Corzine always kept, No. 1, a great sense of idealism; No. 2, a very strong moral compass that led him to always distinguish between right and wrong; and, No. 3, an integrity about the approach to public life that willingly disclosed great wealth, willingly submitted himself to unbelievable attacks in order to pursue a greater good. Most people would shy away from that today. When you talk to people in the private sector today about running for office, they are quick to say: Do that? Why would I want to do that? Why would I want to subject myself to that? Why would I want to put myself through that scrutiny?

Jon Corzine has always been driven by his sense that there is too much missing in governance today, that there is a bigger purpose than all of us individually, a noble purpose in what we are trying to achieve. He believes unabashedly that Government can be part of the solution, that Government actually helps people. And unlike so much of the rhetoric of the last years that has attacked everything Government does until you have a Katrina, when you understand why you need it, or until you see the potholes in the streets and the bridges falling apart and you begrudgingly acknowledge you need it, Jon always believes you need it proactively. He understands the good it can do.

Every one of us who has had the privilege of being here for awhile was impressed by that passion and moral compass he brought to some of the issues. When business people in America were abusing their trust, Jon brought this extraordinary credibility to that debate. There are huge provisions, as Senator Sarbanes will tell us, and a great deal of guidance through that process that came from this freshman Senator.

Likewise, with respect to Darfur, an issue where the country ought to be providing a sense of moral outrage, Jon doggedly and tenaciously pursued that issue without grandstanding, without trying to do it in a way that was sort of hit and run. He stayed at it and got the Senate ultimately to take some measures, though never what we ought to be doing, and the country has yet to do what he knows and understands we ought to be doing.

He always has had a sense of right and wrong. The minimum wage, the incomprehensibility of us being a country where people can live out work values and you can't live, and his sense of injustice at giving a tax cut to people such as him who have been blessed with the fruits of great wealth, who understand that there is a different set of priorities, a sense of outrage that we would be cutting children off of Medicaid, and so on down the list.

I am thrilled, and I know when I was privileged to be in New Jersey, I could feel it in the people of New Jersey who obviously were inundated with an onslaught of confusing and reprehensible kinds of claims in the context of a campaign, which we have seen too much of, but he plowed through that, because of that idealism and his sense of purpose for the State. Those folks are anticipating the same kind of excitement that he said in his comments he will bring to this new challenge.

The people of New Jersey have chosen wisely. They are going to have a leader who will do exactly what Senator Sarbanes talked about. He has the opportunity to make that State one of the great laboratories in the country, to do what we are unsuccessful and unwilling to do too often at this moment in our history here in Washington. I almost envy him that opportunity to grab the executive reins and go out and do it. He is going to be an exceptional Governor. He is going to continue to have an impact on what Congress chooses to do because of those priorities that he sets in the State.

There is no question in my mind that our caucus, which has looked to him regularly as sort of the resident expert on issues of fiscal, trade, Wall Street matters, is going to miss that expertise enormously.

I thank this Senator for his service to us, to the country, and we look forward to the service he will provide as Governor of New Jersey.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to closing off debate on the PATRIOT Act conference report as it has come back to the Senate.

The events of September 11 demonstrated various deficiencies in our understanding of the terrorist threat and our capabilities in terms of combating terrorism. In response, Congress acted decisively and passed the PATRIOT Act to ensure that our Government has all the tools necessary to protect the American people. I supported that legislation.

The PATRIOT Act, as originally enacted, was 342 pages long and contained 10 titles and 116 sections. The bill improved our laws with regard to international money laundering, terrorism financing, intelligence gathering, surveillance, cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence authorities, and strengthened our criminal laws relating to terrorism. The vast majority of these provisions are not expiring. They remain the law of the land. Indeed, only 16 of the most controversial sections in the bill contained sunset provisions.

Congress recognized that we were extending to law enforcement and intelligence authorities expansive new surveillance powers and that it was important to go back and look at how these powers have been used and whether we needed to make any changes in the law to ensure that Americans' civil liberties are protected. While I support the reauthorization of these expiring provisions, I believe that there are

changes that need to be made to address some of the problematic provisions.

