Keeping Families Together Act

Mr. President, I am very pleased today to join several of my colleagues--Senator Pryor, Senator DeWine, Senator Bingaman, Senator Smith, Senator Lieberman, and the Presiding Officer, Senator Coleman--in introducing the Keeping Families Together Act. This legislation is intended to reduce the barriers to care for children who are struggling with serious mental illness. It is intended to ensure their parents are no longer forced to give up custody of their children solely for the purpose of securing mental health treatment.

As the Presiding Officer is well aware, because he was an active participant in them, the Governmental Affairs Committee in the last Congress held extensive hearings on this issue.

What we heard was a tragedy. We heard case after case where families

made the wrenching choice to give up custody of their children in order to secure the mental health treatment that they needed. No family should ever be forced to make that decision.

Imagine what it feels like for a child who is suffering from mental illness to be wrenched from his family, put into either the juvenile justice system or the foster care system simply because that is the only way to get that child the care that he so desperately needs.

Serious mental illness afflicts millions of our Nation's children and adolescents. It is estimated that as many as 20 percent of American children under the age of 17 suffer from a mental, emotional or behavioral illness. What I find most disturbing, however, is the fact that two-thirds of all young people who need mental health treatment are not getting it.

Behind each of these statistics is a family that is struggling to do the best it can to help a son or a daughter with serious mental health needs to be just like every other kid--to develop friendships, to do well in school, and to get along with their siblings and other family members. These children are almost always involved with more than one social service agency, including the mental health, special education, child welfare, or the juvenile justice systems. Yet no one agency, at either the State or the Federal level, is clearly responsible or accountable for helping these children and their families.

My interest in this issue was triggered by a compelling series of stories by Barbara Walsh in the Portland Press Herald which detailed the obstacles that many Maine families have faced in getting desperately needed mental health services for their children. Too many families in Maine and elsewhere have been forced to make wrenching decisions when they have been advised that the only way to get the care that their children so desperately need is to relinquish custody and place them in either the child welfare or juvenile justice system.

When a child has a serious physical health problem like diabetes or a heart condition, the family turns to their doctor. When the family includes a child with a serious mental illness, it is often forced to go to the child welfare or juvenile justice system to secure treatment.

Yet neither system is intended to serve children with serious mental illness. Child welfare systems are designed to protect children who have been abused or neglected. Juvenile justice systems are designed to rehabilitate children who have committed criminal or delinquent acts. While neither of these systems is equipped to care for a child with a serious mental illness, in far too many cases, there is nowhere else for the family to turn.

In some extreme cases, families feel forced to file charges against their child or to declare that they have abused or neglected them in order to get the care that they need. As one family advocate observed, ``Beat 'em up, lock 'em up, or give 'em up,'' characterizes the choices that some families face in their efforts to get help for their children's mental illness.

In 2003, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, issued a report that I requested with Representatives Pete Stark and Patrick Kennedy that found that, in 2001, parents placed more than 12,700 children into the child welfare or juvenile justice systems so that these children could receive mental health services. I believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg, since 32 States--including five States with the largest populations of children--did not provide the GAO with any data.

Other studies indicate that the problem is even more pervasive. A 1999 survey by the National Alliance for the Mentally III found that 23 percent--or one in four of the parents surveyed--had been told by public officials that they needed to relinquish custody of their children to get care, and that one in five of these families had done so.

Some States have passed laws to limit custody or prohibit custody relinquishment. Simply banning the practice is not a solution, however, since it can leave children with mental illness and their families without services and care. Custody relinquishment is merely a symptom of the much larger problem, which is the lack of available, affordable and appropriate mental health services and support systems for these children and their families.

Last Congress, I chaired a series of hearings in the Governmental Affairs Committee to examine this issue further. We heard compelling testimony from mothers who told us that they were advised that the only way to get the intensive care and services that their children needed was to relinquish custody and place them in the child welfare or juvenile justice system. This is a wrenching decision that no family should be forced to make. No parent should have to give up custody of his or her child just to get the services that the child needs.

The mothers also described the barriers they faced in getting care for their children. They told us about the limitations in both public and private insurance coverage. They also talked about the lack of coordination and communication among the various agencies and programs that service children with mental health needs. One parent, desperate for help for her twin boys, searched for 2 years until she finally located a program--which she characterized as ``the best kept secret in Illinois''--that was able to help.

Parents should not be bounced from agency to agency, knocking on every door they come to, in the hope that they will happen upon someone who has an answer. It simply should not be such a struggle for parents to get services and treatment for their children.

We also need to question what happens to these children when they are turned over to the child welfare or juvenile justice authorities. I released a report last year with Congressman Henry Waxman that found that all too often they are simply left to languish in juvenile detention centers, which are ill-equipped to meet their needs, while they wait for scarce mental health services.

Our report, which was based on a national survey of juvenile detention centers, found that the use of juvenile detention facilities to ``warehouse'' children with mental disorders is a serious national problem. It found that, over a six month period, nearly 15,000 young people--roughly 7 percent of all of the children in the centers surveyed--were detained solely because they were waiting for mental health services outside the juvenile justice system. Many were held without any charges pending against them, and the young people incarcerated unnecessarily while waiting for treatment were as young as seven years old. Finally, the report estimated that juvenile detention facilities are spending an estimated $100 million of the taxpayers' money each year simply to warehouse children and teenagers while they are waiting for mental health services.

The Keeping Families Together Act, which we are introducing today, will help to improve access to mental health services and assist states in eliminating the practice of parents relinquishing custody of their children solely for the purpose of securing treatment.

The legislation authorizes $55 million over 6 years for competitive grants to states to create an infrastructure to support and sustain statewide systems of care to serve children who are in custody or at risk of entering custody of the State for the purpose of receiving mental health services. States already dedicate significant dollars to serve children in state custody. These Family Support Grants would help States to serve children more effectively and efficiently, while keeping them at home with their families.

The legislation would also remove a current statutory barrier that prevents more States from using the Medicaid home and community-based services waiver to serve children with serious mental health needs. This waiver provides a promising way for States to address the underlying lack of mental health services for children that often leads to custody relinquishment. While a number of States have requested these waivers to serve children with developmental disabilities, very few have done so for children with serious mental health conditions. Our legislation would provide parity to children with mental illness by making it easier for States to offer them home- and community-based services under this waiver as an alternative to institutional care.

And finally, the legislation calls for the creation of a federal interagency task force to examine mental health issues in the child welfare and juvenile

justice systems and the role of those agencies in promoting access by children and youth to needed mental health services. The task force would also be charged with monitoring the Family Support grants, making recommendations to Congress on how to improve mental health services, and fostering interagency cooperation and removing interagency barriers that contribute to the problem of custody relinquishment.

