Floor Statements

Will my colleague from New Jersey yield?

I just want to reinforce and reemphasize how important this is in our State of New Jersey with the 113 sites. By the way, there is an increasing sense--scientific sense, data sense--that we are having a high incidence of cancer in areas that surround these sites.

This is a health problem. It really is something that needs to be addressed. I think my colleague from New Jersey is doing exactly the right thing to bring this issue forward.

Mr. President, this past November, after extensive discussions, the Congress authorized the establishment of a commission to investigate the event surrounding the September 11 terrorist attacks. This commission should play a critically important role by allowing us to better understand the events surrounding this national tragedy and to better prepare against the threats of similar attacks in the future. The commission's work is also essential for the thousands of families who lost loved ones on September 11, and who want better information about what happened on that fateful day, and who want to ensure that all those responsible are held accountable. These families have suffered tremendous losses and they deserve our support.

I am very concerned, however, that the commission may lack the resources need to do the job right. So far, in defense appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2003, Congress has appropriated only $3 million for the commission. From all indications, this is grossly inadequate. And if we fail to supplement this with additional funding, we would not only be disgracing the memory of the victims of September 11, but we could be jeopardizing the future safety of all Americans.

Mr. President, in recent days, my staff and I have discussed the operation of this important investigatory commission with several of the appointed commissioners, both Democrats and Republicans. They have explained that the $3 million appropriated so far appears woefully insufficient to meet the commission's anticipated needs this fiscal year. in fact, actual needs for FY2003 probably will exceed $6 million--more than twice the amount approved by the Congress.

Mr. President, the responsibilities of the September 11 commission are much broader than the other commissions and it is simply unreasonable to expect the commission to function effectively with only $3 million. After all, that's a $2 million less than the funding received by a 1996 commission to look into the issues surrounding legalized gambling.

Think about that: $5 million to study gambling, $3 million to study the worst terrorist attack in the history of this country. That simply does not make sense.

Mr. President, it is important to remember that this commission has responsibilities and requirements that go far beyond those of any other commission in U.S. history. There are unique and expensive logistical requirements, including the hiring of expert staff with high-level security clearances. The commission must secure real estate appropriate for top secret discussions, and provide high-level security of its employees and its information systems.

In order to complete the work of this important commission thoroughly and on time, more resources will be needed during this fiscal year, and in the future.

Mr. President, I am hopeful that if the Congress considers a supplemental appropriations bill later this year, that legislation will include needed additional resources for the commission.

In fact, I had prepared an amendment to this bill to increase funding for the commission by $3 million. However, after a conversation with Governor Tom Kean, chair of the commission, I have decided not to introduce my amendment at this time. Rather, I will wait until a formal budget is drawn up by the commission.

I want to assure my colleagues, however, that I will not stop fighting for increased funding for the commission until I am convinced that the September 11 commission has received the funding that it needs to investigate the worst attack on American soil in our history. This matter is simply too important to do anything less.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that represents an important step towards the goal of addressing the threats posed by global climate change. I am pleased to be joined on this bill by Senator Jeffords and Senator Lieberman. They were cosponsors of this legislation in the 107th Congress, they are recognized environmental leaders in the Senate, and are long-standing, outspoken advocates for taking action to mitigate climate change. I appreciate their help in introducing this legislation today.

Climate change is a complex issue. Scientifically. Economically. Politically. But complexity is no excuse for inattention or inaction. Because the health and viability of the global ecosystems upon which we all depend are at stake. And the time to act is now.

In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its Third Assessment Report. That report shows that climate change science is increasingly clear and alarming. We know that human activities, primarily fossil fuel combustion, have raised the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to the highest levels in the last 420,000 years. We know that the planet is warming, and that the balance of the scientific evidence suggests that most of the recent warming can be attributed to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. We know that without concerted action by the U.S. and other countries, greenhouse gases will continue to increase.

These findings were echoed by a National Academy Sciences report published later in 2001, which concluded that: ``Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. . . . ``Despite the uncertainties, there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years.''

Climate science and climate modeling have improved. These models predict warming under all scenarios that have been considered. Even the smallest warming predicted by current models, 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century, would represent the greatest rate of increase in global mean surface temperature in the last 10,000 years.

If these trends continue, the results may be devastating. People in my State of New Jersey treasure their Jersey Shore. With the exception of the 50 mile northern border with New York, New Jersey is surrounded by water. The State's Atlantic coastline stretches 127 miles. Fourteen of 21 counties have estuarine or marine shorelines. Rising sea level is already having adverse impacts, by exacerbating coastal erosion, and causing inundation, flooding, and saline intrusions into ground water. The NJ coastal area also supports one of New Jersey's largest industries, tourism.

Sea level is rising more rapidly along the US coast than worldwide. Studies by EPA and others have estimated that along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, a one-foot rise in the sea level is likely by 2050 and could occur as soon as 2025. In the next century, a two-foot rise is most likely but a four-foot rise is possible. The implications for New Jersey and many other coastal States are potentially very significant. I am concerned about this impact. And I am concerned about other climate change impacts across New Jersey, the country and the globe.

The time for inaction and delay is over. We need to take steps today to start dealing with this issue. This bill is a modest step. But I think it's an important one, and it's one that I believe we should be able to act on during the 108th Congress.

The main provisions of the bill establish a system that would require companies to estimate and report their emissions of greenhouse gases, and a place where companies can register greenhouse gas emissions reductions. In addition, the bill would require an annual report on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. I'd like to go through each of these components in more detail.

First, the bill requires EPA to work with the Secretaries of Energy, Commerce and Agriculture, as well as the private sector and non- governmental organizations to establish a greenhouse gas emission information system. For the purposes of the bill, greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. EPA is directed to establish threshold quantities for each of these gases. The threshold quantities will trigger the requirement for a company to report to the system, and are included to enable EPA to exclude most small businesses from the reporting requirements.

Companies that emit more than a threshold quantity of each gas will be required to report their emissions on an annual basis to EPA. The requirements will be phased in, beginning with direct, stationary source emissions in 2004. The following year, in 2005, companies subject to the reporting requirements will need to submit to EPA estimates of other types of greenhouse gas

emissions, such as process emissions, fugitive emissions, mobile source emissions, forest product-sensor emissions, and indirect emissions from heat and steam. By reporting to the system, companies will be able to establish emissions baselines.

Perhaps more important than the reporting system is the greenhouse gas registry established by the bill. The bill requires EPA a greenhouse gas registry, which will enable companies to register greenhouse gas reductions. Many companies are voluntarily implementing projects to reduce emissions or sequester carbon. The registry would establish a place for companies to be able to put these projects on public record in a consistent and reliable way.

Taken together, these provisions of the bill will accomplish several important goals. First, they will create a reliable inventory of the sources of greenhouse gas emissions within our economy. But more importantly, these provisions will provide a powerful incentive for companies to continue to make voluntary greenhouse gas reductions. The reason is that the greenhouse registry will be a place where companies can register their greenhouse gas reductions in a consistent and uniform way. This will enable companies to publicly verify the actions they are taking to reduce their emissions. It also provides a place where farmers, ranchers and foresters can register their carbon sequestration projects. They can then trade these registered reductions with any companies that might wish to purchase them. This had the potential to create a new carbon market that our farmers can benefit from.

Prior efforts to provide ``future credits'' in a registry bill have run up against a Constitutional problem in that we cannot bind future Congresses in legislation. So the bill does not provide such credits, per se. But it does establish a robust and credible reporting system and registry. And if companies register their reductions in a strong registry, they will have as much assurance as we can provide them that their reductions will be taken into account if a mandatory greenhouse gas emission reduction program is enacted.

I believe that such a mandatory emissions reduction program will be necessary, and I already support such a program, for example, Senator Jeffords' Clean Power Act. I don't believe that a reporting and registry system such as I am proposing is a substitute for such a mandatory emissions reductions program. But a reporting and registry system is a necessary component of any such program, and is a step that Congress may be able to agree on now, despite differences of opinion about whether mandatory emissions reductions are necessary at this time. A greenhouse gas reporting system and registry is a step we ought to take now, because it would provide a structure that encourages companies to make voluntary reductions now. That's the main purpose of the bill.

In addition, the bill requires EPA to annually publish a U.S. greenhouse gas emissions inventory. This will be a national account of greenhouse gas emissions for our nation, and will incorporate the information submitted to the greenhouse gas information system and registry. EPA has issued a similar report for several years now, and this provision is intended to explicitly authorize and specify the scope of that report going forward.

I want to add that I think that many of the emissions measurement challenges have been worked out or are being worked out now. Many advances have been made in recent years, often in a cooperative way, with industry, environmental groups and governments at the table working towards measurement protocols, such as the GHG Protocol Initiative. It's my intent that in developing the systems and protocols developed under this bill that EPA take advantage of the best practices that have been and continue to be developed in this fashion.

I first introduced this bill in December 2001. Since that time, I think it's fair to say that the Bush Administration has done literally nothing of consequence to address the climate change threat. But I think that there are many in industry who disagree with the Bush policy. Last September 16, the Pew Center ran an ad in the Washington Post that was signed by 40 major companies, including energy producers such as American Electric Power, BP, Cinergy, Entergy, and Sunoco. In that ad, these companies stated their support for policies to ``disclose major sources of greenhouse gas emissions and recognize early action.'' In addition, ExxonMobil stated in their 2002 report, ``Corporate Citizenship in a Changing World,'' that they are ``working with governments and industry associations to promote development of procedures for mandatory reporting by all businesses, so that in the future we can report emissions for activities we operate and also those in which we share ownership with others.'' So there is a willingness on the part of many major U.S. corporations to move to emissions reporting. Congress needs to follow the leads of these companies.

I also want to note that I worked on a bipartisan greenhouse gas registry and reporting bill with Senator Brownback last year. That bill passed the Senate by voice vote as a Brownback-Corzine amendment to the Senate energy bill. While it did not require reporting immediately, it ensured robust participation in the reporting and registry system in the near future through a trigger mechanism. And while I preferred a mandatory system, and still do, I am primarily concerned with getting results. And the Brownback-Corzine approach had the support of the full Senate. So while I still prefer a mandatory system, as this bill would create, I remain willing and open to work with Senator Brownback on an alternative again in this Congress.

In closing, it's clear that it's up to Congress to lead on climate change. I urge my colleagues to work with me this Congress to create a credible greenhouse gas reporting and registry system that will encourage voluntary reductions. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that represents an important step towards the goal of addressing the threats posed by global climate change. I am pleased to be joined on this bill by Senator Jeffords and Senator Lieberman. They were cosponsors of this legislation in the 107th Congress, they are recognized environmental leaders in the Senate, and are long-standing, outspoken advocates for taking action to mitigate climate change. I appreciate their help in introducing this legislation today.

Climate change is a complex issue. Scientifically. Economically. Politically. But complexity is no excuse for inattention or inaction. Because the health and viability of the global ecosystems upon which we all depend are at stake. And the time to act is now.

In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its Third Assessment Report. That report shows that climate change science is increasingly clear and alarming. We know that human activities, primarily fossil fuel combustion, have raised the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to the highest levels in the last 420,000 years. We know that the planet is warming, and that the balance of the scientific evidence suggests that most of the recent warming can be attributed to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. We know that without concerted action by the U.S. and other countries, greenhouse gases will continue to increase.

