Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Federal Election Integrity Act on behalf of myself and Senators Kerry, Boxer and Clinton. This bill creates a direct prohibition on chief State election officials from taking part in political campaigns by amending the Federal Campaign Act of 1971.

Legislation is very much needed to eliminate an inherent conflict of interest that exists when a State's chief election administration official--the Secretary of State, the State Attorney General, or the Lieutenant Governor--is responsible for monitoring, supervising and certifying the results of a Federal election, while actively involved in the campaign of one of the candidates in that election.

I know that this is a practice engaged in by both Democratic and Republican State officials on behalf of Federal candidates, but those officials in charge of certifying Federal elections must not allowed to serve two masters--the voters and the Federal candidate. It is not right and it undermines the faith and confidence that Americans in this Nation's election system, and impugns the integrity of the State election official and the Federal candidate. The will of voters must come before the personal partisan politics.

In 2000 and again in 2004, we have witnessed two Secretaries of State capturing national press attention because of their involvement in elections where, literally, every single vote mattered.

In the 2004 presidential election, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell was co-chairman of President Bush's re-election campaign in Ohio. On December 6th, 2004, Secretary of State Blackwell certified President Bush as the winner in Ohio with an 118,775-vote lead--closer than unofficial election night results, but not close enough to trigger a mandatory recount. Recount advocates have cited numerous Election Day problems in Ohio, including long lines, a shortage of voting machines in predominantly minority neighborhoods, and suspicious vote totals for candidates in scattered precincts.

In the 2000 election, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris served as co-chair of President Bush's Florida campaign. President Bush's narrow victory in Florida gave him the State's 25 electoral votes necessary to win the presidency. A recount of thousands of Florida ballots and resulting court battles held up a resolution to the election for five weeks. There were reports of improprieties by Secretary of State Harris, including ballot tampering and the tampering of office computer files with Bush talking points and other supportive material.

Just recently, California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley--a Democrat--resigned due to allegations that he improperly used Federal election funds for partisan activities.

In all these cases, I am sure that the Secretaries of State were honorable public servants who made some very unpopular, difficult decisions under intense public scrutiny. But as far as the voters are considered, the Secretaries engaged in partisan political activity that tainted the results of the elections. This legislation fixes that.

Secretaries of State and other State election officials with supervisory authority over the administration of Federal elections should not be actively involved in the political campaign or management of a candidate running for Federal office in their State. The Secretary of State is the primary election administration official in 39 States; despite that, history has shown numerous Secretaries of State chairing the political campaigns of Federal candidates in their State.

There is a direct conflict of interest when an election official charged with supervising the administration of Federal elections and ensuring the fairness and accuracy of the results of Federal elections has a direct role in a Federal candidate's campaign.

Again, this is not an issue of Democrats versus Republicans. Rather, this is an issue of preserving the American people's faith and confidence in the election process. Simply put, election officials responsible for ensuring fair and accurate Federal elections should not be actively cheering for and aiding a candidate in those elections.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the ``Federal Election Integrity Act'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Federal Election Integrity Act on behalf of myself and Senators Kerry, Boxer and Clinton. This bill creates a direct prohibition on chief State election officials from taking part in political campaigns by amending the Federal Campaign Act of 1971.

Legislation is very much needed to eliminate an inherent conflict of interest that exists when a State's chief election administration official--the Secretary of State, the State Attorney General, or the Lieutenant Governor--is responsible for monitoring, supervising and certifying the results of a Federal election, while actively involved in the campaign of one of the candidates in that election.

I know that this is a practice engaged in by both Democratic and Republican State officials on behalf of Federal candidates, but those officials in charge of certifying Federal elections must not allowed to serve two masters--the voters and the Federal candidate. It is not right and it undermines the faith and confidence that Americans in this Nation's election system, and impugns the integrity of the State election official and the Federal candidate. The will of voters must come before the personal partisan politics.

In 2000 and again in 2004, we have witnessed two Secretaries of State capturing national press attention because of their involvement in elections where, literally, every single vote mattered.

In the 2004 presidential election, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell was co-chairman of President Bush's re-election campaign in Ohio. On December 6th, 2004, Secretary of State Blackwell certified President Bush as the winner in Ohio with an 118,775-vote lead--closer than unofficial election night results, but not close enough to trigger a mandatory recount. Recount advocates have cited numerous Election Day problems in Ohio, including long lines, a shortage of voting machines in predominantly minority neighborhoods, and suspicious vote totals for candidates in scattered precincts.