The Keeping Families Together Act takes a critical step forward to meeting the needs of children with serious mental or emotional disorders. Our legislation has been endorsed by a broad coalition of mental health and children's groups, including the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the National Child Welfare League, the National Mental Health Association, the American Correctional Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and Fight Crime, Invest in Kids.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that their letters of endorsement for the bill be printed in the Congressional Record, and I urge all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I am very pleased today to join several of my colleagues--Senator Pryor, Senator DeWine, Senator Bingaman, Senator Smith, Senator Lieberman, and the Presiding Officer, Senator Coleman--in introducing the Keeping Families Together Act. This legislation is intended to reduce the barriers to care for children who are struggling with serious mental illness. It is intended to ensure their parents are no longer forced to give up custody of their children solely for the purpose of securing mental health treatment.

As the Presiding Officer is well aware, because he was an active participant in them, the Governmental Affairs Committee in the last Congress held extensive hearings on this issue.

What we heard was a tragedy. We heard case after case where families

made the wrenching choice to give up custody of their children in order to secure the mental health treatment that they needed. No family should ever be forced to make that decision.

Imagine what it feels like for a child who is suffering from mental illness to be wrenched from his family, put into either the juvenile justice system or the foster care system simply because that is the only way to get that child the care that he so desperately needs.

Serious mental illness afflicts millions of our Nation's children and adolescents. It is estimated that as many as 20 percent of American children under the age of 17 suffer from a mental, emotional or behavioral illness. What I find most disturbing, however, is the fact that two-thirds of all young people who need mental health treatment are not getting it.

Behind each of these statistics is a family that is struggling to do the best it can to help a son or a daughter with serious mental health needs to be just like every other kid--to develop friendships, to do well in school, and to get along with their siblings and other family members. These children are almost always involved with more than one social service agency, including the mental health, special education, child welfare, or the juvenile justice systems. Yet no one agency, at either the State or the Federal level, is clearly responsible or accountable for helping these children and their families.

My interest in this issue was triggered by a compelling series of stories by Barbara Walsh in the Portland Press Herald which detailed the obstacles that many Maine families have faced in getting desperately needed mental health services for their children. Too many families in Maine and elsewhere have been forced to make wrenching decisions when they have been advised that the only way to get the care that their children so desperately need is to relinquish custody and place them in either the child welfare or juvenile justice system.

When a child has a serious physical health problem like diabetes or a heart condition, the family turns to their doctor. When the family includes a child with a serious mental illness, it is often forced to go to the child welfare or juvenile justice system to secure treatment.

Yet neither system is intended to serve children with serious mental illness. Child welfare systems are designed to protect children who have been abused or neglected. Juvenile justice systems are designed to rehabilitate children who have committed criminal or delinquent acts. While neither of these systems is equipped to care for a child with a serious mental illness, in far too many cases, there is nowhere else for the family to turn.

In some extreme cases, families feel forced to file charges against their child or to declare that they have abused or neglected them in order to get the care that they need. As one family advocate observed, ``Beat 'em up, lock 'em up, or give 'em up,'' characterizes the choices that some families face in their efforts to get help for their children's mental illness.

In 2003, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, issued a report that I requested with Representatives Pete Stark and Patrick Kennedy that found that, in 2001, parents placed more than 12,700 children into the child welfare or juvenile justice systems so that these children could receive mental health services. I believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg, since 32 States--including five States with the largest populations of children--did not provide the GAO with any data.

Other studies indicate that the problem is even more pervasive. A 1999 survey by the National Alliance for the Mentally III found that 23 percent--or one in four of the parents surveyed--had been told by public officials that they needed to relinquish custody of their children to get care, and that one in five of these families had done so.

Some States have passed laws to limit custody or prohibit custody relinquishment. Simply banning the practice is not a solution, however, since it can leave children with mental illness and their families without services and care. Custody relinquishment is merely a symptom of the much larger problem, which is the lack of available, affordable and appropriate mental health services and support systems for these children and their families.

Last Congress, I chaired a series of hearings in the Governmental Affairs Committee to examine this issue further. We heard compelling testimony from mothers who told us that they were advised that the only way to get the intensive care and services that their children needed was to relinquish custody and place them in the child welfare or juvenile justice system. This is a wrenching decision that no family should be forced to make. No parent should have to give up custody of his or her child just to get the services that the child needs.

The mothers also described the barriers they faced in getting care for their children. They told us about the limitations in both public and private insurance coverage. They also talked about the lack of coordination and communication among the various agencies and programs that service children with mental health needs. One parent, desperate for help for her twin boys, searched for 2 years until she finally located a program--which she characterized as ``the best kept secret in Illinois''--that was able to help.

Parents should not be bounced from agency to agency, knocking on every door they come to, in the hope that they will happen upon someone who has an answer. It simply should not be such a struggle for parents to get services and treatment for their children.

We also need to question what happens to these children when they are turned over to the child welfare or juvenile justice authorities. I released a report last year with Congressman Henry Waxman that found that all too often they are simply left to languish in juvenile detention centers, which are ill-equipped to meet their needs, while they wait for scarce mental health services.

Our report, which was based on a national survey of juvenile detention centers, found that the use of juvenile detention facilities to ``warehouse'' children with mental disorders is a serious national problem. It found that, over a six month period, nearly 15,000 young people--roughly 7 percent of all of the children in the centers surveyed--were detained solely because they were waiting for mental health services outside the juvenile justice system. Many were held without any charges pending against them, and the young people incarcerated unnecessarily while waiting for treatment were as young as seven years old. Finally, the report estimated that juvenile detention facilities are spending an estimated $100 million of the taxpayers' money each year simply to warehouse children and teenagers while they are waiting for mental health services.

The Keeping Families Together Act, which we are introducing today, will help to improve access to mental health services and assist states in eliminating the practice of parents relinquishing custody of their children solely for the purpose of securing treatment.

The legislation authorizes $55 million over 6 years for competitive grants to states to create an infrastructure to support and sustain statewide systems of care to serve children who are in custody or at risk of entering custody of the State for the purpose of receiving mental health services. States already dedicate significant dollars to serve children in state custody. These Family Support Grants would help States to serve children more effectively and efficiently, while keeping them at home with their families.

The legislation would also remove a current statutory barrier that prevents more States from using the Medicaid home and community-based services waiver to serve children with serious mental health needs. This waiver provides a promising way for States to address the underlying lack of mental health services for children that often leads to custody relinquishment. While a number of States have requested these waivers to serve children with developmental disabilities, very few have done so for children with serious mental health conditions. Our legislation would provide parity to children with mental illness by making it easier for States to offer them home- and community-based services under this waiver as an alternative to institutional care.

And finally, the legislation calls for the creation of a federal interagency task force to examine mental health issues in the child welfare and juvenile

justice systems and the role of those agencies in promoting access by children and youth to needed mental health services. The task force would also be charged with monitoring the Family Support grants, making recommendations to Congress on how to improve mental health services, and fostering interagency cooperation and removing interagency barriers that contribute to the problem of custody relinquishment.