These findings were echoed by a National Academy Sciences report published later in 2001, which concluded that: ``Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. . . . ``Despite the uncertainties, there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years.''

Climate science and climate modeling have improved. These models predict warming under all scenarios that have been considered. Even the smallest warming predicted by current models, 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century, would represent the greatest rate of increase in global mean surface temperature in the last 10,000 years.

If these trends continue, the results may be devastating. People in my State of New Jersey treasure their Jersey Shore. With the exception of the 50 mile northern border with New York, New Jersey is surrounded by water. The State's Atlantic coastline stretches 127 miles. Fourteen of 21 counties have estuarine or marine shorelines. Rising sea level is already having adverse impacts, by exacerbating coastal erosion, and causing inundation, flooding, and saline intrusions into ground water. The NJ coastal area also supports one of New Jersey's largest industries, tourism.

Sea level is rising more rapidly along the US coast than worldwide. Studies by EPA and others have estimated that along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, a one-foot rise in the sea level is likely by 2050 and could occur as soon as 2025. In the next century, a two-foot rise is most likely but a four-foot rise is possible. The implications for New Jersey and many other coastal States are potentially very significant. I am concerned about this impact. And I am concerned about other climate change impacts across New Jersey, the country and the globe.

The time for inaction and delay is over. We need to take steps today to start dealing with this issue. This bill is a modest step. But I think it's an important one, and it's one that I believe we should be able to act on during the 108th Congress.

The main provisions of the bill establish a system that would require companies to estimate and report their emissions of greenhouse gases, and a place where companies can register greenhouse gas emissions reductions. In addition, the bill would require an annual report on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. I'd like to go through each of these components in more detail.

First, the bill requires EPA to work with the Secretaries of Energy, Commerce and Agriculture, as well as the private sector and non- governmental organizations to establish a greenhouse gas emission information system. For the purposes of the bill, greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. EPA is directed to establish threshold quantities for each of these gases. The threshold quantities will trigger the requirement for a company to report to the system, and are included to enable EPA to exclude most small businesses from the reporting requirements.

Companies that emit more than a threshold quantity of each gas will be required to report their emissions on an annual basis to EPA. The requirements will be phased in, beginning with direct, stationary source emissions in 2004. The following year, in 2005, companies subject to the reporting requirements will need to submit to EPA estimates of other types of greenhouse gas

emissions, such as process emissions, fugitive emissions, mobile source emissions, forest product-sensor emissions, and indirect emissions from heat and steam. By reporting to the system, companies will be able to establish emissions baselines.

Perhaps more important than the reporting system is the greenhouse gas registry established by the bill. The bill requires EPA a greenhouse gas registry, which will enable companies to register greenhouse gas reductions. Many companies are voluntarily implementing projects to reduce emissions or sequester carbon. The registry would establish a place for companies to be able to put these projects on public record in a consistent and reliable way.

Taken together, these provisions of the bill will accomplish several important goals. First, they will create a reliable inventory of the sources of greenhouse gas emissions within our economy. But more importantly, these provisions will provide a powerful incentive for companies to continue to make voluntary greenhouse gas reductions. The reason is that the greenhouse registry will be a place where companies can register their greenhouse gas reductions in a consistent and uniform way. This will enable companies to publicly verify the actions they are taking to reduce their emissions. It also provides a place where farmers, ranchers and foresters can register their carbon sequestration projects. They can then trade these registered reductions with any companies that might wish to purchase them. This had the potential to create a new carbon market that our farmers can benefit from.

Prior efforts to provide ``future credits'' in a registry bill have run up against a Constitutional problem in that we cannot bind future Congresses in legislation. So the bill does not provide such credits, per se. But it does establish a robust and credible reporting system and registry. And if companies register their reductions in a strong registry, they will have as much assurance as we can provide them that their reductions will be taken into account if a mandatory greenhouse gas emission reduction program is enacted.

I believe that such a mandatory emissions reduction program will be necessary, and I already support such a program, for example, Senator Jeffords' Clean Power Act. I don't believe that a reporting and registry system such as I am proposing is a substitute for such a mandatory emissions reductions program. But a reporting and registry system is a necessary component of any such program, and is a step that Congress may be able to agree on now, despite differences of opinion about whether mandatory emissions reductions are necessary at this time. A greenhouse gas reporting system and registry is a step we ought to take now, because it would provide a structure that encourages companies to make voluntary reductions now. That's the main purpose of the bill.

In addition, the bill requires EPA to annually publish a U.S. greenhouse gas emissions inventory. This will be a national account of greenhouse gas emissions for our nation, and will incorporate the information submitted to the greenhouse gas information system and registry. EPA has issued a similar report for several years now, and this provision is intended to explicitly authorize and specify the scope of that report going forward.

I want to add that I think that many of the emissions measurement challenges have been worked out or are being worked out now. Many advances have been made in recent years, often in a cooperative way, with industry, environmental groups and governments at the table working towards measurement protocols, such as the GHG Protocol Initiative. It's my intent that in developing the systems and protocols developed under this bill that EPA take advantage of the best practices that have been and continue to be developed in this fashion.

I first introduced this bill in December 2001. Since that time, I think it's fair to say that the Bush Administration has done literally nothing of consequence to address the climate change threat. But I think that there are many in industry who disagree with the Bush policy. Last September 16, the Pew Center ran an ad in the Washington Post that was signed by 40 major companies, including energy producers such as American Electric Power, BP, Cinergy, Entergy, and Sunoco. In that ad, these companies stated their support for policies to ``disclose major sources of greenhouse gas emissions and recognize early action.'' In addition, ExxonMobil stated in their 2002 report, ``Corporate Citizenship in a Changing World,'' that they are ``working with governments and industry associations to promote development of procedures for mandatory reporting by all businesses, so that in the future we can report emissions for activities we operate and also those in which we share ownership with others.'' So there is a willingness on the part of many major U.S. corporations to move to emissions reporting. Congress needs to follow the leads of these companies.

I also want to note that I worked on a bipartisan greenhouse gas registry and reporting bill with Senator Brownback last year. That bill passed the Senate by voice vote as a Brownback-Corzine amendment to the Senate energy bill. While it did not require reporting immediately, it ensured robust participation in the reporting and registry system in the near future through a trigger mechanism. And while I preferred a mandatory system, and still do, I am primarily concerned with getting results. And the Brownback-Corzine approach had the support of the full Senate. So while I still prefer a mandatory system, as this bill would create, I remain willing and open to work with Senator Brownback on an alternative again in this Congress.

In closing, it's clear that it's up to Congress to lead on climate change. I urge my colleagues to work with me this Congress to create a credible greenhouse gas reporting and registry system that will encourage voluntary reductions. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution calling on the United States Postal Service to issue commemorative postage stamps honoring distinguished servicemen and servicewomen from the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard.

On May 3, 2000 the United States Postal Service formally recognized four distinguished Army soldiers with ``Distinguished Soldiers'' commemorative postage stamps. These stamps serve as an important tribute to the patriotism and uncommon valor of four individual soldiers who risked life and limb in defense of liberty. Clearly, as our military is being mobilized for possible military action, these stamps serve as a timely recognition of the sacrifice made by our Army personnel to defend the democratic values that we hold dear.

To date, however, there has been an unfortunate, but easily remediable oversight: the Postal Service has issued a set of four stamps recognizing the accomplishments of individual U.S. Army soldiers, but has not followed through with similar stamp series commemorating the profound contributions of individual members of the armed forces from the Marines, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Coast Guard.

Recognizing all the branches of our Armed Forces is long overdue. Men and women from all the military services deserve recognition for the risks they have taken and the sacrifices they have made for the freedom we all enjoy. As Mr. Einar Dyhrkopp, then Chairman of the Postal Service Board of Governors stated in May 2000, at the dedication ceremony for the block of four stamps commemorating the valor of individual ``Distinguished Soldiers,'' ``By doing their duty, they brought honor to us all and helped preserve this country that we love. Now it's time for the nation to do its duty and honor these distinguished soldiers.''

It is a mistake to pay tribute to one service without similar tributes to the other services. The Postal Service should issue similar four-stamp sets recognizing the military accomplishments of individual members of the Air Force, the Marines, the Navy and the Coast Guard soon to redress this lamentable omission.

I am sure that each member of Congress can think of at least one military hero who deserves this special recognition. For instance, I have long felt that a stamp commemorating the courageous service of Gunnery Sergeant John Basilone would be a fitting memorial to a great Marine.

Raised in Raritan, NJ, Basilone, enlisted in the U.S. Army soon after his 18th birthday. Shortly thereafter, he was deployed to the Philippines where he earned a nickname that would stick with him for the rest of his career: ``Manila John.''

Following his tour of duty in 1937, Basilone returned to Raritan. But he wouldn't stay there long. In July 1940, with much of Europe at war and the United States on the brink, ``Manila John'' left New Jersey, enlisting in the military once again, this time joining the United States Marine Corps.

On October 24, 1942, Basilone earned his Congressional Medal of Honor. He was sent to a position on the Tenaru River at Guadalcanal and placed in command of two sections of heavy machine guns. Sergeant Basilone and his men were charged with defending Henderson Airfield, an important American foothold on the island. Although the Marine contingent was vastly outnumbered and without needed support, Basilone and his men successfully repelled a Japanese assault.

Other survivors reported that their success can be attributed to one man: ``Manila John.'' He crossed enemy lines to replenish a dangerously low stockpile of ammunition, repaired artillery pieces, and steadied his troops in the midst of torrential rain. He went several days and nights without food or sleep, and the U.S. military was able to carry the day. His exploits became Marine lore, and served as a patriotic inspiration to others facing daunting challenges in the midst of war.

For his courage under fire and profound patriotism, Basilone was the first enlisted Marine to be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor in World War II. When he returned to the United States, he was heralded as a hero and quickly sent on tour around the country to help finance the war through the sale of war bonds. The Marine corps offered to commission Basilone as an officer and station him far away from the frontlines.

But Basilone was not interested in riding out the war in Washington, DC. He was quoted as saying. ``I ain't no officer, and I ain't no museum piece. I belong back with my outfit.'' In December 1944, he got his wish and returned to the frontlines.

General Douglas MacArthur called him ``a one-man army,'' and on February 19, 1945 at Iwo Jima, Basilone once against lived up to that reputation. Basilone destroyed an enemy stronghold, a blockhouse on that small Japanese island and commanded his young troops to move the heavy guns off the beach. Unfortunately, less than two hours into the assault on that fateful day in February, Basilone and four of his fellow marines were killed when an enemy mortar shell exploded nearby.

When Gunnery Sergeant John Basilone died, he was only 27, but he had already earned the Congressional Medal of Honor, the Navy Cross, the Purple Heart, and the appreciation of his Nation. Basilone is a true American patriot whose legacy should be preserved.

Basilone is just one of the many heroes who deserve to be memorialized on a U.S. postage stamp. That is why the Military Coalition, a group that includes associations representing every aspect of our Armed Forces community, from the Reserve Officers Association to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, has endorsed the initiative to see commemorative stamps issued honoring exceptional service men and women from all branches of the military.