Let me be clear. I support giving law enforcement the tools necessary to aggressively fight terrorism but believe that modest modifications are required to ensure that we protect constitutional rights and properly balance civil liberties with national security concerns. To this end, in July the Senate unanimously passed a bipartisan bill that would reauthorize the PATRIOT Act with important safeguards in place to protect the rights of Americans. Although this bill wasn't perfect, it struck a reasonable balance between giving law enforcement the tools they need and protecting civil liberties.

When the PATRIOT Act was originally passed in 2001, Congress provided that some of the controversial provisions, such as section 215 which allows the Government access to library and medical records, would expire in 2006.

One example of where the current version of the bill falls short is with regard to section 215, the so-called library provision which allows the Government to obtain sensitive personal records, including library, business, and medical records, of Americans by merely saying that they are relevant to a terrorism investigation. This provides the Government almost unfettered authority to look at the personal records of Americans. Under the Senate-passed bill, the Government would have to demonstrate that the person whose records they are seeking has some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy.

In particular, the Government would have to show that, No. 1, the records pertain to a suspected terrorist or a spy; or No. 2, that the records pertain to an individual in contact with a suspected terrorist or a spy; or No. 3, that the records are relevant to the activities of a suspected terrorist or spy. It is reasonable to require that if the Government is going to look at the private records of Americans without a traditional warrant that the Government show at a minimum that the request for records has some connection to a terrorist and isn't just part of a fishing expedition.

In addition, when a person receives a section 215 order requesting medical records or library records, the person who receives this request is subject to an automatic and permanent gag order that prevents them from speaking about the order or challenging the gag order in court. Similar restrictions on challenging gag orders have been found to be unconstitutional and a violation of the first amendment.

Another section of the bill that is of great concern relates to national security letters, or NSLs. These requests for documents are similar to section 215 orders except that they do not require any court approval at all. Although a section 215 order needs to be approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a NSL is simply issued by the FBI, without any judicial review, to a business to obtain certain records, such as financial records, that it believes are relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.

The conference report does allow a NSL recipient to challenge the NSL in court, but it also stipulates that regardless of whether there are national security concerns, all of the Government's submissions are secret and cannot be shared with the person challenging the order. And to be clear, the business being denied knowledge of the ``governmental submissions'' is not the target of the investigation but the recipient of the order for the requested documents.

Also the recipient of the NSL is subject to an automatic gag order. Although the gag order can be challenged in court, the only way to prevail is to demonstrate that the Government is acting in bad faith, a burden that is almost impossible to prove.

I also have concerns about other aspects of the conference report, such as the ``sneak and peek'' provision which allows law enforcement to search homes without notifying individuals of the search for an extended period of time.

This bill has profound implications on the constitutional rights of Americans, and I strongly believe that we shouldn't be hastily approving a bill that falls short of adequately protecting civil liberties.

Simply reauthorizing the most controversial provisions and saying that we will take another look at the bill in 4 years when the new sunset provisions expire is not the appropriate way to deal with this issue. It has been 4 years since the bill was enacted and it is time that Congress addresses the substantive problems with the act.

The Senate has demonstrated that it is prepared to reauthorize all of the expiring provisions, and there is no need to pass this version of the bill in its flawed form. I agree with Senator Leahy that we should temporarily extend the PATRIOT Act for 3 months to give Congress more time to work out the remaining issues in a thoughtful way. It is my hope that a solution can be reached that reflects the commonsense improvements that were included in the Senate-passed version of the bill.

Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about our colleague Senator Jon Corzine, congratulate him on his recent election as Governor of New Jersey, and also thank him for his great contribution to the Senate and to the entire country during the time he served here.

Jon came to the Senate from a very successful career on Wall Street. We are all aware of that. He came here for the best of reasons: his desire to make a difference, to improve the situation of average Americans in this country, to see that this country pursued an economic course that created opportunity and jobs for the people he represented in New Jersey and throughout this country.

On economic issues, I think all of us in the Senate came to believe-- I certainly did--that no one was better able to read the tea leaves about what was happening economically in this country, what was happening in the various economic statistics which come out each week, than Jon Corzine. He could understand the economic circumstance we continue to struggle with in this country and the impact it is having on the lives of average Americans.

While he has been here, he has demonstrated a passion for fairness to all in our society. He has not been a representative of Wall Street. He has been a representative of the great mass of the American people. He has looked to raise the standard of living of all Americans and lift all boats. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for that passion he has brought to this job.