The Keeping Families Together Act takes a critical step forward to meeting the needs of children with serious mental or emotional disorders. Our legislation has been endorsed by a broad coalition of mental health and children's groups, including the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the National Child Welfare League, the National Mental Health Association, the American Correctional Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and Fight Crime, Invest in Kids.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that their letters of endorsement for the bill be printed in the Congressional Record, and I urge all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I rise today to encourage increased production of influenza vaccines in the United States. I am happy to honor my commitment to reintroduce the Flu Protection Act of 2005, along with Senator Bayh.

We dodged a bullet this year because we had a relatively mild flu season. Also, because the administration and public health officials did an excellent job of immediately addressing the vaccine shortage when it was announced in October. While this season's vaccine shortage didn't have as strong an impact as it might have, we should not go a day without looking for a path toward solving this problem so that we don't have the same issues in years to come. We may not always be so fortunate. Scientists believe that the return of an especially strong pandemic strain of flu is overdue. This legislation supports the administration's efforts to take steps to prepare for the imminent threat of avian flu.

The Bush administration has made progress on this issue, but Congress needs to address the underlying problems. The United States is disturbingly underprepared to deal with a massive outbreak or a sudden shortage of vaccine. We don't want to get caught short next year. We must aggressively encourage vaccine companies to come into this market and pass building incentives for existing companies.

I am encouraged that some sections of this legislation have been included in the majority's priority legislative package and look forward to working with other Members of Congress to ensure that the most comprehensive piece of legislation possible can be approved. We must move quickly to pass legislation that ensures sufficient flu vaccine supply, encourages an increase in production capacity, supports a flu vaccine awareness campaign, and prepares the United States to combat a pandemic or epidemic.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be on the floor at this moment to join my colleague Chuck Hagel in the introduction of legislation that he has put together out of a variety of avenues of interest and importance to deal with the issue of climate change, a issue in which he and I have been engaged for a good long while. I am not quite sure how many years ago it was that I, as the freshman chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, turned to Chuck to see if he could bring Senators together in a bipartisan way on what we believed at the moment--and we still believe today--was a critically important issue to be addressed.

Out of that effort grew the Hagel-Byrd resolution which passed this body by an overwhelming vote, and was a very clear message to America-- and to the world--on what we believed was necessary and important if we were to responsibly and effectively engage in the debate of climate change outside and well beyond the Kyoto protocol.

The legislation Senator Hagel brings to the floor today, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor, is what I believe is a needed and necessary next step to work cooperatively with this administration and with countries around the world to begin to recognize all that is the makeup of this issue.

Our policy must recognize the legitimate needs of our bilateral trading partners to use their resources to meet the needs of their people. Yet, at the same time, the initial debate basically suggested that if in fact human involvement in the climate of the world was changing the climate of the world, the only way you could save the climate was to turn the lights out. It did not address the human need. It did not address the economic growth that was critically necessary at that time. That is why our country pushed back and said no, we would not ratify Kyoto; that we would go much further than that in bringing about the changes that were necessary and that this administration engaged in.

This legislation does a great deal more toward recognizing the need for bringing resources together.

Senator Hagel has made clear the other important things this legislation will do. Above all, this legislation is a true acknowledgment that climate variability and change is a top priority as an issue for the United States--and for all nations--to be involved in.

There can be an honest debate about whether the United States should do more or whether too much reliance is being placed on voluntary initiatives, but to claim that the United States is not acting seriously reflects, at best, a lack of knowledge or, at worst, political posturing.

An objective review of Government and private sector programs to reduce increases in greenhouse gas now and in the future would have to conclude that the United States is doing at least as much, if not more, than countries that are part of the Kyoto Protocol which will go into effect tomorrow. The best evidence of this is our domestic rate of improvement in greenhouse gas intensity relative to the improvements other countries are making.

The term I just used, ``greenhouse gas intensity,'' is defined in legislation as the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output. This is a far wiser measure of progress because it complements, rather than conflicts with, a nation's goal of growing its economy and meeting the needs and aspirations of its people.

Too much attention is being paid to the mandatory nature of Kyoto. Too little results are being achieved. It is very interesting to note that most of the countries that ratified Kyoto will not meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets by the deadlines required by Kyoto. Indeed, when I and Senator Craig Thomas and Congressman Joe Barton were in Buenos Aires at the COP-10 conference in December, many nations were quietly acknowledging that they could not get to where they promised they would get, and, in fact, some have even suggested that by 2012 they would find it incumbent upon themselves and their nations to back out of Kyoto. However, all still recognize the importance of this issue, understanding it, and clearly defining it.

What Senator Hagel's legislation does is shape for us a variety of things that are already underway, while still allowing us clearly to define them and to say, both here at home with our domestic policy as well as internationally, that we mean what we say and we mean what we do.

The United States is currently spending in excess of $5 billion annually in scientific and technological initiatives. When we were in Buenos Aires, I was very proud to stand before my colleagues from around the world and before nongovernmental organizational groups and state that the United States is spending more on this issue, in both advances in science and technological change, than the rest of the world combined times two. Then I reminded them that all that we do, they could have also: that our technology would be in the world, that our science would be available to them, and that to work our way out of or to change the character of our economies without damaging those economies would in large part be the responsibility of new technologies.

This legislation does not pick one technology over another or one energy source over another. That has always been the debate. Somehow we had to go around and selectively turn out the lights if we were going to change the climate around us. We knew that was not acceptable to the developing world and in large part that is why the developing world would not come along. How can you deny a country the right to use its resources for the economic, humanitarian, and health benefits of its people? You cannot do that. Nor should we be engaged in trying to do that.

What we can do as a developed and advanced Nation is offer up exactly what we are doing; offer up what the Hagel legislation brings together. That is all we are doing now, and advancing and incentivizing, through this legislation, countries to do more in the area of technology.

These programs are designed to advance our state of knowledge, accelerate the development and the deployment of energy technologies, aid developing countries in using energy more efficiently, and achieve an 18-percent reduction in energy intensity by 2012--a phenomenally responsive goal and something we clearly can take to the world community.

Our administration today in a series of bilateral agreements is working with other countries to help them get to where we want and where they want to get, and for the sake of the environment, where we all want us all to go.

I was extremely proud sitting in different forums in Buenos Aires to see the United States talk about the leadership role it has taken and the bilateral partnerships it has agreed to, and all the things that we can help with in the world of change today. It is clearly to our advantage and to the advantage of the world at large.

What Senator Hagel has effectively done today is to get our arms around this issue to try to more directly define it, and to show that we are sensitive to it; that we are responding to the issue as clearly as our administration has and continues to do.

Domestically, the United States has and continues to make world leading investments in climate change science technology. The United States has also implemented a wide range of national greenhouse control initiatives, cash sequestration programs, and international collaborative programs. All of those are bound up within the bilaterals I have talked about that we are engaged in.