The Postal Service fittingly honored courageous men and women who fought in the Army by issuing stamps commemorating the tremendous sacrifice and unusual courage demonstrated by individual distinguished soldiers. Now it is time for Marines like Sergeant Basilone, and men and women from the Air Force, the Coast Guard, and the Navy to be honored in a similar fashion.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution as an important message to all our military servicemen and women that we appreciate and admire their efforts to defend our great country.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Mobile Telephone Driving Safety Act, to enhance highway safety by encouraging States to restrict the use of cell phones by drivers while they are operating a motor vehicle.

I am introducing this legislation because of the significant threat posed by people who use cell phones while driving. According to a study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis released in December of 2002, ``the use of cell phones by drivers may result in approximately 2,600 deaths, 330,000 moderate to critical injuries and 1.5 million instances of property damage in America per year''. Other studies have reached similar conclusions. One, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997, concluded that the ``use of cellular telephones in motor vehicles is associated with a quadrupling of the risks of a collision during the brief period of a call''. That study went on to say ``this relative risk is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit''.

States, counties and municipalities around the country have considered bans on hand-held cell phone use while driving. New York actually enacted such a ban in 2001. The Governor of New Jersey has proposed such a ban and related legislation has been unanimously approved by the New Jersey State Senate. A number of New Jersey municipalities also have chosen to enforce bans within their borders, including Marlboro, Carteret and Nutley.

This patchwork of laws, however, does not take the place of a consistent, nation-wide ban. Congress needs to step forward and pass legislation that will ban the use of hand-held cell phones nationwide.

The Mobile Telephone Driving Safety Act of 2003 is structured in a manner similar to other federal laws designed to promote highway safety, such as laws that encourage states to enact tough drunk driving standards. Under the legislation, a portion of Federal highway funds would be withheld from States that do not enact a ban on cell phone use while driving. Initially, this funding could be restored if states act to move into compliance. Later, the highway funding forfeited by one state would be distributed to other states that are in compliance. Experience has shown that the threat of losing highway funding is very effective in ensuring that states comply.

To meet the bill's requirements, States would have to ban cell phone use while driving. However, such a ban

need not be absolute. It could include an exception where there are exceptional circumstances, such as the use of a phone to report a disabled vehicle or medical emergency. In addition, if a State makes a determination that the use of ``hands free'' cell phones does not pose a threat to public safety, such use could be exempted from the ban, as well.

This is a necessary bill to keep our streets and highways safe. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would address the serious national problem of drunk driving. This bill, entitled ``John's Law of 2003,'' would help ensure that when drunken drivers are arrested, they cannot simply get back into the car and put the lives of others in jeopardy.

On July 22, 2000, Navy Ensign John Elliott was driving home from the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis for his mother's birthday when his car was struck by another car. Both Ensign Elliott and the driver of that car were killed. The driver of the car that caused the collision had a blood alcohol level that exceeded twice the legal limit.

When makes this tragedy especially distressing is that this same driver had been arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, DUI, just three hours before the crash. After

being processed for that offense, he had been released into the custody of a friend who drove him back to his car and allowed him to get behind the wheel, with tragic results.

We need to ensure that drunken drivers do not get back behind the wheel before they sober up. New Jersey took steps to do this when they enacted John's Law at the State level. I am pleased to offer a Federal version of this legislation today.

This bill would require States to impound the vehicle of an offender for a period of at least 12 hours after the offense. This would ensure that the arrestee cannot get back behind the wheel of his car until he is sober.

Further, the bill would require States to ensure that if a DUI offender arrestee is released into the custody of another, that person must be provided with notice of his or her potential civil or criminal liability for permitting the arrestee's operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. While this bill does not create new liability under Federal law, notifying such individuals of their prospective liability under State law should encourage them to act responsibly.

John's Law of 2003 is structured in a manner similar to other Federal laws designed to promote highway safety, such as laws that encourage States to enact tough drunk driving standards. Under the legislation, a portion of Federal highways funds would be withheld from States that do not comply. Initially, this funding could be restored if States move into compliance. Later, the highway funding forfeited by one State would be distributed to other States that are in compliance. Experience has shown that the threat of losing highway funding is very effective in ensuring that States comply.

Mr. President, I believe that this legislation would help make our roads safer and save many lives. I hope my colleagues will support it, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Mobile Telephone Driving Safety Act, to enhance highway safety by encouraging States to restrict the use of cell phones by drivers while they are operating a motor vehicle.

I am introducing this legislation because of the significant threat posed by people who use cell phones while driving. According to a study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis released in December of 2002, ``the use of cell phones by drivers may result in approximately 2,600 deaths, 330,000 moderate to critical injuries and 1.5 million instances of property damage in America per year''. Other studies have reached similar conclusions. One, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997, concluded that the ``use of cellular telephones in motor vehicles is associated with a quadrupling of the risks of a collision during the brief period of a call''. That study went on to say ``this relative risk is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit''.

States, counties and municipalities around the country have considered bans on hand-held cell phone use while driving. New York actually enacted such a ban in 2001. The Governor of New Jersey has proposed such a ban and related legislation has been unanimously approved by the New Jersey State Senate. A number of New Jersey municipalities also have chosen to enforce bans within their borders, including Marlboro, Carteret and Nutley.

This patchwork of laws, however, does not take the place of a consistent, nation-wide ban. Congress needs to step forward and pass legislation that will ban the use of hand-held cell phones nationwide.

The Mobile Telephone Driving Safety Act of 2003 is structured in a manner similar to other federal laws designed to promote highway safety, such as laws that encourage states to enact tough drunk driving standards. Under the legislation, a portion of Federal highway funds would be withheld from States that do not enact a ban on cell phone use while driving. Initially, this funding could be restored if states act to move into compliance. Later, the highway funding forfeited by one state would be distributed to other states that are in compliance. Experience has shown that the threat of losing highway funding is very effective in ensuring that states comply.

To meet the bill's requirements, States would have to ban cell phone use while driving. However, such a ban

need not be absolute. It could include an exception where there are exceptional circumstances, such as the use of a phone to report a disabled vehicle or medical emergency. In addition, if a State makes a determination that the use of ``hands free'' cell phones does not pose a threat to public safety, such use could be exempted from the ban, as well.

This is a necessary bill to keep our streets and highways safe. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would address the serious national problem of drunk driving. This bill, entitled ``John's Law of 2003,'' would help ensure that when drunken drivers are arrested, they cannot simply get back into the car and put the lives of others in jeopardy.

On July 22, 2000, Navy Ensign John Elliott was driving home from the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis for his mother's birthday when his car was struck by another car. Both Ensign Elliott and the driver of that car were killed. The driver of the car that caused the collision had a blood alcohol level that exceeded twice the legal limit.

When makes this tragedy especially distressing is that this same driver had been arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, DUI, just three hours before the crash. After

being processed for that offense, he had been released into the custody of a friend who drove him back to his car and allowed him to get behind the wheel, with tragic results.

We need to ensure that drunken drivers do not get back behind the wheel before they sober up. New Jersey took steps to do this when they enacted John's Law at the State level. I am pleased to offer a Federal version of this legislation today.

This bill would require States to impound the vehicle of an offender for a period of at least 12 hours after the offense. This would ensure that the arrestee cannot get back behind the wheel of his car until he is sober.

Further, the bill would require States to ensure that if a DUI offender arrestee is released into the custody of another, that person must be provided with notice of his or her potential civil or criminal liability for permitting the arrestee's operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. While this bill does not create new liability under Federal law, notifying such individuals of their prospective liability under State law should encourage them to act responsibly.

John's Law of 2003 is structured in a manner similar to other Federal laws designed to promote highway safety, such as laws that encourage States to enact tough drunk driving standards. Under the legislation, a portion of Federal highways funds would be withheld from States that do not comply. Initially, this funding could be restored if States move into compliance. Later, the highway funding forfeited by one State would be distributed to other States that are in compliance. Experience has shown that the threat of losing highway funding is very effective in ensuring that States comply.

Mr. President, I believe that this legislation would help make our roads safer and save many lives. I hope my colleagues will support it, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 6 minutes from the time allotted to Senator Kennedy.

Mr. President, I want to say a few words to reflect what I know the people of New Jersey believe with regard to the debate we are having on the floor about the omnibus appropriations bill, particularly with regard to the two priorities we talked about today-- homeland defense, but particularly as it relates to our educational priorities in this country.

I feel as if I am living in a different world from what I hear talked about on the floor of the Senate. We are experiencing in my home State a severe fiscal crisis. We have a $5 billion budget deficit this year that has to be closed at the expense of our kids and investing properly in our homeland defense. Then I hear, by the way, that we are having on average, across our local communities, about a 7-percent increase in property taxes, which is really going to fund education.

Since I have been here in Congress, we are doing a lot to put new mandates on our local communities about what their responsibilities are with regard to education. But we are not providing the kind of resources that will allow them to fulfill those mandates effectively to meet the needs of our kids--those 6 million children left behind under title I whom Senator Kennedy so appropriately tried to address with his amendment.

I just have an incredible misunderstanding of why we think we need a $675 billion tax cut and $375 billion of it going to dividend exclusions, 80 percent of the overall tax cut going to the top 5 percent, and 60 percent going to the top 10 percent in our society, when we are unwilling to invest in those 6 million kids and the 10,000 failing schools that have already been identified. And 40 percent of the title I schools don't have teachers who are qualified to sit in the classroom. I don't get it. I don't understand why there is this serious deficit problem back in our State and local communities and we are talking about a tax cut and a priority that doesn't relate to the long- term health and growth of our Nation. It just doesn't make sense.

I hear all the arguments about who is growing the educational budget faster, or whether it is this year or over in the Clinton administration. The fact is we have a real need. These are tangible needs to be addressed. They need to be addressed now. We have choices. Six billion dollars is not even a tenth of the $675 billion we are talking about in the tax cut. And, by the way, when you add the interest, it is $1 trillion. What is $6 billion among friends?

This is not the right priority, in my view, and it certainly is not what the people of New Jersey are telling me they want.

The Senator from Massachusetts is, as always, using common sense. We are saying this tax cut is more important than investing in our kids, investing in our schools, fulfilling the promise that we talked about and debated and worked, on a bipartisan basis, to provide. Improvement and flexibility--all the things the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire talked about in principles--we

are all for that, but we are saying this darn tax cut is a lot more important than the priorities of educating our kids.

I think it is absolutely in the hands of the people who sit in this Chamber to make the decisions. We are elected to talk about priorities. Where are the priorities in this Nation with regard to homeland defense, and certainly with our longrun health and security-- that American promise that we hear and we all embrace?

We are making a choice that a tax cut, which is going to promise those who are already doing really well--that 1 percent, that 5 percent, or 20 percent; however you cut it--they are more important than our kids in making sure that everybody has access to the American promise.

I will just wrap up.

Again, I have a hard time understanding this debate, when we have such a clear choice in front of us, when we talk about the needs of these 6 million kids, the 10,000 identified failing schools.