I serve as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We have been very fortunate that Jon has served on that committee as well. He has been an active participant in the writing of energy legislation, which we passed earlier this year. He made a great contribution in that legislation. In short, Jon has had a very distinguished career in the Senate. I am confident he will have a very distinguished career as Governor of New Jersey and will have a very long and successful career in public life.

Again I congratulate him on his victory. I thank him for his service and his friendship, and I look forward to opportunities to work with him again in his new capacity as Governor of New Jersey.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for yielding

the time and for his leadership on this issue. I voted for the PATRIOT Act. It was a bit of a leap of faith because I was not sure. I did not know if we were giving the Government more authority and more power than it needed to keep America safe, but I felt, as most Americans did, that in light of September 11, we had to do more to make America safer.

The Senator from Vermont, along with the Senator from Utah, came together on a bipartisan basis and produced a PATRIOT Act to give the Government more tools to fight terrorism. In their wisdom, they understood that perhaps we had moved too far and too fast, and they said at the end of 4 years we would revisit this law and make sure that we had not given up more personal freedom in America than we had to be safe, and that is why we are here today.

In the meantime, I joined with a bipartisan coalition, an interesting coalition when one looks at our political spectrum in the Senate. I joined with my friend, Larry Craig of Idaho, Senator John Sununu, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Senator Russ Feingold, and Senator Ken Salazar in a bipartisan coalition that has been working to reform the PATRIOT Act for over two years. We studied the PATRIOT Act very carefully and came to the conclusion that certain provisions did not contain adequate safeguards to protect the rights and liberties of Americans. That is why we introduced the SAFE Act.

It was our efforts together in the Senate Judiciary Committee and the good leadership of the Senator from Pennsylvania as its chairman that resulted in a bill that came out of that committee unanimously. It was a bipartisan bill that came to the floor to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act and passed on the floor by a voice vote. It was not perfect, but it was a consensus, bipartisan, compromise bill. Then, sadly, it went into a conference committee where the most important safeguards were removed, which brings us to this moment in time.

Let me salute the Senator from Pennsylvania. He has argued this issue on its substance. He has not argued it politically. But he has said during the course of this debate that there have been no verified abuses of the PATRIOT Act. I would say to my friend from Pennsylvania, it is not the burden of the American people to prove that their rights have been violated. That's not how the American legal system works. We should build in checks and balances to ensure that abuses do not take place in the first instance.

Moreover, it is difficult to find verified abuses of the PATRIOT Act when so many provisions are cloaked in secrecy. In most cases, people will never learn that their medical, tax, or gun records have been seized. An individual who receives a Section 215 order or a National Security Letter is bound by a gag order so he cannot speak out, even if he believes his rights have been violated.

Now today's headlines suggest this administration went beyond the pale in authorizing hundreds and perhaps thousands of warrantless wiretaps on Americans in the United States. This violates the long- standing legal requirement that the government must obtain a warrant from a court in order to eavesdrop on Americans in the United States.

If these stories are true, it makes the PATRIOT Act reforms we have suggested even more urgent, and additional reforms may be necessary. But it is certainly premature to approve this flawed conference report before we learn more about these allegations.

The obvious question is this: Whether or not we pass the PATRIOT Act, will the administration argue they have the authority to go forward, anyway?

What we need to do is to defeat cloture, pass a 3-month extension of this PATRIOT Act, and move on to make changes to the law that are needed to protect our freedom while giving law enforcement the authority they need to fight terrorism. We can be both safe and free in America.

I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I just left a small farewell party for my colleague, Jon Corzine of New Jersey. He is, of course, leaving the Senate in a few days to become Governor of the State of New Jersey. Congressman Bob Menendez will be appointed to fill his vacancy and stand for election in about a year.

I am going to miss Jon Corzine for a lot of reasons. First, we have a lot in common. Jon was born and raised in the small town of Willy Station, which is just a few miles away from the bustling metropolis of Taylorville in Christian County, IL, just a few miles from where I live. I know a little about the Corzine family today, and I sense what his upbringing was all about. He grew up on a farm, with a dad who raised corn and soybeans. It was not a comfortable and wealthy existence, but it was a great upbringing. He was raised in the Midwestern tradition of working hard. He started at age 13 with his first job. He worked his way through college, going to the University of Illinois where he was a walk-on on the basketball team. He has assured me time and again he was no superstar. But the fact that he did that and served in the Marine Corps and went on to the University of Chicago for a master's degree in business tells me he is a person who had a good work ethic--not only that but a great deal of talent.