In the 2000 election, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris served as co-chair of President Bush's Florida campaign. President Bush's narrow victory in Florida gave him the State's 25 electoral votes necessary to win the presidency. A recount of thousands of Florida ballots and resulting court battles held up a resolution to the election for five weeks. There were reports of improprieties by Secretary of State Harris, including ballot tampering and the tampering of office computer files with Bush talking points and other supportive material.

Just recently, California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley--a Democrat--resigned due to allegations that he improperly used Federal election funds for partisan activities.

In all these cases, I am sure that the Secretaries of State were honorable public servants who made some very unpopular, difficult decisions under intense public scrutiny. But as far as the voters are considered, the Secretaries engaged in partisan political activity that tainted the results of the elections. This legislation fixes that.

Secretaries of State and other State election officials with supervisory authority over the administration of Federal elections should not be actively involved in the political campaign or management of a candidate running for Federal office in their State. The Secretary of State is the primary election administration official in 39 States; despite that, history has shown numerous Secretaries of State chairing the political campaigns of Federal candidates in their State.

There is a direct conflict of interest when an election official charged with supervising the administration of Federal elections and ensuring the fairness and accuracy of the results of Federal elections has a direct role in a Federal candidate's campaign.

Again, this is not an issue of Democrats versus Republicans. Rather, this is an issue of preserving the American people's faith and confidence in the election process. Simply put, election officials responsible for ensuring fair and accurate Federal elections should not be actively cheering for and aiding a candidate in those elections.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the ``Federal Election Integrity Act'' be printed in the Record.

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 to introduce the Responsible Education About Life or ``REAL'' Act along with my cosponsors Senators Kennedy, and Mrs. Murray.

The REAL Act aims to reduce adolescent pregnancy, HIV rates, and other sexually transmitted diseases, by providing federal funds for comprehensive sex education in schools. Comprehensive sex education is medically accurate, age appropriate, education that includes information about both contraception and abstinence. It is an approach that doesn't hide important information from our kids.

For years, taxpayer dollars have been flooded into unproven ``abstinence-only'' programs--while no federal program is dedicated to comprehensive sex education. Under the Bush Administration, federal support for ``abstinence-only'' education has expanded rapidly.

The proof is in the numbers. In fiscal year 2004 the federal government spent $138 million dollars on ``abstinence only'' programs. In fiscal year 2005 the federal government increased funding for these programs by $30 million dollars. This year President Bush is asking for $206 million dollars for ``abstinence only'' education--a 50 percent increase over the 2004 funding level. Would you like to know how much money has the government devoted to comprehensive sex education programs over this same time? Zero dollars.

Much of the taxpayer funds going to ``abstinence-only'' programs are essentially being wasted. Teens need information, not censorship. ``Abstinence-only'' education only tells young people half the story, and they need the full picture. These programs are not getting the job done.

After years of ``abstinence only'' programs, the United States still has the--highest rates of teen pregnancy in the industrialized world. The American public knows what works. Parents do not want sexual education programs limited to abstinence in schools. Even the Heritage Foundation had to admit this when their own poll showed that ``75 percent of parents want teens to be taught about both abstinence and contraception.'' Other polls show numbers as high as 93 percent in support of high school programs that include information about contraception.

The REAL Act also has the support of the National Education Association (NEA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Nurses Association (ANA), the Child Welfare League of America and more than 130 other medical and professional organizations. It is a fact that teenagers who receive sex education that includes discussion of contraception are more likely to delay sexual activity than those who receive abstinence-only education. Comprehensive sex education simply works better.

The stakes are high: of the 19 million cases of sexually transmitted diseases every year in the United States, almost half of them strike young people between the ages of 15 and 24. And each year in the United States, about 20,000 young people are newly infected with HIV.

These aren't just numbers. These are our sons and daughters whose health and well-being are jeopardized when ideology comes before sound public policy. That is why we are introducing this legislation today. It's time for a more balanced approach; it's time to protect out kids, and it's time to get REAL. Our bill authorizes $206 million per year in federal funds to states for comprehensive sexual education programs.

The REAL Act is step in a more effective direction. It brings sex education up-to-date in a way that will reflect the serious issues and real life situations millions of young people find themselves in every year. Young people have a right to accurate and complete information that could protect their health and even save their lives. I urge my colleagues to support the REAL Act and make it possible to give young people the tools to make safe and responsible decisions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Responsible Education About Life or ``REAL'' Act along with my cosponsors Senators Kennedy, and Mrs. Murray.