By the way, we are all in favor of the flexibility and making sure that the local school districts have the ability to deal with a lot of these issues. But we cannot turn around failed schools if we don't have teachers who are qualified to sit in the classrooms. And we need to do it.

By the way, one of the ways we get those qualified teachers in those classrooms is to make sure the Pell grant program is properly funded, where people who need the opportunity to get a higher education actually have access.

I hear about the tax cut, $30 billion that went into the tax system. That is great, as long as you have taxable income. If you don't have anything to have a tax credit against, it is pretty hard to figure out how you are going to use that to fund higher education that will ultimately end up providing our teachers, our doctors, our researchers, and all the people to go forward.

So I hope my colleagues can understand the simple concept: Do we really need a $675 billion tax cut, for those who are already doing well, when we can't make the choice to provide the $6 billion that we want to invest in our schools?

I appreciate Senator Kennedy's efforts here. I wholeheartedly support them and hope my colleagues will as well.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Senator Murray to restore funding for Amtrak for the remainder of this fiscal year.

The underlying amendment before the Senate includes a $374 million cut in Amtrak relative to the level approved on a bipartisan basis by the Senate Appropriations Committee last year, and relative to the level requested by Amtrak. Amtrak tells us that if this cut remains in place, Amtrak would have to shut down as early as March.

This amendment would restore Amtrak funding to $1.2 billion, the level it needs, and the level that originally was approved by the Appropriations Committee.

It is absolutely critical that we approve this amendment, and save Amtrak from bankruptcy. I am sure I don't need to remind my colleagues how important it was to have a national intercity rail system in the immediate aftermath of September 11th. On that terrible day, our commercial aviation system was shut down, stranding thousands of travelers. Meanwhile, Amtrak ridership surged, as thousands of people took Amtrak to get home to their loved ones. It has been clear from that day that we can never afford to let this vital lifeline be shut down.

A shutdown of Amtrak would have an especially devastating effect on commuters in my State of New Jersey; that is because Amtrak owns the Northeast Corridor, upon which many trains of New Jersey Transit also depend. So an Amtrak shutdown would not only inconvenience the many New Jerseyans who depend on Amtrak directly, but it would force more than

80,000 riders of New Jersey Transit to find another way to work. The end result clearly would be a disaster for New Jersey.

Amtrak badly needs a guarantee of the financial assistance that will allow it to survive. Senator Murray's amendment would help ensure Amtrak's operations for the remainder of the fiscal year. We should approve it today. And then, before too long, we should take up and pass the National Defense Rail Act of 2003. That bill would authorize $35 billion to maintain and further develop our passenger rail system. It also would provide more than $800 million for vital safety improvements to the tunnels under the Hudson River that connect New Jersey with New York City. These tunnels are used on a daily basis by over 300,000 New Jerseyans. I was proud to get $100 million to begin work on these tunnels in the supplemental defense appropriations bill signed by the President last year. But we need to do more.

In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support the Murray Amendment. It is absolutely critical that Amtrak remains a safe and viable transportation alternative in the 21st century. And only by adopting this amendment can we make that happen.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to speak once again on last week's proposals by the President with regard to the so-called stimulus plan. I think this is one of the very most important things we need to be debating right here on the Senate floor.

As the President and most of the Members of the Senate know, we just had another announcement of unemployment last week. We are at an 8-year high, 6 percent. We lost another 100,000 jobs in December. The number of people who are going on long-term unemployment without unemployment benefits is roughly 100,000 a week. Our

capacity utilization is about 74 or 75 percent, well below historic averages. There is a real problem in our economy. We do not seem to put together our actions and our words.

I have heard some of my colleagues label the President's so-called stimulative program an economic sedative package. I don't know whether it is a sedative or not, but in my view it borders on antigrowth, antijob. It certainly is anti-State.

Without any question, from most people's perspectives, it has some serious distributional issues. If you believe rising tides lift all boats, one wonders why we are targeting all of this stimulus, a significant portion of these benefits, to a very narrow segment of America's population.

Finally, maybe the most serious issue, it is reckless if you look at it in the long-term fiscal context. We are talking about taking another almost $1 trillion out of the fiscal flows that our Federal Government will receive to fund tax cuts and fund them at a time when we are approaching a war in the Middle East, when we have serious international challenges in North Korea, we have a tremendous need to make sure that our people here at home are secure. Homeland defense we hear talked about and talked about, and then we are not necessarily providing the resources to the first responders to make it happen.

Whether it is a sedative program or not, I think it is close. I don't think it is a stimulus. I don't think it is fair. I actually think it is reckless and imprudent with regard to our long-run fiscal health.

Let me go through a few points because I gave a rather lengthy speech last week with regard to a lot of these elements, and in more depth. That is in the Record. But I think it is important we have a repeated focus on the need to get stimulus into our economy and get our economy growing again, and I don't think this does it.

First of all, 90-plus percent of this program gets implemented after 2003. The need in the economy is today--the people who are losing their jobs or have lost their jobs, and see the weakness in the economy. It is today. Again, 190,000 jobs were lost in the last 2 months. The President has talked about creating only 190,000 new jobs in 2003. I think that speaks to how much focus is in the near term. I think it is absolutely essential to get going.

But that is not the real issue. Well over 50 percent of this program is in the dividend exclusion. Dividend exclusion puts money into a targeted, narrow segment of the American population in serious proportions. I will get to the fairness issue in a little bit. But the most undermining element of this program is it does something very simple; it takes cash off the balance sheets of corporations. If corporations are going to invest in jobs, if they are going to sustain jobs, if they are going to invest in new plant and equipment, how do they do that? They do it with the resources they have on their balance sheet. That is cash. That is what they have to have when they go to the bank to extend their ability to invest. That is how business works. If we are going to take cash away from corporations, how are they going to invest in growing America's economy?

Sure, some of the dividends are going to go through a process that then will allow them to trickle back into the economy somehow or another. Some economic theorists say we will have more particular focus or the best rate of return investments, but the fact is, our corporations are going to have less money to be able to expend on driving our economy. That is antigrowth. It is very clear and very simple. I believe this is its major flaw, given that this is the centerpiece of this argument the President is making.

The third piece is also very clear. Our States are in fiscal distress. Everybody knows it. I am sure the Presiding Officer knows his State is suffering from fiscal strain as well as anyone else. I know he has a high unemployment rate. I am sure the Medicare rolls are growing as is the need for charity care in our hospitals. Our school systems are stretched to meet mandates that we put down, the Federal Government, whether it is special education, IDEA, or now the Leave No Child Behind Act.

The fact is, we here in Washington put requirements on our States and they are running very large deficits. They have a constitutional responsibility to not run deficits, to run balanced budgets. So what are they doing? They are raising taxes. In the State of New Jersey, we just raised our property taxes. In some areas it is a 15-percent increase, in some a 2- or 3-percent increase, but the average is 7- percent increases. That goes to the middle class. Those are the people who actually need it and, by the way, are getting virtually nothing out of this dividend exclusion.

Here we have rising property taxes or cuts in services at our State level: $950 billion is the cumulative deficits of our State governments as we approach this coming year, and that is a major league drag on our economy. We are only putting in about $650 billion from this package that the President has proposed. I say that is antigrowth.

For the reasons I have discussed, this is a bad plan with regard to whether you are stimulating the economy or whether you are doing what the White House says, trying to create a growth plan. There is no way it is going to be stimulative when we are emphasizing raising taxes at the State and local level because the Federal Government is not accepting its responsibility when we are taking all this cash off the balance sheets of corporations that would be reinvested in the economy and when we are putting so little money into this year.

For all those reasons, this is clearly either a sedative or, I think even more seriously, an antigrowth problem.

On the fairness issue, you don't have to be into class warfare to say it is going to a very narrow segment of the economy. Let me give some statistics. The 10-year benefit of this proposal the President laid down, for people who make $1 million or more, is $900,000. That is what it is over 10 years.

For people, at least in New Jersey, who sort of consider themselves in the middle class, those earning $75,000 to $100,000 in adjusted gross income, the benefit is $18,500. That is 2.5 percent of what is going to the people at the top.

If you were in the more national average of what middle class is, the $30,000 to $40,000 range, it is $3,500 over 10 years.

And if you are one of those struggling at the bottom of our income classes--you are under $20,000--this is worth $50 over 10 years because you don't get the child tax credit the President is talking about. You didn't pay taxes. It doesn't mean anything to those people who would spend the most. It is not a refundable child tax credit, marriage penalty, all those things--they don't apply here. So we are leaving out broad swaths of our national population as we deal with how you are going to distribute this.

By the way, one wonders how many of our men and women who are going to the Middle East to surround Iraq, who sit on the border of North Korea, the 37,000 American troops, are going to benefit from a dividend tax exclusion. I find it very doubtful. In fact, I am going to come back to the floor with some very precise numbers.

What we are doing is rewarding those who are already doing well. And there is nothing bitter about people doing well. There were more millionaires made in the 1990s than there were at any time in the history of the country. But what we are talking about is just simple fairness. By the way, the people who are in the middle class and struggling to make ends meet in this country are the people who will spend money and drive the economy. They fill up that excess capacity.

There is a major fairness issue that once again ties to economic growth. I think we have an antigrowth package here, and it is pretty clear by any simple analysis of who spends money and drives the economy.

Finally, you can't get away from the serious considerations of long- term undermining of our fiscal health. We are going to put ourselves into a bad position. We already have taken $5.5 trillion off projected estimates of where our budget will be 10 years out--just, by the way, at the time the baby boomers are retiring and Medicare and Social Security will be at their greatest stress points. We are running deficits that are growing and growing and growing, and they are going to continue to grow. We are making that process worse. It is not $675 billion, because you have to put the interest against what you pay. That is another $300 billion over 10 years.

I know people are going to talk about dynamic scoring. I tried to deal with this by speaking to why I think this is antigrowth. The fact is, we are not putting money in the hands of people who will turn around and spend it, and those estimates I think are risky to make. The fact is, we are putting in place a serious undermining of the revenues of this country at a time when we are talking about going to war. It is impossible to understand, in my mind, how we can take such an imprudent step of undermining the fiscal health of this country at a moment in time when the American people expect us to be protecting them, expect us to be supporting those people who are out there defending us, to make sure they have the equipment and all the kinds of things that will make a difference.

We are talking about a tax cut that goes almost entirely to the very high income people in this country. That is not class warfare. That is just telling it like it is with respect to how we are shaping our economic policy in this country. I think it has failed. I think it will fail. I hope we can have a real debate here on the floor of the Senate about how we can get our economy going. I think it is great that the President recognizes we have a problem. He clearly believes that. He changed his whole economic team and came out with a second stimulus plan. We need to get this economy moving so that it supports our national economic health here at home. That is not being done by this program. It is a sedative program, if not worse. It is antigrowth. It is certainly a mistake, and I hope I can come up with some of these figures just thinking about how many of our military men and women are going to benefit from a tax exclusion on dividends. I think it is misplaced. I think the American people know it is misplaced.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce an important piece of legislation that I worked on in the 107th Congress, the Chemical Security Act. I am proud to be joined by Senators Jeffords, Boxer, Clinton, and Lautenberg in reintroducing this bill. Senators Jeffords, Boxer, and Clinton were all strong allies in the 107th Congress, and I thank them for their continuing support. And I am pleased to have Senator Lautenberg as a cosponsor. He has a long history of working to protect communities from all types of chemical threats. I particularly want to thank Senator Jeffords for his hard work on this legislation in the 107th Congress. As Chairman of the Environment and Public Works committee, he provided critical leadership in bringing this bill through the committee successfully. I thank him and his staff for their hard work and look forward to continuing to work with them on this important issue.