The legislation we have introduced today furthers all of these goals.

President Bush has consistently acknowledged how human activity can affect our climate, and that the climate variability does not recognize national borders. The key issue is not whether there is any human- influenced effect. Instead, the issues are how large any human influence may be as compared to natural variability; how costly and how effective human intervention may be in reversing climate variability; and how and what technology may be required over the near and the long term as determined by developments in climate science.

As I said, there can be a legitimate debate about whether more can be done while meeting our Nation's economic objectives. I, for one, support doing more in the areas of technological development to help lift developing countries from the depths of their plights and to advance their cause as we advance ours. That is why I am proud to be working with my colleagues in the Senate. I thank Senator Hagel, Senator Alexander, Senator Dole, and others for the hard work they have put in and the cooperative effort reflected in the bill introduced this afternoon.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, how much time is left on this side?

Mr. President, I, first, want to express my appreciation to someone I believe a star of the Senate and that is Carl Levin. Carl Levin is such a good example to every Senator. When you work on something with Carl Levin, you can rest assured that he has read every word of it. He is someone who I am sure, before he came to the Senate, was an outstanding lawyer. I am so impressed with his ability to do legal analysis, and I am so impressed with his understanding of government generally.

What we have here is something that is very typical for Senator Levin. The nomination of Michael Chertoff to be Secretary of Homeland Security is very important. This new Cabinet level office that has been created is so important. I think it has become one of the most important posts that the President has. We know how important the Secretary of Defense is, we know how important the Secretary of State is, but this is so important.

Judge Chertoff will be called upon to manage some 180,000 employees, 22 different agencies, all important to protect this Nation in one way or the other. He will be called upon to bolster the efforts of our State and local law enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency response personnel, and in the process of managing these 180,000 employees, he doesn't have enough people. Many of these 22 different agencies he is responsible to manage are understaffed. So he will have a tremendous burden.

The people who work in these agencies are public servants first in any designation you want to make. They are the frontline protection for communities across the Nation.

Over the course of the last year, I have held in Nevada what I call Frontline Focus roundtables. I am meeting with firefighters, sheriffs, and emergency response personnel. It has been tremendously enlightening to me to talk to them about the problems that we have, from the communication and resource challenges facing urban centers such as Las Vegas and Reno, but also rural communities all over the State of Nevada. They have special needs, special demands.

Of course, I mentioned already Las Vegas with its booming tourist industry. About 20 people an hour are moving into Las Vegas. It is growing and the growth has not stopped. So Nevada's homeland security needs run the gamut. Our State and local officials will need the support and help of Judge Chertoff and the Department of Homeland Security in the work they do. His job is a tough and challenging job, and that is an understatement.

I have confidence in Judge Chertoff. I am confident he will meet these challenges. It was less than 2 years ago that we approved him by an overwhelming vote of 88 to 1 to a lifetime appointment on the Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit. But he was willing to give up this lifetime appointment for a job that will last probably 4 years.

Since his confirmation, the administration has been mired in controversy over its handling of prisoners and detainees. The administration policies have come under great scrutiny and we need to learn, during the course of this confirmation hearing, and we tried to do that, what role he may have played in crafting these policies.

Judge Chertoff has testified before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that he was not directly involved in the administration's decision to gut the Geneva Conventions and set out on a new and dangerous path with regard to interrogations. We have to take Judge Chertoff at his word, because the document proof has either been denied to Senators or otherwise has been so heavily redacted that it raises questions about the role of the Criminal Division overseen by Judge Chertoff.

The debate over his nomination, as my colleague, Senator Levin, has brought to the attention of the American people, as he discussed this yesterday on the floor, is a debate over the right of the Senate and the American people to have information about the way our Government does business.

The information sought in the context of his nomination by Senator Levin would help us understand how the administration arrived at those policy decisions and would help prevent similar mistakes in the future.

No one would disagree--I shouldn't say that. Very few people would disagree that the policies undertaken in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, and Iraq dealing with interrogation which led to these brutal acts, the acts of torture, were wrong. These policies were used to justify forced nakedness. Keep in mind we live in a different environment than the people of Iraq. The shaving of the beards was demeaning to these men, but it was done many times. They were placed in stressed positions. They were intimidated with dogs, and on and on. We learned of these torture policies and their impact not from this administration, as is our right, but through leaks and lawsuits. Leaks and lawsuits, unfortunately, is the way we have to learn much of what is going on today.

The shocking abuses--and there is no other way you can describe it-- at Abu Ghraib were revealed when the photographs were released to the news media. I can remember going upstairs to S. 407 with other Senators and looking at the brutality and the pornographic nature of those pictures. Even for someone who has seen other acts of torture and terror in the work that we do, it was overwhelming. I had no idea that is what I would see that day. I waited not too long before I left. I saw enough in about 15 minutes, but I saw a lot.

Major General Taguba's report investigating the abuse at Abu Ghraib was discovered after it, too, was leaked to the press. Judge Gonzales's January 25th, 2002, memo advising the President that the Geneva Conventions were ``quaint and obsolete'' was not known until it was leaked to the press 2 years later. The Senate only learned of the August 1, 2002, Bybee torture memo when it was leaked to the press in June of that year.

I ask my colleagues, if this information had not come to light, would the administration disavow these practices? I regret that in the context of this nomination the administration will again deny the Senate and the American people a full understanding of how we embarked on a policy which has imperiled our soldiers and our Nation.

In Judge Chertoff's case, we know during his tenure that torture policies authorized by Justice and given effect by the Department of Defense were hotly debated by DOD, Justice Department, and FBI officials. We know this only because a private group filed a freedom of information request for such information. The request produced a series of redacted FBI emails

that gave voice to the dissenters this administration has tried to muzzle. The redactions prevent us from fully understanding that debate and how Criminal Division lawyers under Judge Chertoff's supervision dealt with the FBI concerns that the torture policies were not only immoral but ineffectual. It prevents us from truly understanding Judge Chertoff's role and whether attorneys under his supervision raised the issue with him directly. He said he does not remember. I accept the judge's statement in that regard. But that does not take away from the necessity of being able to have this information.

In response to Senator Levin's request for an unredacted version of the FBI emails, the administration issued its broadest assault against the Senate's duty to evaluate a nominee to get oversight of this administration. The administration claimed it would not turn over the unredacted emails because to do so would violate the Privacy Act, even though, through Senate security, any classified information would be protected. The Privacy Act is designed to prevent the Government from disclosing personal information about private individuals who have not consented to disclosure. It is not a tool to conceal identities of public officials engaged in this Nation's business.

As my colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, has so forcefully stated, the administration's penchant for secrecy threatens each and every Senator's ability to do the people's business and undermines our role in providing advice and consent to the President's nominees and undermines our role in conducting oversight into this administration. In the end, what is most troubling is that the administration's culture of secrecy may breed further abuses, abuses we know of today, not because of but in spite of the administration's effort.