Jon's career took him to the highest levels in the business world. He was a partner at Goldman Sachs at the age of 33. He was cochair and co- CEO of that investment banking giant at the age of 50. He started there fetching coffee for

his superiors. He came up not only quickly but the right way. When he was first running, I remember reading accounts in the New York Times about what kind of a CEO he was. He knew the elevator operator's name, and he would go to the mailroom and talk to the workers there and try to provide financial assistance so that workers could go on to earn a college degree.

That is the same Jon Corzine I came to know in the Senate, a very caring and compassionate individual in so many different ways. He would fight tooth and nail for things he believed in, and he would also pick causes that were not quite that popular and put all of his energy and skill at work on them as well.

I can recall the terrible genocide in Dafur and how he made that his issue. Time and again, he came to the floor of the Senate to remind all of us about that tiny country on the other side of the world and the people being oppressed there. That is Jon Corzine. Time and again, he showed us that you could be both financially successful in life and not lose your bearings when it came to good moral conduct and good values.

When I think about his heroes in life, I share many of them. He used to talk about Paul Douglas, the first man I worked for in the Senate as a college intern. Paul Douglas was from the University of Chicago faculty, and he was a person who inspired many of us, not only because he worked hard and did his best to speak for the common man, but because he was all over the State appreciating the variety of life you can find in Illinois. Then, of course, was his successor and protege, Paul Simon, whom I was honored to succeed in the Senate, also a friend of Jon Corzine's. So we had the Paul Douglas and Paul Simon connection. And, of course, the admiration Jon Corzine had for them said it all.

When I look back at these heroes of Jon Corzine, I realize that we have that much in common--our Illinois roots and a lot more. We come from the same place. We share many of the same values. We fought on the same side of many of the same battles. We share many of the same heroes. Like Jon Corzine, I admired Senators Douglas and Simon. I had the privilege to know and work with them. Paul Douglas helped design Social Security. Jon Corzine helped to save it. Like Paul Douglas, Jon Corzine is a brave champion of civil rights, economic justice, and the environment. Like Paul Douglas, Jon Corzine is unafraid to speak his mind for the good of the country.

All in all, I am certain that Paul Douglas and Paul Simon would approve of the short, though important, Senate career of Jon Corzine. They would thank him, as we all do, for fighting hard and well for people and values of this great Nation. I will miss Jon Corzine. The people of New Jersey have made a wise choice. He will be a good, thoughtful, compassionate leader of their great State. I look forward to working with him for many years to come for the values that we share.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce comprehensive legislation aimed at addressing the issue of economic and financial illiteracy on college campuses. I am referring to the worrisome problems of skyrocketing debt levels, low rates of saving, and the proliferation of unchecked predatory practices by unscrupulous financial institutions among young adults who hold our country's future in their hands. Entitled the College LIFE or College Literacy In Finance and Economics Act, this bill has the support of Senators Sarbanes and Corzine. I thank my colleagues from Maryland and New Jersey for joining me as original cosponsors of this measure. I also thank Senator Enzi, the Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, for working with me on financial literacy as it affects all constituencies, including college students.

The problem we are working to address with the College LIFE Act is simple. Our college students are many of America's best and the brightest and will go on to become leaders--in business, education, politics, the military, the community--any area you can name. I find it wonderful that many young people are fulfilling their dreams of higher education in numbers that I did not imagine when I was in college. In fact, as reported by the Census Bureau, college enrollment was estimated at 15.9 million for the current school year, compared to 5.7 million in 1965 when the Higher Education Act was enacted. However, I am gravely concerned, both as a member of this body and particularly as a grandparent and great-grandparent, that our young people are entering college without proper direction or good skills for money management or economic decisionmaking.