I'll describe what the bill does in a minute. But first I want to briefly explain why I think this legislation is so important.

September 11 shocked us into the realization that our assets can be turned against us by terrorists. If you are a New Jersey Senator, you don't have to think about that idea for too long before you realize that chemical plants and other facilities that have hazardous chemicals would be high on a terrorists' list. The fact is, that we have a lot of those types of facilities in my State, and because we're such a densely populated State, chemical releases from these facilities pose grave risks. In fact, according to EPA data, there are eight plants in my State where a worst-case release of toxic chemicals could threaten more than a million people.

But this is not a parochial issue. The same EPA data shows that there are 110 plants nationwide where such a release could threaten more than a million people. These plants are located in 22 States. And there are 44 States that have at least one facility where such a release could threaten more than 100,000 people.

I want to be clear that I am stating these facts here today in an effort to advance a measure that would protect workers and communities, not in an attempt to vilify our nations' chemical companies. Indeed, these companies are a key part of our industrial fabric, providing jobs and producing products essential to our lives. This is certainly true of my home State of New Jersey, as I have already indicated.

But when you look at the numbers, as I have laid them out here today, you realize that we have a problem to deal with. I'm certainly not unique in recognizing this issue, EPA, the Justice Department, the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions, industry groups, and public safety groups all agree. In addition, the White House Strategy for Homeland Security recognizes the chemical and hazardous materials sector as an infrastructure protection priority. Governor Ridge amplified this point in his testimony before the Senate Environment Public Works committee on July 10 of last year. He said that:

The fact is, we have a very diversified economy and our

enemies look at some of our economic assets as targets. And

clearly, the chemical facilities are one of them. We know

that there have been reports validated about security

deficiencies at dozens and dozens of those.

I want to pick up on that last point that Governor Ridge made about security deficiencies, because it speaks to why I am putting this bill forward.

Some companies have taken actions and are continuing to work to implement security measures in light of the post-September 11 environments. Others, however, are not. That's one crucial reason why a Federal program is needed. We need to be able to assure our constituents that this major vulnerability is being addressed in a swift and effective manner. We also want to assure them that certain minimum standards are being met throughout the country.

We already do that to address certain infrastructure vulnerabilities. Most notably, we require nuclear power plants to meet extensive security standards as a condition of their operating licenses. I think we ought to tighten those standards, but the fact is that we have no standards at all for our chemical facilities.

Before I go into specifics, I want to outline the general organizational scheme of the bill. In my view, addressing the risk to communities from a terrorist-caused release of hazardous chemicals requires two fundamental components. The first is improving security, so that the likelihood of a successful terrorist attack is lowered. The second is reducing hazards so that the impact of a successful attack is minimized.

This requires two fundamentally different types of expertise and skills. That's why the bill involves both the EPA and the Department of Homeland Security. EPA has the chemical hazard expertise, and the Department of Homeland Security has the security expertise. EPA has a lead role in most of the bill, because it already has relationships with chemical facilities through its existing accident prevention programs.

As to the specifics of the bill, I think it is a common-sense approach to dealing with the issue. I want to note that this bill is nearly identical to the version of the bill that was reported out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last July by a 19-0 vote. Two minor technical changes have been made to clarify the intent of the legislation, but it is otherwise exactly the same as the committee-reported bill that was acted on unanimously by the EPW committee last year.

The heart of the bill is section 4. This section requires EPA and the Department of Homeland Security to identify ``high priority'' chemical facilities and then require those facilities to assess vulnerabilities and hazards, and then develop and implement a plan to improve security and use safer technologies.

Section 4(a)(1) establishes the priority setting process, by which the EPA Administrator, in consultation the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, as well as States and local government entities, is directed to identify high priority chemical facilities, based on factors identified in section 4(a)(2). These factors include the severity of harm that could be caused by a chemical release, proximity to population centers, threats to national security or critical infrastructure, threshold quantities of substances of concern that pose a serious threat, and such other safety or security factors that the Administrator considers appropriate.

Because of the way the bill is structured, this means that EPA and the Department of Homeland Security are directed to start with the facilities that are subject to EPA's Risk Management Program requirements. This program applies to approximately 15,000 facilities in the United States that use, produce or store large quantities of hazardous chemicals. By applying the factors I mentioned, the priority setting process is meant to shorten this list of 15,000 facilities considerably. But the bill leaves it up to the Administration to determine exactly how many facilities within this universe ought to be covered by the bill.

So that's step one, setting priorities, and that has to be done within one year of enactment.

At this point, I want to mention the first of the clarifying technical changes that I have made to the bill. It was never the intent, nor I believe the effect, of the bill to include propane retailers as potentially regulated entities under this bill. But there was some confusion about the point after the bill was marked up last July. So last fall, I worked with the National Propane Gas Association on language that eliminates this confusion, and it is included in this bill. So I again want to make clear that the same propane retailers who are not subject to the EPA Risk Management Program requirements will not be ``high priority'' facilities under this bill, and therefore will not be subject to its requirements.

In addition to identifying high priority facilities within the first year, EPA and the Department of Homeland Security must also promulgate regulations to require the high priority facilities to take the following steps: conduct a vulnerability and hazard assessment within one year after the regulations are promulgated; prepare and implement a response plan that addresses those vulnerabilities within 18 months after the regulations are promulgated.

I want to say more about the assessments and response plans, because these requirements are really the core of the amendment.

First, the amendment requires chemical facilities to work with local law enforcement and first responders, such as firefighters, in developing the assessments and plans. The second of the clarifying technical changes that I referred to in the opening part of my statement is simply to make clear the firefighters are among the first responders that the bill is referring to.

September 11 showed us how brave and important these our first responders are. Every day, they are willing to risk their lives to respond to terrorist attacks if they need to. So it makes sense that they ought to be a part of the process of developing vulnerability assessments and response plans, as this bill would require.

The same goes for employees of the high priority chemical facilities. They're on the front lines, which means two things. First, they are most at risk in case of a terrorist attack on their plants. Second, because they work in the plants every day, they will have ideas about how to secure the facilities and reduce hazards. So employees are part of the process as well.

As to the assessments and plans themselves, the requirements in the bill are fairly general. There are a variety of vulnerability assessment tools that have already been developed by groups such as Sandia laboratories and the Center for Chemical Process Safety. I would expect that EPA and DHS would take advantage of existing methodologies such as these, but the bill leaves it up to the experts to decide what types of approaches make the most sense. And that probably won't be the same for everyone, I'm not advocating a one-size-fits-all approach here. But I do want to be sure that all of the high priority chemical facilities do a credible vulnerability assessment.

The response plan requirements are also fairly general. Each facility is required to prepare prevention, preparedness and response plan that incorporates the results of the assessments. The plan must include actions and procedures, including safer design and maintenance, to eliminate or significantly lessen the potential consequences of a release.

What this means in simple terms is that each facility has to develop a plan and take steps to reduce both the likelihood of a successful attack and to the harm that would occur if an attack were successful. In other words, they have to look at traditional security measures, such as fences, alarms, and guards. But they also have to look at whether they can make the plant safer. In other words, can less hazardous chemicals be used? Can containment technology such as fans or scrubbers be improved or employed to contain chemicals that may be released? Chemical facilities ought to evaluate the full range of options, look at the tradeoffs among them, and go forward with the best mix of security and technology options.

Facilities are then required to send their assessments and plans to the EPA. EPA and DHS must review those assessments and plans, and certify compliance with the regulations. Any deficiencies identified by EPA and DHS can be remedies by issuance of an order. But the order can only be issued after a deliberate process that includes notification, compliance assistance, and an opportunity for a hearing.

The certification process is there to ensure the public that facilities are complying the law. Those certifications will be the only information

from the assessments and plans that is publicly available. The bill exempts all other information produced under the bill, most importantly, the assessments and plans themselves, from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. I don't take FOIA exemptions lightly. I believe strongly that, in general, the public has a right to information collected by the government. But I think it's pretty obvious that in the case of the information that would be submitted to the government under this bill, the vulnerability assessments and response plans, we simply can't allow the security details in these plans to be publicly available. But I think it does make sense that people who live near a chemical plant be able to find out from EPA and the DHS whether or not that plant has complied with the law.

The bill goes even beyond FOIA exemptions to protect the assessments and plans. To ensure that the assessments and plans are properly safeguarded, the bill includes a requirement for EPA and Homeland Security to develop protocols to prevent unauthorized disclosure of those documents. And it attaches penalties to unauthorized disclosure.

That's the essence of the bill.

First, identify ``high priority'' chemical facilities.

Second, require those facilities to assess vulnerabilities and hazards, and then develop and implement a plan to improve security and implement safer technologies.

Third, EPA and the Department of Homeland Security review the assessments and plans, and they have the authority to require changes if deficiencies are identified.

Fourth, assessments and plans are protected from unauthorized disclosure through a FOIA exemption and penalties that apply to unauthorized disclosure.

The bill also includes an early compliance section that is designed to address concerns that the bill might slow ongoing voluntary security efforts. This provision enables companies to submit assessments and plans prior to promulgation of the regulations and have them judged by the standards in the Act. So companies don't have to wait for the regulations to come out to continue work or to submit plans.

In conclusion, I think this is a balanced bill that puts common-sense requirements in place to deal with a significant problem. I think the bill has moved a long way from the introduced bill. It has accommodated many of the concerns that industry raised about the bill I introduced in the 107th Congress. It reflects intensive bipartisan negotiations, and I think it's a good bill.

At the same time, I recognize that some of my colleagues have continuing concerns about the legislation. Last fall, I worked with Senators Inhofe, Breaux, Landrieu and Lincoln on these issues. I want them to know that I remain open-minded and committed to working with them, the rest of my colleagues and the Administration to resolve these issues so we can move quickly to protect Americans from the threat of attack on chemical facilities. And I want to extend the same commitment not only to the environmental and labor organizations that have supported the bill in the past, but also to the various industry groups that have worked on this bill. It's vital that we all find common ground quickly, and I stand ready to work with all interested parties.

I want to close by expressing both my sense of urgency about this issue and my optimism that we will be able to move legislation quickly. Last fall, Governor Ridge and Administrator Whitman wrote to the Washington Post expressing their support for bipartisan legislation to deal with the chemical security threat. I ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the Record.

I believe the letter was sincere, but the Administration has not yet engaged the Congress on this issue. I urge President Bush to provide leadership to ensure that his Administration works with us as the process moves forward.

I am also encouraged that Senator Inhofe has identified chemical security as a legislative priority as he assumes the Chairmanship of the Environment and Public Works committee. I congratulate him on his new post, and again express my willingness to work with him on this important issue.