We must overcome these roadblocks put up by the administration because the job of protecting the homeland is too important. Judge Chertoff will have enormous challenges if he assumes his new position, which I am confident he will. Border security, immigration, port security, airport screening, protecting America's critical infrastructure, and so much more will now fall under his purview. He has pledged to work with the Congress in crafting the Department's policies. As much as possible, this must be a nonpartisan exercise. Working together, we can and we must put our country in the strongest possible position to defend itself for the many threats we face.

In short, what I am criticizing and complaining about, we have some emails from the FBI to the Justice Department, saying, in effect, how we conduct our interrogations is appropriate. What the Department of Defense is doing with their brutality and their torture is wrong. I am convinced that is true; the FBI was right. I hope somehow we will be able to get the names of these individuals and pursue it more carefully and also find out what the real words were; I am confident it was torture. One thing we know clearly from these memos is that the FBI says using our methods, the normal methods of interrogation, we are getting more information from the enemy than you are while using your acts of violence.

I close by saying, again, I want this record spread with the fact that Senator Levin has done a good thing for this country. He has done good work again in allowing us to look at an issue that should be a simple issue that has been made complicated by this administration by virtue of their hiding what it should not.

Mr. President, on Wednesday, the U.N. Global Climate Treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol will enter into force, requiring more than 30 industrialized nations to significantly cut manmade greenhouse gas emissions by 2012.

I rise today to introduce three pieces of legislation which I believe can help contribute to a new domestic and international consensus on climate change. This legislation builds upon three principles: the need for shared responsibilities between developed and developing countries; the linkages between environmental, economic, and energy policies; and the employment of greenhouse gas intensity as the best measurement upon which to build an effective climate policy.

I thank Senators Alexander, Craig, and Dole for their support and for agreeing to cosponsor these bills, which are titled: The Climate Change Technology Deployment in Developing Countries Act; The Climate Change Technology Deployment Act; and, The Climate Change Technology Tax Incentives Act.

Global climate policy affects the world's economic, energy, and environmental policies. These circles of interest in policy are interconnected. Climate change does not recognize national borders. It is a shared responsibility for all nations. Dealing with global climate policy requires a level of diplomatic intensity and coordination worthy of the magnitude of the challenge.

We all agree on the need for a clean environment and stable climate. The debate is about solutions. The question we face is not whether we should take action, but what kind of action we should take.

Climate change initiatives should include commitments to research and development, technology, and a more efficient and productive use of energy and resources.

My climate change legislation authorizes new programs, policies, and incentives to address the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

It focuses on the role of technology, private and public partnerships, and developing countries.

Any climate policy initiative must include clear metrics that recognize the links between energy, the economy, and the environment. Too often these policies are considered in vacuums. It is a global issue.

Bringing in the private sector and creating incentives for technological innovation will be critical to real progress on global climate policy. I believe that greenhouse gas intensity, or the amount of carbon emitted relative to economic output, is the best measurement for dealing with climate change.

Greenhouse gas emission intensity is the measurement of how efficiently a nation uses carbon emitting fuels and technology in producing goods and services. It captures the links between energy efficiency, economic development, and the environment.

The first bill, the Climate Change Technology Deployment in Developing Countries Act, provides the Secretary of State with new authority for coordinating assistance to developing countries for projects and technologies that reduce greenhouse gas intensity.

It supports the development of a U.S. global climate strategy to expand the role of the private sector, develop public-private partnerships, and encourage the deployment of greenhouse gas reducing technologies in developing countries. This bill directs the Secretary of State to engage global climate change as a foreign policy issue.

It directs the U.S. Trade Representative to negotiate the removal of trade-related barriers to the export of greenhouse gas intensity reducing technologies, and establishes an inter-agency working group to promote the export of greenhouse gas intensity reducing technologies and practices from the United States.

The legislation authorizes fellowship and exchange programs for foreign officials to visit the United States and acquire the expertise and knowledge to reduce greenhouse gas intensity in their countries. Current international approaches to global climate change overlook the role of developing countries as part of either the problem or the solution.

In July 1997, months before the Protocol was signed, the Senate unanimously passed. S. Res. 98, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which called on the President not to sign any treaty or agreement in Kyoto unless two conditions were met.

First, the United States should not be party to any legally binding obligations on greenhouse gas emission reductions unless developing country, parties are required to meet the same standards. Second, the President should not sign any treaty that ``would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.''

Kyoto does not meet either of these conditions. As it stands, developing countries are exempt from the Kyoto obligations, leaving more than 30 developed countries to address greenhouse gas emissions. Developing nations are becoming the major emitters of greenhouse gases, but they are exempted from the Kyoto Protocol.

A recent Congressional Budget Office--CB0--report explains that developing countries are projected within the next 20 years to account for two-thirds of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions as their populations and economies expand. There are reasons for this.

Developing nations cannot achieve. greenhouse gas reductions until they achieve higher standards of living. They lack clean energy technology and they cannot absorb the economic impact of the changes necessary for emissions reductions. New policies will require recognition of the limitations of developing nations to meet these standards, and the necessity of including them in any successful future initiative.

Because Kyoto does not include developing countries, its approach is unrealistic. Any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the United States and other developed countries will soon be eclipsed by emissions from developing nations, such as China, which will soon be the world's largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases.

It is in the shared interests of the United States and industrialized nations to help developing countries by sharing cleaner technology. Developing countries can then ``leapfrog'' over the highly polluting stages of development that countries like the U.S. have already been through.

My legislation includes tax incentives for American businesses to work with foreign countries to help develop clean energy projects and fuel-efficient technologies.

Our second bill, the Climate Change Technology Deployment Act, supports establishing domestic public-private partnerships for demonstration projects that employ greenhouse gas intensity reduction technologies. Our plan provides credit-based financial assistance and investment protection for American businesses and projects that deploy advanced climate technologies or systems. Federal financial assistance includes direct loans, loan guarantees, standby interest coverage, and power production incentive payments.

We are most successful in confronting the most difficult issues when we draw on the strength of the private sector. Public-private partnerships meld together the institutional leverage of the government with the innovation of industry.

This bill directs the Secretary of Energy to lead an inter-agency process to develop and implement a national climate strategy provided by the Office of Science and Technology Policy. It establishes a Climate Coordinating Committee and Climate Credit Board to assess, approve, and fund these projects.

Our third bill, the Climate Change Technology Tax Incentives Act, amends the tax code to provide incentives for investment in climate change technology. It also expresses our support for making permanent the current research and development tax credit, which otherwise expires on December 31, 2005. An article in the Wall Street Journal on February 4, 2005, reported on the potential for ``geologic storage'' of carbon dioxide as a means to dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Geologic storage involves pumping carbon dioxide into the ground, rather than dumping it into the atmosphere. BP has been using geologic storage in Algeria's Sahara Desert and Statoil has been working on this in Norway's North Sea. Chevron Texaco is planning a project off the coast of Australia.