The REAL Act aims to reduce adolescent pregnancy, HIV rates, and other sexually transmitted diseases, by providing federal funds for comprehensive sex education in schools. Comprehensive sex education is medically accurate, age appropriate, education that includes information about both contraception and abstinence. It is an approach that doesn't hide important information from our kids.

For years, taxpayer dollars have been flooded into unproven ``abstinence-only'' programs--while no federal program is dedicated to comprehensive sex education. Under the Bush Administration, federal support for ``abstinence-only'' education has expanded rapidly.

The proof is in the numbers. In fiscal year 2004 the federal government spent $138 million dollars on ``abstinence only'' programs. In fiscal year 2005 the federal government increased funding for these programs by $30 million dollars. This year President Bush is asking for $206 million dollars for ``abstinence only'' education--a 50 percent increase over the 2004 funding level. Would you like to know how much money has the government devoted to comprehensive sex education programs over this same time? Zero dollars.

Much of the taxpayer funds going to ``abstinence-only'' programs are essentially being wasted. Teens need information, not censorship. ``Abstinence-only'' education only tells young people half the story, and they need the full picture. These programs are not getting the job done.

After years of ``abstinence only'' programs, the United States still has the--highest rates of teen pregnancy in the industrialized world. The American public knows what works. Parents do not want sexual education programs limited to abstinence in schools. Even the Heritage Foundation had to admit this when their own poll showed that ``75 percent of parents want teens to be taught about both abstinence and contraception.'' Other polls show numbers as high as 93 percent in support of high school programs that include information about contraception.

The REAL Act also has the support of the National Education Association (NEA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Nurses Association (ANA), the Child Welfare League of America and more than 130 other medical and professional organizations. It is a fact that teenagers who receive sex education that includes discussion of contraception are more likely to delay sexual activity than those who receive abstinence-only education. Comprehensive sex education simply works better.

The stakes are high: of the 19 million cases of sexually transmitted diseases every year in the United States, almost half of them strike young people between the ages of 15 and 24. And each year in the United States, about 20,000 young people are newly infected with HIV.

These aren't just numbers. These are our sons and daughters whose health and well-being are jeopardized when ideology comes before sound public policy. That is why we are introducing this legislation today. It's time for a more balanced approach; it's time to protect out kids, and it's time to get REAL. Our bill authorizes $206 million per year in federal funds to states for comprehensive sexual education programs.

The REAL Act is step in a more effective direction. It brings sex education up-to-date in a way that will reflect the serious issues and real life situations millions of young people find themselves in every year. Young people have a right to accurate and complete information that could protect their health and even save their lives. I urge my colleagues to support the REAL Act and make it possible to give young people the tools to make safe and responsible decisions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Lautenberg and Mr. Corzine pertaining to the introduction of S. 308 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a matter of great significance to our State and to many States across the country: protecting our homeland from another terrorist attack.

Everyone is aware of how difficult the fight is against terrorism, wherever it takes place in the world, and the number of casualties we have experienced in Iraq, that manifests itself in Afghanistan and different countries. But one place we ought to be looking at in terms of protecting ourselves from terror is in the United States. We should not be skimping on the costs or resources available for Homeland Security. My colleague Senator Corzine and I today are introducing a bill to ensure that Federal Homeland Security funds get sent where they are needed most.

On September 11, 2001, 700 of the people who lost their lives were from New Jersey. On that terrible day, people of north Jersey could see the smoke rising from the World Trade Center. From my own home, I look directly at the World Trade Center. In my pre-Senate day, I was commissioner of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and had offices in the Trade Center and know what the hustle and bustle of life was there. Thousands and thousands of people were working in those two buildings, destroyed by a terrorist that went beyond the wildest imagination.

The New York-New Jersey region bore the brunt of those attacks on September 11. It continues to be the most at-risk area. We are not the only ones at risk. States such as Virginia, with their military installation, their ports, are also to be included, and a place of some threat, New Mexico, with Los Alamos, and Florida with its ports, and Texas with their ports. All of these States have to be on the alert all the time and need funds with which to protect themselves. So I hope we can all agree that homeland security funding ought to be targeted to those parts of the country most at risk of another terrorist attack.

Now, the 9/11 Commission agrees with this approach. They said:

Homeland security assistance should be based strictly--

``Strictly''--

on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.