With that, I yield the floor and urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce an important piece of legislation that I worked on in the 107th Congress, the Chemical Security Act. I am proud to be joined by Senators Jeffords, Boxer, Clinton, and Lautenberg in reintroducing this bill. Senators Jeffords, Boxer, and Clinton were all strong allies in the 107th Congress, and I thank them for their continuing support. And I am pleased to have Senator Lautenberg as a cosponsor. He has a long history of working to protect communities from all types of chemical threats. I particularly want to thank Senator Jeffords for his hard work on this legislation in the 107th Congress. As Chairman of the Environment and Public Works committee, he provided critical leadership in bringing this bill through the committee successfully. I thank him and his staff for their hard work and look forward to continuing to work with them on this important issue.

I'll describe what the bill does in a minute. But first I want to briefly explain why I think this legislation is so important.

September 11 shocked us into the realization that our assets can be turned against us by terrorists. If you are a New Jersey Senator, you don't have to think about that idea for too long before you realize that chemical plants and other facilities that have hazardous chemicals would be high on a terrorists' list. The fact is, that we have a lot of those types of facilities in my State, and because we're such a densely populated State, chemical releases from these facilities pose grave risks. In fact, according to EPA data, there are eight plants in my State where a worst-case release of toxic chemicals could threaten more than a million people.

But this is not a parochial issue. The same EPA data shows that there are 110 plants nationwide where such a release could threaten more than a million people. These plants are located in 22 States. And there are 44 States that have at least one facility where such a release could threaten more than 100,000 people.

I want to be clear that I am stating these facts here today in an effort to advance a measure that would protect workers and communities, not in an attempt to vilify our nations' chemical companies. Indeed, these companies are a key part of our industrial fabric, providing jobs and producing products essential to our lives. This is certainly true of my home State of New Jersey, as I have already indicated.

But when you look at the numbers, as I have laid them out here today, you realize that we have a problem to deal with. I'm certainly not unique in recognizing this issue, EPA, the Justice Department, the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions, industry groups, and public safety groups all agree. In addition, the White House Strategy for Homeland Security recognizes the chemical and hazardous materials sector as an infrastructure protection priority. Governor Ridge amplified this point in his testimony before the Senate Environment Public Works committee on July 10 of last year. He said that:

The fact is, we have a very diversified economy and our

enemies look at some of our economic assets as targets. And

clearly, the chemical facilities are one of them. We know

that there have been reports validated about security

deficiencies at dozens and dozens of those.

I want to pick up on that last point that Governor Ridge made about security deficiencies, because it speaks to why I am putting this bill forward.

Some companies have taken actions and are continuing to work to implement security measures in light of the post-September 11 environments. Others, however, are not. That's one crucial reason why a Federal program is needed. We need to be able to assure our constituents that this major vulnerability is being addressed in a swift and effective manner. We also want to assure them that certain minimum standards are being met throughout the country.

We already do that to address certain infrastructure vulnerabilities. Most notably, we require nuclear power plants to meet extensive security standards as a condition of their operating licenses. I think we ought to tighten those standards, but the fact is that we have no standards at all for our chemical facilities.

Before I go into specifics, I want to outline the general organizational scheme of the bill. In my view, addressing the risk to communities from a terrorist-caused release of hazardous chemicals requires two fundamental components. The first is improving security, so that the likelihood of a successful terrorist attack is lowered. The second is reducing hazards so that the impact of a successful attack is minimized.

This requires two fundamentally different types of expertise and skills. That's why the bill involves both the EPA and the Department of Homeland Security. EPA has the chemical hazard expertise, and the Department of Homeland Security has the security expertise. EPA has a lead role in most of the bill, because it already has relationships with chemical facilities through its existing accident prevention programs.

As to the specifics of the bill, I think it is a common-sense approach to dealing with the issue. I want to note that this bill is nearly identical to the version of the bill that was reported out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last July by a 19-0 vote. Two minor technical changes have been made to clarify the intent of the legislation, but it is otherwise exactly the same as the committee-reported bill that was acted on unanimously by the EPW committee last year.

The heart of the bill is section 4. This section requires EPA and the Department of Homeland Security to identify ``high priority'' chemical facilities and then require those facilities to assess vulnerabilities and hazards, and then develop and implement a plan to improve security and use safer technologies.

Section 4(a)(1) establishes the priority setting process, by which the EPA Administrator, in consultation the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, as well as States and local government entities, is directed to identify high priority chemical facilities, based on factors identified in section 4(a)(2). These factors include the severity of harm that could be caused by a chemical release, proximity to population centers, threats to national security or critical infrastructure, threshold quantities of substances of concern that pose a serious threat, and such other safety or security factors that the Administrator considers appropriate.

Because of the way the bill is structured, this means that EPA and the Department of Homeland Security are directed to start with the facilities that are subject to EPA's Risk Management Program requirements. This program applies to approximately 15,000 facilities in the United States that use, produce or store large quantities of hazardous chemicals. By applying the factors I mentioned, the priority setting process is meant to shorten this list of 15,000 facilities considerably. But the bill leaves it up to the Administration to determine exactly how many facilities within this universe ought to be covered by the bill.

So that's step one, setting priorities, and that has to be done within one year of enactment.

At this point, I want to mention the first of the clarifying technical changes that I have made to the bill. It was never the intent, nor I believe the effect, of the bill to include propane retailers as potentially regulated entities under this bill. But there was some confusion about the point after the bill was marked up last July. So last fall, I worked with the National Propane Gas Association on language that eliminates this confusion, and it is included in this bill. So I again want to make clear that the same propane retailers who are not subject to the EPA Risk Management Program requirements will not be ``high priority'' facilities under this bill, and therefore will not be subject to its requirements.

In addition to identifying high priority facilities within the first year, EPA and the Department of Homeland Security must also promulgate regulations to require the high priority facilities to take the following steps: conduct a vulnerability and hazard assessment within one year after the regulations are promulgated; prepare and implement a response plan that addresses those vulnerabilities within 18 months after the regulations are promulgated.

I want to say more about the assessments and response plans, because these requirements are really the core of the amendment.

First, the amendment requires chemical facilities to work with local law enforcement and first responders, such as firefighters, in developing the assessments and plans. The second of the clarifying technical changes that I referred to in the opening part of my statement is simply to make clear the firefighters are among the first responders that the bill is referring to.

September 11 showed us how brave and important these our first responders are. Every day, they are willing to risk their lives to respond to terrorist attacks if they need to. So it makes sense that they ought to be a part of the process of developing vulnerability assessments and response plans, as this bill would require.

The same goes for employees of the high priority chemical facilities. They're on the front lines, which means two things. First, they are most at risk in case of a terrorist attack on their plants. Second, because they work in the plants every day, they will have ideas about how to secure the facilities and reduce hazards. So employees are part of the process as well.

As to the assessments and plans themselves, the requirements in the bill are fairly general. There are a variety of vulnerability assessment tools that have already been developed by groups such as Sandia laboratories and the Center for Chemical Process Safety. I would expect that EPA and DHS would take advantage of existing methodologies such as these, but the bill leaves it up to the experts to decide what types of approaches make the most sense. And that probably won't be the same for everyone, I'm not advocating a one-size-fits-all approach here. But I do want to be sure that all of the high priority chemical facilities do a credible vulnerability assessment.

The response plan requirements are also fairly general. Each facility is required to prepare prevention, preparedness and response plan that incorporates the results of the assessments. The plan must include actions and procedures, including safer design and maintenance, to eliminate or significantly lessen the potential consequences of a release.

What this means in simple terms is that each facility has to develop a plan and take steps to reduce both the likelihood of a successful attack and to the harm that would occur if an attack were successful. In other words, they have to look at traditional security measures, such as fences, alarms, and guards. But they also have to look at whether they can make the plant safer. In other words, can less hazardous chemicals be used? Can containment technology such as fans or scrubbers be improved or employed to contain chemicals that may be released? Chemical facilities ought to evaluate the full range of options, look at the tradeoffs among them, and go forward with the best mix of security and technology options.

Facilities are then required to send their assessments and plans to the EPA. EPA and DHS must review those assessments and plans, and certify compliance with the regulations. Any deficiencies identified by EPA and DHS can be remedies by issuance of an order. But the order can only be issued after a deliberate process that includes notification, compliance assistance, and an opportunity for a hearing.

The certification process is there to ensure the public that facilities are complying the law. Those certifications will be the only information

from the assessments and plans that is publicly available. The bill exempts all other information produced under the bill, most importantly, the assessments and plans themselves, from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. I don't take FOIA exemptions lightly. I believe strongly that, in general, the public has a right to information collected by the government. But I think it's pretty obvious that in the case of the information that would be submitted to the government under this bill, the vulnerability assessments and response plans, we simply can't allow the security details in these plans to be publicly available. But I think it does make sense that people who live near a chemical plant be able to find out from EPA and the DHS whether or not that plant has complied with the law.

The bill goes even beyond FOIA exemptions to protect the assessments and plans. To ensure that the assessments and plans are properly safeguarded, the bill includes a requirement for EPA and Homeland Security to develop protocols to prevent unauthorized disclosure of those documents. And it attaches penalties to unauthorized disclosure.

That's the essence of the bill.

First, identify ``high priority'' chemical facilities.

Second, require those facilities to assess vulnerabilities and hazards, and then develop and implement a plan to improve security and implement safer technologies.

Third, EPA and the Department of Homeland Security review the assessments and plans, and they have the authority to require changes if deficiencies are identified.

Fourth, assessments and plans are protected from unauthorized disclosure through a FOIA exemption and penalties that apply to unauthorized disclosure.

The bill also includes an early compliance section that is designed to address concerns that the bill might slow ongoing voluntary security efforts. This provision enables companies to submit assessments and plans prior to promulgation of the regulations and have them judged by the standards in the Act. So companies don't have to wait for the regulations to come out to continue work or to submit plans.

In conclusion, I think this is a balanced bill that puts common-sense requirements in place to deal with a significant problem. I think the bill has moved a long way from the introduced bill. It has accommodated many of the concerns that industry raised about the bill I introduced in the 107th Congress. It reflects intensive bipartisan negotiations, and I think it's a good bill.

At the same time, I recognize that some of my colleagues have continuing concerns about the legislation. Last fall, I worked with Senators Inhofe, Breaux, Landrieu and Lincoln on these issues. I want them to know that I remain open-minded and committed to working with them, the rest of my colleagues and the Administration to resolve these issues so we can move quickly to protect Americans from the threat of attack on chemical facilities. And I want to extend the same commitment not only to the environmental and labor organizations that have supported the bill in the past, but also to the various industry groups that have worked on this bill. It's vital that we all find common ground quickly, and I stand ready to work with all interested parties.

I want to close by expressing both my sense of urgency about this issue and my optimism that we will be able to move legislation quickly. Last fall, Governor Ridge and Administrator Whitman wrote to the Washington Post expressing their support for bipartisan legislation to deal with the chemical security threat. I ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the Record.

I believe the letter was sincere, but the Administration has not yet engaged the Congress on this issue. I urge President Bush to provide leadership to ensure that his Administration works with us as the process moves forward.