The article reports that:

the concept is drawing growing interest because it could

curb global warming more quickly than switching to

alternative energy sources or cutting energy use.

There is still much work to be done. But this kind of technology that was described in the Wall Street Journal article is the kind of technology that must be employed around the world to achieve results in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. My legislation would support more of this type of activity.

The American people and all global citizens need to better understand global climate change, its connections to our economic and energy policies, and what the realistic options are for addressing this challenge. Any recommendations regarding climate policy must meet the demands of economic growth and development, especially in the developing world. This will require a market-driven, technology-based approach that complements the world's environmental interests, and connects the public and private sectors.

Achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is one of the important challenges of our time. America has an opportunity and a responsibility for global climate policy leadership. But it is a responsibility to be shared by all nations. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress, the Bush administration, the private sector, public interest groups, and America's allies on achievable climate change policy.

By harnessing our many strengths, we can help shape a worthy future for all people, and build a better world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee for that courtesy. This is a task we are pleased to take on. For me, it is a moment of special significance. We are proud of the fact that Judge Michael Chertoff, the nominee to be Secretary of Homeland Security, is from New Jersey. I hope we are going to see a strong vote for his confirmation.

I thank our chairman and leader in the Governmental Affairs Committee for her persistence in moving some very important matters through that committee. She worked very hard at it. First it was the intelligence reform bill. While I was annoyed that I had to work Saturdays and other days, the fact is, without the diligence shown by the Senator from Maine, we would not have gotten it through. We were on the edge of the precipice when finally it passed, and I was enthusiastic to try to be of help there. So it is with this issue as well.

This is an important day for America. We all are concerned about the issue that haunts us constantly. Memories of 9/11 will never leave the minds of those who were alive or who study American history in the future. It was a terrible day for America. We live every day with the remnants of that reminder.

This morning, in the Commerce Committee on which I sit, we had a discussion on aviation safety and baggage security requirements. I came down this morning from New Jersey and, because of some security involvements, was unable to catch two airplanes. But it had to be done. It was not that I was particularly suspicious looking, but there was a line to get through, and that is what happens. So we are always reminded. Go into a building, popular places, and you cannot go into those places, wherever they are, whether they are concerts or whether they are educational forums, if it has any volume of attendance, you will invariably see the security process at play. We are worried about our families and our society, how we function.

Judge Chertoff has been selected to be the next Secretary for Homeland Security. It is fair to say that Secretary Ridge did a good job in trying to amalgamate all these parts into an organization with 180,000 people. It is an enormous task. Fortunately, the foresight to name someone such as Michael Chertoff to this post did present an unusual and appropriate candidate. He received undergraduate law degrees with honor from Harvard University. After law school, he clerked on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Following that clerkship, he went on to serve as a clerk for a great New Jerseyan, Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan.

In 1990, Michael Chertoff, in his meteoric rise to the top because of his ability, became the U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey. During that tenure, less than 4 years, he was so aggressive in tackling organized crime, public corruption, health care, and bank fraud, with great success in making the perpetrators of these crimes pay the price and get out of the community orbit so we could approach things correctly and honestly.

Michael Chertoff also played a critical role in helping the New Jersey State legislature investigate racial profiling in our State. It was a blight on our community. Driving while Black should not be a crime, and we identified that very clearly. As a matter of fact, oddly enough, the present attorney general of the State of New Jersey, a fellow named Peter Harvey, distinguished attorney and outstanding member of the Governor's cabinet, was stopped on one of our highways. He had pulled into a restaurant parking lot, and a policeman came over and asked to check his license and to inspect his car for no reason other than the fact that he was Black. There was no other reason. He had no suspicion surrounding his presence. Yet our attorney general, then a lawyer, was stopped because of color. That should not be a crime. Thanks in part to Judge Chertoff's efforts, the State legislature passed a bill to ban racial profiling. That prompted me to introduce the first bill in the U.S. Senate to address this issue. The results have been excellent.

Judge Chertoff now serves on the prestigious U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. A good measure of his commitment to public service, one he has been questioned about publicly in place after place, including our committee, is the question as to why he would give up a lifetime tenure on the second highest court in the land to accept a call to duty. We hope this tenure will be better, but it will have to be earned every day of his career.

The mission of the Department of Homeland Security is critical to our country and to my State of New Jersey. On September 11, 2001, 700 of the almost 3,000 people who perished that day came from the State of New Jersey. There is hardly anyone in our State who didn't know someone or some family member of someone who died that day in the World Trade Center.

I was a commissioner of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey when I was elected to the Senate, and those Trade Center buildings were kind of a business home for me.

From the location where I live now, I could see the silhouette and the trade centers always as a landmark. It was a pleasure to get up in the morning and see the sun coming over the tops of those buildings. Yes, when we saw what happened that day, smoke rising from the World Trade Center buildings, as each one collapsed in a crush of flames and debris, that can never be forgotten. The New York/New Jersey region bore the brunt of those attacks on that terrible day.

It continues to be identified, by the way, by the FBI as the most at- risk area for terrorist attack. The 2 miles that go from Newark Liberty Airport to the New York/New Jersey harbor are said by the FBI to be the most inviting targets for terrorists. Judge Chertoff understands this. When Senator Corzine and I talked with Michael Chertoff, we didn't have to remind him about what that area looks like, what that stretch of land is like that could be so inviting to terrorists. I am confident Judge Chertoff will work to target homeland security grants to areas where the actual risk and threat of terrorism are the greatest.

This is not just about New York and New Jersey. There are many high- risk States--some are colored red in the political description that we use today, and some are blue. Examples: Texas, Florida, California, Georgia, Illinois, Virginia--the list goes on of States where there are inviting targets for terrorists. These high-risk States are not getting enough funding because, under current law, 40 percent of all homeland security grants--over $1 billion each year--is given to each and every State regardless of risk and threat. That doesn't make sense.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 5 more minutes.

We are glad to take that responsibility. I may ask for a minute or two more.

Mr. President, the 9/11 Commission report stated:

Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an

assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. Federal homeland

security assistance should not remain a program for general

revenue sharing.

The 9/11 Commission correctly understood that homeland security is too important to be caught up in pork-barrel politics. That is why Senator Corzine and I introduced a bill last week, S. 308, requiring that all homeland security grants for terrorism prevention and preparedness be based on relative risks, threats, and vulnerabilities. I hope my colleagues will see that that is in the national interest and support that legislation. I know Judge Chertoff understands that problem. He is a highly intelligent, competent, and dedicated public servant who has compiled a number of impressive accomplishments in all three branches of the Federal Government. I ask my colleagues to vote to confirm him.