As we work on increasing access to higher education, we must give students access to tools needed to make sound economic and financial decisions once they are on campus; however, the lack of personal finance and economics standards or implementation of existing standards in elementary and secondary education in a number of States results in many students arriving at college with little understanding of economic concepts like supply and demand or benefits versus costs, or personal finance concepts such as household money management or the importance of maintaining good credit history. Without this basic understanding, college students are not effectively evaluating credit alternatives, managing their debt, and preparing for long-term financial goals, such as saving for a home or retirement.

Imagine life from the point of view of a college student. A young adult leaves his home and travels many miles--thousands of miles in the case of Hawaii students attending mainland colleges--to the campus that holds his hopes and dreams. Perhaps he is not being mindful of how much money he needs for textbooks, school supplies, or student fees. He visits the campus bookstore and walks out with a bag that includes a preapproved credit card application, which he immediately completes and sends. Months later, he has joined other credit card-holding college students who, on average, have credit card balances above $3,000. Sophomore year rolls around and, instead of conferring with his parents about the details of his renewal FAFSA for student financial aid or master promissory note, he is saddled with another $20,000 loan. According to the Census Bureau, average college tuition, room, and board have increased to $29,119 for a four-year private institution and to $9,953 for a four-year public institution. The same scenario repeats itself in junior and senior year. Finally, after completing all coursework, he graduates, finds an entry-level job, and realizes that, after servicing his debt, he has little left to spend on basics such as food, transportation, and rent, much less career clothing or a new briefcase. His lack of knowledge about how to properly use credit has led him to anxiety-causing financial missteps. With appropriate financial and economic literacy, he may have known what debt load to anticipate and made wiser financing and spending decisions while in school.

Instead, she may be on the road to true financial trouble. A U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Consumer Federation of America analysis of Federal Reserve data indicates that the average household with debt carries approximately $10,000 to $12,000 in total revolving debt and has nine credit cards. From January through September of 2004, approximately 1.2 million consumers filed for bankruptcy, keeping pace with last year's record level, which is almost half of the number of college diplomas expected to be conferred this year at 2.5 million. Furthermore, the Federal Reserve Board reports that Americans currently pay more than 13 percent of after-tax income to service their debts. We must ensure that our youth make the right decisions to follow a better financial path. This is especially in light of a report cited by Dan Iannicola, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Education, at a House hearing last Congress, noting that youths spent more than $172 billion in a recent year, and figures from MarketResearch.com noting that typical 8- to 14-year-olds spend--from allowances, jobs, and gifts--nearly $1,300 a year or $25 a week.

The College LIFE Act represents a comprehensive approach to assist upcoming generations of Americans. It proposes four new grant programs that provide resources to encourage experimentation with delivery systems--innovative methods used in or out of the classroom to increase college students'

financial literacy. Another grant would allow higher education institutions to share best practices about or create personal finance courses where none exist. A third grant would assist efforts that are looking at the best ways to integrate personal finance and economic education into basic educational subjects, which is especially important as schools are facing challenges under the No Child Left Behind Act and are tempted to focus on subjects being tested for Adequate Yearly Progress. The final grant would train teachers and high school counselors toward increasing financial and economic literacy in grades K-12 so that our college students are prepared when they arrive at college campuses.

The bill also proposes a pilot program for five higher education institutions to encourage students to take a personal finance course and participate in preventive annual credit counseling, working in conjunction with State or local public, private, and nonprofit entities selected by the local education agency or the school, and measuring the effectiveness of efforts in any behavioral changes that may result. It promotes greater collaboration with and support from Federal agencies in the form of the Financial Literacy and Education Commission. Finally, the measure emphasizes the importance of personal finance and economic education and counseling by authorizing these activities as allowable uses in existing Higher Education Act programs, such as TRIO, GEAR UP, and Title III and Title V Serving Institutions.

Furthermore, I intend the reach of this bill to be beyond the traditional college student. Our returning college students are a vital part of society--many who are already community leaders and breadwinners for their families who have already gained valuable work experience that they may use as they learn a new field or continue their undergraduate study in the pursuit of a graduate or doctoral degree. In addition, older adults who are entering higher education for the first time can also be lauded for their enterprising spirit in wanting to better their lives by earning an associates or bachelors degree. I anticipate that the assistance provided through the College LIFE Act will work to provided needed help to many of these students as well.

I am looking forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to have the College LIFE Act passed or included in the upcoming Higher Education Act reauthorization. I encourage my colleagues' support for this bill.