I am also encouraged that Senator Inhofe has identified chemical security as a legislative priority as he assumes the Chairmanship of the Environment and Public Works committee. I congratulate him on his new post, and again express my willingness to work with him on this important issue.

With that, I yield the floor and urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I understand we are in a period of morning business.

I request I be permitted to speak up to 30 minutes.

Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from Utah, I could very much agree with many of the broad principles I hear. How we rearrange them to get to those longrun growth numbers that do compound and make our economy stronger is an area where men have a difference of opinion. That is one of the things I will discuss. We are seriously at a point in the path of economic history, at least of our Nation, where those choices lead to long-term structural problems, ones we have visited at other points in time, ones that with regard to alternatives could actually stimulate the economy, get us into an investment cycle that could drive that same kind of growth rate that the Senator speaks so eloquently about and which I could agree. If we could get that economy growing from 2.9 percent to 3.5 or 3.4, we could create the kinds of incentives for people to invest and go forward.

The real issue is how do we get on to that path of growth? There are serious differences of opinion. That is a debate we need to have on the floor of the Senate in front of the American people.

I will take a few moments to actually talk through at least my perspective on some of the issues that arise from the President's proposal. I have certainly heard a lot of commentary on it. We have heard from some that it is bold. We have heard from some that it is risky. We have heard from some that it is reckless.

From my point of view, it is more towards the imprudent, at best, and in some ways I find it is reckless with regard to long-term fiscal health and stability.

I consider myself a fiscal conservative, on balance, over a period of time. I think we need to live within our means. I don't think that is going to be accomplished here.

I am pleased the President recognizes our economy has major problems. It is a reality. Unfortunately, it is past the time when we should have addressed some of these issues, but it is an important admission. This and changing the economic team has been an important statement. We needed a new look at where we were.

Since March of 2001 when the recession was declared by a blue-ribbon panel of economists led by Mr. Feldstein, a prominent conservative economist, we have lost 2.1 million American jobs in the private sector. Actually, with this morning's announcement on unemployment, that would be about 2.2 million jobs. The unemployment rate, again, as many have heard, stands at 6 percent. The most important element of the announcement today is that over the last 2 months we have lost 188,000 jobs.

By the way, the President is predicting that the program that we put in place will only produce that amount of jobs over the next 12 to 18 months.

Mortgage foreclosures are at a high. I think everyone knows all too well the kind of lost value we have had in the stock market over the last 2 years, even more substantial over the last 3. Consumer confidence is bumping along at historic lows. Demand has declined to an extent that businesses are operating at 75 percent of their capacity. The average for the country over the last 25 years is about 81 percent.

We are running Federal budget deficit rates of about $200 billion this year. Just yesterday there was a new study of the State governments. They are running budget deficits cumulatively of about $90 billion. Many of our local communities are suffering from the same kind of pressures in their local budgets. We are seeing increases in property taxes.

I think, in short, we have a serious economic situation in this country. It is one that does deserve attention and I am glad we are having the debate with regard to it. Frankly, the people of New Jersey have known this for some time. I live in a State where Lucent Technology has shrunk its workforce from 180,000 employees--not all of them in New Jersey but on a worldwide basis--to roughly 30,000. We have closed essentially one of the great intellectual research institutions that created some of the innovation that has driven the American economy--Bell Labs. We are seeing an impending shutdown of the two remaining auto manufacturing plants, certainly cut shifts to one, and they are talking about closing one of those plants in New Jersey. In the northern part of the State we are seeing significant if not massive layoffs in the financial services industry, among others.

We are having about a $4 billion budget deficit in the State of New Jersey in fiscal 2003 and projections for about $6 billion in fiscal 2004.

Our Governors and mayors know we have a problem. I am glad we are now coming to that recognition here in Washington.

California is looking at a budget deficit, I saw in the paper this morning, of about $35 billion over the next 15 months to 18 months. The Texas deficit is $12 billion, New York's is $10 billion, New Jersey, as I said, is someplace between $5.5 billion and $6 billion. We have to understand we have to deal with growth in this economy and it has to happen now or we are going to have incredible stress and strain and I think actions that will end up undermining our longrun economic security here at home.

We need a serious and focused action to get our economy moving. On that front I think there are several parts of the President's program that deserve support. For example, I totally would back accelerating an expanded child credit, the adjustments in the marriage penalty, tax relief for the middle class in the 10 percent bracket, the small business, the AMT provisions. These are all sound and reasonable provisions.

Unfortunately, though, they are a relatively small part of the overall package. I think we need to make sure we are providing help to those who need it most. These do. I think they will help get our economy on track. Unfortunately, so few of these will be hit today, in 2003 and 2004, to really give that drive, that thrust to the economy that I think will make a difference in a way that deals with some of those problems I talked about.

We have 1 million people with 95,000 a week already on long-term extended unemployment. These are people who dropped off the rolls that will allow for benefiting from the unemployment compensation program we put in place this week.

I think it is important that we get moving. There are some elements in the President's plan that I think are supportable, but they are relatively a small piece--about 30 percent--of the overall program. I think in many ways--and I will try to go through this and will make some comments on specific elements of it--you could argue there are elements of this program that are antigrowth.

I would particularly like to talk about some of this cash issue I heard the Senator from Utah talk about. He and I agree that cash is king. It is one of those things that actually drives the valuations of corporations and their ability to do things. I just come out with a different perspective on how we are addressing that in this particular program.

We really do, though, need to stimulate our economy now to provide jobs, absorb excess capacity, get into that investment cycle that I think will drive our economy to creating jobs. Let's remember, most economists and business people believed--and by the way, so did all of our budgeteers around here--that there were some simple principles we need to follow with regard to stimulus programs. They articulated those last year when we were going through these programs.

We need short-term stimulus. That should be immediate and temporary. We need long-term fiscal discipline, long-term fiscal health and, in my view, the plan we saw put on the table on Tuesday just the reverse. Less than 10 percent of its 10-year cost will go into the economy this year, a very small percentage.

By the way, if we talk for a while longer here on the floor of the Senate, there will be even less going to the economy this year, before the program is implemented.

There is very little argument with the view that it will undermine our long-term fiscal discipline leading to what I believe will be higher long-term interest rates down the road. People argue about whether deficits create interest rates. They only do that when we are operating at full capacity. When there is not full capacity, there is no crowding out issue. What we need to worry about is what are interest rates going to do when there is real competition for money in a fully operating economy. I think those shortfalls that are going to be built in structurally when we come out of this are going to lead to disastrous deficits when we come out of this down the road.

When the baby boomers retire--we have 35 million seniors now--we will have 70 million in 20 years. That will put incredible pressures on our medical system, Social Security system, all elements of our society. I do not think anyone has planned, particularly in the context of these tax cuts, how we are going to get through that.

The bottom line, in my view, is this is a plan that will not work. It is antijobs and antigrowth, from my perspective, on balance, and in many ways it is imprudent.

First, this plan--and this gets at one of the things on which I think the distinguished Senator from Utah and I agree, in principle--the plan to encourage corporations to shift cash from corporate investments and employment into dividends will reduce overall business investment and either cost jobs that could be created, or even the maintenance of them. Certainly in the short run that is going to be the case, and potentially over the long run.

Few people seem to get focused on the fact which I think should be obvious: You can't spend the same dollar twice. So for each dollar contributed as a dividend, companies will have one less dollar to invest in plant and equipment; one less dollar to plow into research and development, one less dollar to hire new personnel. The end result will be investment in fewer jobs in the short term and potentially less economic growth in the long term as well.

By the way, I have some sympathy for this double taxation of dividend argument. But if you were going to do that, it ought to be a deduction against taxable income on the balance sheet of

the corporation. Then the cash is held, they can make the decisions and treat it as an equivalent of interest, and then we would not have the bias in our system towards debt as opposed to equity. And it should, in my view, be accompanied with reform, other tax reforms, that take away some of the causes of why reported income is about 100 percent higher than what taxable reported income is.

It just strikes me we are addressing this problem wrong, even if we wanted to reduce the double taxation of dividends, but it is absolutely obvious and certainly common sense if you take cash off the balance sheet of the corporation it has less ability to invest in its future, less ability to invest in hiring more people going forward. Cash is king. It is part of the valuation. But it strikes me, as we are approaching this, it is a wrong formulation.

The Bush plan does contain one element that I think is a reasonably decent and dampening incentive to shift money in cash dividends. It is very complicated. It adjusts the shareholder base. Their stock profits are not distributed in the form of dividends. I accept the fact that it will marginally offset the shift of cash dividends. I think that will be the minor scheme of things because I think the competition among corporations showing different returns will be high. But I do think that it is a reasonable attempt to try to make some offset to getting cash off the balance sheet for those who think they have to do marginal rates of return in which they can invest.

It is an incredibly complex concept to be able to explain to the vast majority of Americans. To understand the differences and the increased bases for the vast majority of Americans will be a hard concept to get their minds around. It is going to lead to an absolute deluge of paperwork and shifting of information back and forth between investors, brokers, tax preparers, and all other kinds of folks which I think can lead to all kinds of unintended consequences.

Beyond the lack of fiscal stimulus in the first year and what I believe will be a perverse impact created by the structure of the different proposals, I am also concerned about the distribution of tax benefits provided in the President's plan. Many of my colleagues tried to explain or at least talked about the obvious unfairness of that distribution in a progressive tax system. The Bush administration, in my view, and those who often talk about this obscure distributional impact of the proposal, focus the tax burden exclusively on Federal income taxes and ignore the severe burdens imposed by Federal payroll taxes, all shapes and forms of State taxes, and local taxes, and especially property taxes and sales taxes.

In New Jersey, the budget deficit required us to cut services and raise property taxes 7.1 percent. The State of New Jersey, by the way, also had to put on a business tax to be able to raise about $1 billion to close that budget deficit. In the city of New York, which has been troubled by current events, will have to raise property taxes 18.5 percent this year to try to make up for the holes that are being created and the lack of support from the Federal Government.

These additional taxes that I am talking about, such as property taxes in particular, which weigh very heavily on the middle class, and taking into account the distribution of the American tax burden, create an entirely different profile than if you just take a small slice of the pie and look at the Federal income tax.

Without taking a more comprehensive approach, the President is really misleading the American people based on the secondary impacts that will occur. Rather than focusing on the fairness issue, I wish to focus instead on the ineffectiveness of the administration's proposal in promoting economic growth.

I am one of those guys who believes a rising tide does lift all boats, and if we do well everyone will benefit. Grow the pie.

There is a broad agreement among economists that low- and moderate- income people are likely to spend the tax cuts rather than the high marginal income people who would not have a propensity to spend it. It is a well-known fact and it is a matter of economic policy that any stimulus program ought to focus its tax cuts marginally on those who will turn around and spend it because then you will get the multiplier effect on the economy. You will get that growth that we are both trying to get.

My friend from Utah has talked about trying to get it up to 3.5 or 3.1 or 3.2. We can do that if we can get the people to spend the money--reducing inventories of manufacturers and people going back to work. I think the Bush plan does precisely the opposite.