I would like to add a word. Right now, we are talking about whether the minority is obstructing progress on different issues--Social Security and other legislation that is before us that needs attention. Here is an example of where we can arrive at a consensus view with dispatch--get it done. We know Judge Chertoff is an excellent candidate, but that is not to say there may not be a vote against him. There were votes against the confirmation of Secretary Condoleezza Rice. There was a difference of view. It was the same thing with Mr. Gonzales. But it reflects the fact that the minority is represented. There were many people from the Democratic side who voted for Secretary Rice and for Attorney General Gonzales. But why is there a move underway--I use this opportunity to say this--to undercut the voice of the minority? It was said by our leader here that 48 million people voted Democrat in the last Presidential election. Do we want to say that those voices should not be heard? Never.

Mr. President, I know you and our chairperson, Senator Collins, were elected with good support from your constituents. Does that free you from representing the part of the constituency that didn't vote for you? Not at all. We have to recognize that schemes that would deprive the minority from registering their point of view are against the Constitution. It is against the fabric of our democratic society to say if you didn't vote for us, we are going to nail you; you are not going to have your view; you are obstructionists. That is not right. Here we have a chance once again to express some bipartisanship by voting for an outstanding candidate to be the next Secretary of Homeland Security.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the confirmation of Michael Chertoff to be Secretary of Homeland Security. He is an extraordinary professional and a remarkably talented lawyer. He is highly intelligent, honorable, and impartial. He is also a straight shooter, which is exactly what we need right now in this position. He is also a personal friend.

Mr. Chertoff has impeccable credentials--not the least of which is being a native New Jerseyan. He attended Harvard College and Harvard Law School,

where he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. He then served as a Supreme Court law clerk. In private practice and public service, he developed a reputation as a brilliant, tough, fair, and truly world class litigator, and earned the respect of his peers and adversaries. Indeed, one New Jersey paper has even suggested he might be New Jersey's ``Lawyer Laureate.''

In recent years, Judge Chertoff has served as Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division and circuit judge for the Third Circuit. In each of these capacities and throughout his career, he has served our Nation exceptionally well. So when Judge Chertoff told me recently that this position, as Secretary of Homeland Security, is the most important task he has ever undertaken in his public career, I took notice. Given his commitment to public service and the distinguished results of his remarkable career, this statement speaks for itself.

I wish to emphasize one particular aspect of Judge Chertoff's career: his role in helping the New Jersey State legislature investigate racial profiling. As special counsel to the State senate Judiciary Committee, he led the committee probe into how top State officials handled racial profiling by the State Police. His work was bipartisan, objective, balanced, and thoroughly professional, and helped expose the fact that for too long, State authorities were aware that statistics showed minority motorists were being treated unequally by some law enforcement officials, and yet ignored the problem. This landmark racial profiling investigation demonstrated Judge Chertoff's ability to balance the State's responsibility to provide for the public safety with protecting our citizens' civil liberties.

Judge Chertoff is uniquely positioned to undertake the enormous challenges that come with the position of Secretary of Homeland Security. Particularly important to the citizens of New Jersey is his understanding of the critical importance of allocating our homeland security resources to those areas of the country where the risks and vulnerabilities are greatest.

New Jersey is on the front lines of terrorism. We lost 700 people on September 11, 2001. Two of the 9/11 terrorists were based in New Jersey, and the anthrax that hit this institution originated in New Jersey. The Post Office in Hamilton, NJ, where the anthrax was sent, has taken years to clean up and will finally reopen next week. The costs are expected to be $72 million for decontamination and $27 million for the refurbishment of the facility.

Newark Liberty Airport, and Port Newark, and the Ports of Philadelphia and Camden are critical vulnerabilities. New Jersey is home to rail lines, bridges, and tunnels to New York City, as well as chemical plants and nuclear facilities. Atlantic City has the second highest concentration of casinos in the country, and between tourists and those who work there, is visited by as many as 300,000 people.

Wall Street and other financial services firms house important front and back office operations, including clearance and settlement services, and other operations essential to the functioning of America's capital markets in Newark, Jersey City, and Hoboken. And, last summer, Newark was one of three locations including New York City and Washington, DC--that was put on Orange Alert for a possible terrorist attack as intelligence suggested that the Prudential building in downtown Newark could be a target.

Yet despite these growing threats to New Jersey from anthrax to the Orange Alert, and the ever-expanding costs associated with protecting the most densely populated State in the country--remarkably homeland security grants to New Jersey were cut in 2005.

Funding was reduced from $93 million in 2004 to $61 million in 2005. Newark will see a 17-percent reduction in funds, from $14.9 million to $12.4 million. And, incredibly, Jersey City's homeland security funds will drop by 60 percent, from $17 million in 2004 to $6.7 million in 2005.

These cuts leave New Jersey home of countless companies and people who keep our economic engine moving; home of one of the most active and exposed ports in the country; home of one of the busiest airports in America; home of our Nation's new Homeland Security Secretary--36th in the Nation in per capita homeland security funding.

I was pleased that the President's budget called for an allocation of homeland security funding based on risk and vulnerability. This commonsense approach mirrors the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Senator Frank Lautenberg and I have introduced legislation that would require that homeland security funding be allocated along these lines. This bill grants the Department of Homeland Security the authority it needs to keep us safe and will allow Michael Chertoff to be an outstanding Secretary of Homeland Security.

Judge Chertoff also understands the critical importance of protecting our chemical facilities. Only a week ago, the former Deputy Homeland Security Advisor to the President testified to this committee that industrial chemicals are ``acutely vulnerable and almost uniquely dangerous,'' presenting a ``mass-casualty terrorist potential rivaled only by improvised nuclear devices, certain acts of bioterrorism, and the collapse of large, occupied buildings.'' He added that chemical plant security ``should be the highest critical infrastructure protection priority for the Department of Homeland Security in the next two years.''

There are other critical issues that the nominee will face and that I am confident he is prepared to take on. Our rail lines are woefully unprotected and recent accidents have demonstrated the risk that rail transport of toxic chemicals could be attacked by terrorists. There is important work remaining at TSA, where airport screening is far from complete and where too little attention has been paid to ground transportation.

And the Department of Homeland Security has not yet adequately confronted the vulnerabilities of our ports. The checklist is long and the issues complex. And in my view, Judge Chertoff is the best person to address them.

One of the critical issues to be addressed by the new Secretary of Homeland Security will be civil liberties. I strongly believe that we as a nation can be both secure and free. Given Judge Chertoff's work on racial profiling in New Jersey, I am confident that he will pursue law enforcement strategies that are both effective and unbiased. His stated commitment to respecting recent Supreme Court decisions on detainees assures me that he will always pursue terrorists within the context of our laws and treaty obligations. And his public as well as private calls for a new approach to detainees is indicative of a thoughtful and open-minded professional.