Over the next 10 years, just looking at some of the distributional interests, lots of people with annual incomes of more than $1 million-- by the way, this is a 10-year look--those with $1 million of income or more will get a break worth $900,000.

Middle-class-income families--by the way, I define, at least in New Jersey, the middle class as being in the $75,000 to $125,000 range because there are different views about what that is. But let us take middle-class-income families of $75,000 to $125,000. In that same 10- year period, they would get $18,000 over 10 years. I think that is roughly 2.5 percent of the $900,000.

Let us consider people who would be in moderate-income classes. In some parts of the country maybe this is defined as the middle class. Even in New Jersey, it is between $30,000 and $40,000.

The median income for an individual in the United States is about $27,000. But using a $30,000 to $40,000 range, I think the total 10- year cumulative value of this is about $3,500 under the Bush plan. This is .4 percent of the total benefit that the million-dollar earners get.

Consider the 25 million taxpayers with purported gross incomes of less than $10,000. They make up 20 percent of the population of taxpayers. They will get, over the 10 years, a total of $50.

By the way, they are paying payroll taxes. Many of them are paying property taxes. Many of them are paying State sales taxes, and all the other nonconsidered taxes in this view. I think that is a tough way to look at it. This is not intended to say, wow, this is bad; people at the top end are getting such great breaks. It is just that there is a distributional reality that doesn't make sense: $900,000 over 10 years for those making more than $1 million; $18,000 for those between $75,000 and $100,000; and $3,500 for those between $30,000 and $40,000; and $50 for those $10,000 and below.

I think you can make a fairness argument. But I think the most important piece is that it will not stimulate the economy. The people who will spend money--particularly in the short run--are not going to be receiving the resources to be able to go off to their Wal-Marts or Targets and other places and put the demand into this economy.

I know that the administration and many have argued and are pointing out that those of us who make the kind of case that I just made are entering into what is tantamount to class warfare. My point has nothing to do with that--nothing at all. It is, in fact, just the opposite.

As other Democrats, I believe our goal should be to grow the economy to the benefit of every American--for all Americans. I want to create more millionaires. I want more people to be more successful--not fewer. Handing out tax cuts so disproportionately to the top of the income scale is a highly ineffective way to grow our economy. They just do not turn around and drive the economy--certainly not in the short run.

There are real debates about whether that actually gets back into the investment system, particularly if a lot of it goes off to seniors and a lot of it goes into bonds and coupons and into Federal Government securities. It is just not certain that it is going to grow productive capacity, and certainly it isn't going to eat up the excess capacity we have today. I don't think this is going to grow the pie larger, which is what all of us should look for.

We made more millionaires in the 1990s than we did in any other period in the history of the United States. I think it is absolutely essential that we talk about growing the pie as opposed to getting into this discussion about how we are dividing it.

Keep in mind that all Americans, including the very wealthy, in my view, benefit from a strong economy. Those at the top income scale, as I said, did

well in the 1990s. We adopted policies based on a commitment of fiscal discipline, along with targeted investment in priorities such as education. Abandoning those policies for tax breaks such as the proposed dividend exclusion clearly will not mean more cash in hand for those who invest in our society. There is nothing wrong with that in its own right. But is it going to grow the economy? I think this, in many ways, runs the risk of being antigrowth. It certainly runs the risk of higher interest rates down the road given the fiscal implications that may very well come about.

I just have to say that it seems odd after the growth experience of the 1990s. I know there were problems at the end of the 1990s. But we created 22 million new jobs, we had a balanced budget, and we had tremendous growth and productivity in this country because of investment in technology and the spread of American entrepreneurial skills.

Why we need radical surgery on America's tax structure is just a hard concept to get your mind around. Clearly, we have cyclical problems that can be addressed by dealing with an inventory cycle and investment cycle. And I think that calls for short-term stimulus and managing carefully our long-term fiscal situation.

Next, I want to move on and talk about one claim that has been made repeatedly by proponents of the administration and the administration officials that gets sort of tied up in this class-warfare charge; that is, the administration's tax cut supposedly benefits seniors. This claim, in my view, is about as misleading as anything I can imagine.

There are 37 million seniors in the U.S. Yet only one-fourth of them--less than 10 million; about 9.25 million--will receive dividends. Some 75 percent--or 27 million--of America's seniors will get absolutely nothing from the President's dividend exclusion. Moreover, only a small fraction of the wealthiest seniors will enjoy most of the benefits. Nearly 40 percent of the dividend tax cut for seniors will flow to those filers with incomes exceeding $200,000. That is a mere 2.5 percent of tax returns filed by senior citizens.

I am trying to figure it out because there are married couples in there, but I think it is around 250,000 seniors out of 37 million seniors who will get 40 percent of that so-called benefit for seniors. So it is highly misleading to argue that seniors will benefit from this plan. Only a small number of the wealthiest seniors will benefit.

And when you take the potential cost of this--in maintaining the real value of Social Security benefits, the ability of our Nation to truly deal with a prescription drug benefit, regardless of what kind of plan comes forward--to talk about this benefiting seniors on a relative basis to the overall needs of the seniors is hard for me to get my mind around. It is virtually mind-boggling. In fact, one could make the case that seniors are among the biggest losers in the President's plan because we are not going to have the ability to deal with this baby boom generation, going from 37 million seniors to 70 million seniors over the next 15 years.

So far, I have discussed the small size of the stimulus in the first year, its incentives for companies to shift cash away from investments and jobs, and targeting the tax cuts to those who are least likely to spend it. I have responded to some of the claims that I think are relatively bogus with regard to benefits for America's seniors.

Now I want to focus on another and critically important issue, which is the failure to address the severe fiscal problems facing our States. In many ways, it makes those problems worse. In fact, it is in this vein that this plan is also seriously antigrowth. And if it isn't antigrowth, it is absolutely antistate when you come to considering the impact on State finances.

While many of us in Washington are talking about putting more money into the economy, as I suggested, most of our Governors and our State legislators are having to deal with how we pull money out of the economy. That is because almost all of our States have strict balanced budget requirements--48 out of 50 States--and face severe fiscal problems.

The total of the projected deficits, as I said, was just reestimated--about $90 billion, give or take $10 billion. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Utah; some of these economic projections are hard to put in print. But if we do not get the economy going, the only way that number is going to go is up. The crisis facing State treasuries is not just a problem for elected officials; it is a problem for all of our citizens and for our economy. States and localities already have begun to raise taxes.

In New Jersey, property taxes have increased 7.1 percent; in the city of New York, 18.5 percent. Across this country, we are raising property taxes because people care about the education of their children, they care about transportation, and they are investing heavily in homeland security to protect the American people. It is a big deal that we are not taking on a fair share of that at the Federal level.

By the way, we just created another unfunded mandate with Leave No Child Behind. And our budget proposals are not meeting our promises according to it. We have not done that with IDEA or in special education. And there are real needs with regard to our homeland security. We are putting burdens on the States and local governments and not coming up with help to make it happen.

These tax increases and spending cuts that the individual States and localities are doing not only hurt taxpayers but they really undermine the efficacy of Government and the program beneficiaries they serve to depress the economy further. That deficit among the States, in fact, more than offsets the entire stimulus proposed for fiscal year 2003 in the President's plan. And I suspect you will be able to say the same thing about fiscal year 2004. We have different timings on when the two fit together. But we are taking out of one pocket and putting it into another. I think it is really wrongheaded policy and really will limit growth in the country. I think it is really putting unfair burdens on our State and local governments.

Only the Federal Government is in a position to counter these pressures. Instead, the administration's plan does absolutely nothing to address these fiscal crises in our States or to reduce the need for State tax hikes or spending cuts. It just does not deal with these issues. I hope we can understand and adjust this plan to take into consideration the plight of all of our country, all of our various entities that service the American people, by pulling this all together.

By the way, the proposal actually worsens the situation on not only the support level, but every State ties its State income tax--those States that have an income tax--to the Federal tax system. And the States are going to directly lose $4.5 billion--almost $100 million in my State of New Jersey, but over $1 billion in the State of California.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

I appreciate very much the courtesy of the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. President, we have a problem in the States. And the tie in of the taxes that States collect to the Federal tax system is one of those places where there is a problem.

Another, on which I will not go into great deal, is the issuance of municipal bonds, tax-exempt bonds, the fundamental element of how you fund infrastructure, schools, and all the other elements at the local level. They are going to have to compete now with tax-free dividends and are going to suffer very seriously on a competitive basis in the financial markets.

I can assure you, interest rates for State and local government bonds, on an equal basis--regardless of where the markets go, where interest rates go--will be higher than they would have otherwise been. So there is a real problem.

I will go back and just mention briefly, the lack of attention to these exhausted unemployment benefits is going to put greater burdens on States and create greater rolls in Medicaid. Lots of support is going to have to be delivered to the individual families who are suffering from those kinds of situations. I think we have a real problem there.

I also want to say I think there are other issues involved. Maybe the most important is, where are our priorities? We are at a time of great national insecurity, with good reason. We need to protect the American people at home, abroad, and against terrorists.

We had almost 700 New Jersey people lose their lives on September 11. People are concerned about security. We need to be investing in it. Why and wherefore are we having such a program that brings little sacrifice to those who are doing well at a time when there are such great needs?

I could go on further about some of the complexities of this and how it will offer great opportunity for financial engineering, chicanery, if you will, almost the repetitive nature of some of the things that we saw in the last several years: The unfortunate implication for 401(k)s and IRAs and tax-exempt pension funds with regard to dividends, the disincentives it will create for longrun savings for retirement, the problems it may very well cause to the real estate industry because of the competitive disadvantage of REITs and the financial structure which is an important thing for housing for people.

There are serious, serious flaws in this. Instead of directly addressing the fundamental economic problem, which is excess capacity, both in labor and manufacturing, this reflects, in my view, a return to the discredited economics of radical supply siders.

I don't want to quote only a Republican commentator, but I will. Kevin Phillips put it this way:

This isn't even trickle-down economics. It's mist down

economics.

We are on the wrong track. We have a new economic team at the White House. I hope they will step back and evaluate some of these elements. There are places where we can work together on this plan, but 90 percent of this proposal that is focused on the longrun restructuring of economic structure, in my view, is a bad idea. It truly hurts our States and potentially undermines investment at the corporate level, and it has some issues on the fairness side.

It is time that we take a rethink. I hope we can have a great debate over the next few months in the Senate to make this a better program to help all Americans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to respond for 1

minute, if the Senator from Ohio will not object.

I appreciate very much the comments of the Senator from Utah. I think we need a healthy debate to get the best policies. I will make one observation about the S corporations and K-1s, which I know something about. The fact is, I try not to use the sort of distributional numbers. You will notice I did not use the top 1 percent; I used people making $1 million or more as the basis on which I compare numbers. So there is some element of that which translates into comparability. I think you and I can sort through those in detail. But the fact is, people at $1 million or more in adjusted gross income are going to have an advantage of $900,000 cumulatively over the 10 years, and the other brackets are at $18,500, $3,500, and $50.

I believe that a rising tide lifts all boats. That is the theme about which I am talking. We may have differences about how you get there. I want to make sure that we distinguish between talking about percentages, and what I am trying to talk about is the people who actually get the benefit.