While I fully understand the concerns raised by my colleague from Michigan, I am disappointed that it delayed this confirmation vote. The Congress has an obligation to oversee how this administration is treating detainees, in Guantanamo and around the world. Access to FBI memoranda on this topic are critical to this oversight. But this particular document has nothing to do with Judge Chertoff's qualifications for this critical position. Indeed, I have confidence that Judge Chertoff--who has called for more open discussion on the topic of detention--will work closely with Congress so that we can come to a full understanding of what has happened and where we go from here.

No one knows what the future may bring. The terrorist threat shifts, and we are constantly learning about new vulnerabilities. At this critical moment, I believe that Judge Chertoff has the kind of commitment, intellect, and imagination that we need as someone who is focused on keeping us safe, as someone who understands that homeland security means identifying the greatest risks and vulnerabilities and making them a priority, as someone who recognizes that, in protecting ourselves, we cannot sacrifice our basic principles and values. Mr. President, I am confident that Michael Chertoff is that person.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Judge Michael Chertoff to be the new Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security.

Make no mistake, I believe the challenges facing Judge Chertoff at the 2-year-old Department are monumental. They include negotiating turf battles with other powerful Cabinet Secretaries and ensuring that 22 formerly

disparate Federal agencies, with a combined workforce of 180,000 employees, work together under one central structure. In addition, Judge Chertoff will be responsible for protecting our Nation's critical infrastructure and for improving information sharing among law enforcement agencies--without intruding unnecessarily on individual privacy rights. It is a daunting assignment, but I believe Judge Chertoff is up to it.

When Senator Obama and I met with Judge Chertoff last week, we discussed several issues of concern to us, and Judge Chertoff assured us that he will address these issues. Among my key concerns are the new personnel rules for Department of Homeland Security employees. I believe the new rules are far too restrictive when it comes to collective bargaining, pay negotiations, and adjudicating grievances. The situation at DHS has become even more important since the Bush administration announced its intention to give agencies across the Federal Government the option of creating similar human resource policies. Judge Chertoff said he would sit down with the workers who will be affected by the rules to listen to their concerns and suggestions. It is important that he do so. As Judge Chertoff told Senator Obama and me:

It's important to have a happy and satisfied workforce.

This is not going to work if people in the department feel

like they're being wronged.

Another issue Judge Chertoff promised to look into is the effort to integrate the separate fingerprint data bases maintained by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI. Merging these two systems into a single, integrated system is not simply a good idea, it is a congressional mandate. Yet, a recent report by the Justice Department's Inspector General concluded that the efforts to achieve a fully integrated biometric fingerprint ID system have stalled. As one who has pushed for such a system, I am deeply troubled by that assessment. More than three 3 years after 9/11, it is unacceptable that this critical improvement to our homeland security still had not been accomplished. Judge Chertoff said the American people ``would go ballistic if we can't get things to mesh.'' He is right and the American people have every right to be angry. This must get done. I take Judge Chertoff at his word when he says he will make development of an integrated biometric fingerprint ID system a priority.

Judge Chertoff also promised to look into another possible threat to our homeland security, and that is the apparent ease with which an ordinary citizen can obtain an airline pilot's uniform. This threat was documented recently by a Chicago TV reporter. Astonishingly, the reporter found that he could purchase an authentic pilot's uniform online--with no identification--and the uniform would be delivered to his doorstep in 48 hours. How can this happen in a post-9/11 world? Senator Obama and I have asked the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and the Transportation Security Administration to answer that question. We will be looking for answers.

I look forward to working with Judge Chertoff on several issues of particular importance to Illinois. Among them is a Microbial Risk Assessment Center, which has been proposed by the University of Chicago and would serve as the national clearinghouse to assess risks from anthrax, smallpox, plague, and other possible bioterror threats.

In addition, the city of Chicago has developed a state-of-the-art command center where personnel from the city's police, fire, and rescue departments and representatives of the city's business community work together in one room to monitor the city and, if necessary, respond jointly to disasters. I believe this command center could serve as a national model, and I encourage Judge Chertoff to examine its structure and successes.

My decision to support Judge Chertoff is the result of serious deliberation. While I am impressed by his record and his openness, I also have some concerns about the role Judge Chertoff played in developing certain administration policies while he served as the head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division. In that capacity, Judge Chertoff helped to craft high-profile initiatives that explicitly targeted Arabs and Muslims and resulted in the detention of thousands of people. In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Justice Department rounded up at least 1,200 immigrants, the vast majority of whom were Arab or Muslim. The Justice Department's Inspector General found that none of these detainees--not one--was charged with a terrorist-related offense, and that the decision to detain them was ``extremely attenuated'' from the 9/11 investigation. The Inspector General also found that detainees were subjected to harsh conditions of confinement and that some were subjected to ``a pattern of physical and verbal abuse.''

Judge Chertoff also was tangentially involved in the Justice Department's efforts to legalize abusive interrogation tactics. He reviewed the infamous Justice Department ``torture memo'' and provided advice on complying with the antitorture statute, but he told me that he did not provide advice on the legality of any specific interrogation methods.

The Justice Department's ``torture memo'' narrowly and, I believe, incorrectly redefined torture as limited only to abuse that causes pain equivalent to organ failure or death, and concluded that the antitorture statute does not apply to interrogations conducted under the President's so-called Commander in Chief authority.

This tortured effort to justify torture helped to create a permissive environment that made it more likely that abuses of detainees would take place and made it possible for the horrors we have since learned about at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. What happened in these places, I believe, has damaged our image and called into question our moral authority in some places and it has increased-- not diminished--the dangers our troops and our citizens face in this age of terrorism.

Unlike many other administration officials, however, Judge Chertoff has acknowledged that the Government made mistakes in the aftermath of 9/11. He told me that he opposes ethnic and religious profiling and he is committed to treating all immigrants fairly and to complying with all laws regarding the humane treatment of detainees.

I take him at his word. I will expect Judge Chertoff, as Secretary of Homeland Security, to balance America's need for security and our respect for civil rights and our heritage as a nation of immigrants. There are practical reasons, in addition to the legal reasons, for seeking such balance. Detaining large numbers of Arab and Muslim immigrants involves a massive investment of law enforcement resources with little no return, and it creates fear and resentment of law enforcement in exactly the immigrant communities whose cooperation we need to defeat terrorism.

Finally, Judge Chertoff assured me that he will maintain open lines of communication with Congress so that Congress can fulfill its constitutional requirement to oversee whether, and how well, the Department is implementing the laws this body passes.

For all of these reasons and because of his record of public service and his candor during this confirmation process, I will support Judge Chertoff's nomination to be America's next Secretary of Homeland Security. I look forward to working with him to make America safer in ways that are consistent with our national values and heritage, and I wish Judge Chertoff the best of luck as he begins his important new assignment.

I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), is necessarily absent.