They further say:

[F]ederal homeland security assistance should not remain a

program for general revenue sharing.

I think we are all agreed they did a splendid job. This was a focal point for them. The 9/11 Commission reported homeland security money is too important to be caught up in porkbarrel politics. Unfortunately, our current homeland security funding is not based on risks and threats.

Under current law, 40 percent of all State homeland security grants, over $1 billion each year, are given out as revenue sharing. The system results in preposterous funding allocations.

For example, this year, New Jersey's homeland security grant was cut, reduced by 34 percent. I remind those who are listening, New Jersey lost 700 of its citizens. Our funding was cut despite the fact that we in New Jersey were under a code orange alert from August 1 to just after the election because of unspecified threats against the Prudential Building in Newark. The Prudential Building is a center of major financial activity and was highlighted as one of five locations that ought to be especially guarded. Yet the city of Newark saw its funding cut by 17 percent. Another high-risk urban area, Jersey City-- which is directly across from where the Trade Centers were in New York, and where so much of the rescue activity was directed, with police from that area, emergency response people--Jersey City saw its funding cut 60 percent. That does not make sense.

The FBI has identified a 2-mile strip between the Port of Newark and Newark-Liberty International Airport as the most at-risk area in the entire country for a terrorist attack--a 2-mile stretch, highly visible. If you fly into Newark-Liberty Airport, you see the bustling port that we have there and the activity that goes on. It is an area, certainly, that would represent, in the FBI's view, one of the most appealing targets for terror. Yet the area's homeland security funding was cut. It defies sense.

The system is broken. That is why my colleague, Senator Corzine, and I are introducing the Risk-Based Homeland Security Funding Act, to require that homeland security grants are allocated solely based on risk and threat to the area.

Our bill would take the 9/11 Commission's recommendations and turn them into law.

President Bush understands that risk and vulnerability must be the principal yardsticks for distributing homeland security funds. In the fiscal year 2006 budget just released, President Bush stated that homeland security funds need to be allocated on risks, threats, and vulnerabilities.

So I hope our colleagues will support the bill Senator Corzine and I are introducing today. Our bill will set the gold standard for determining whether homeland security grants are being properly allocated. I ask my colleagues to think of this as a national interest, to make sure that none of the areas of high vulnerability are open to attack any more than we can possibly do to prevent it because any attack in these areas will have a ripple effect throughout the country. Again, these places are an invitation to the terrorists. As much as we hate them, we know these people are not fools. We know they plan these things. We know they look for the most vulnerable targets. And we should not permit those targets to go without the protection they fully deserve.

So I hope our colleagues will support this bill. It would turn the 9/ 11 Commission's recommendations into law.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a matter of great significance to our State and to many States across the country: protecting our homeland from another terrorist attack.

Everyone is aware of how difficult the fight is against terrorism, wherever it takes place in the world, and the number of casualties we have experienced in Iraq, that manifests itself in Afghanistan and different countries. But one place we ought to be looking at in terms of protecting ourselves from terror is in the United States. We should not be skimping on the costs or resources available for Homeland Security. My colleague Senator Corzine and I today are introducing a bill to ensure that Federal Homeland Security funds get sent where they are needed most.

On September 11, 2001, 700 of the people who lost their lives were from New Jersey. On that terrible day, people of north Jersey could see the smoke rising from the World Trade Center. From my own home, I look directly at the World Trade Center. In my pre-Senate day, I was commissioner of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and had offices in the Trade Center and know what the hustle and bustle of life was there. Thousands and thousands of people were working in those two buildings, destroyed by a terrorist that went beyond the wildest imagination.

The New York-New Jersey region bore the brunt of those attacks on September 11. It continues to be the most at-risk area. We are not the only ones at risk. States such as Virginia, with their military installation, their ports, are also to be included, and a place of some threat, New Mexico, with Los Alamos, and Florida with its ports, and Texas with their ports. All of these States have to be on the alert all the time and need funds with which to protect themselves. So I hope we can all agree that homeland security funding ought to be targeted to those parts of the country most at risk of another terrorist attack.

Now, the 9/11 Commission agrees with this approach. They said:

Homeland security assistance should be based strictly--

``Strictly''--

on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.

They further say:

[F]ederal homeland security assistance should not remain a

program for general revenue sharing.

I think we are all agreed they did a splendid job. This was a focal point for them. The 9/11 Commission reported homeland security money is too important to be caught up in porkbarrel politics. Unfortunately, our current homeland security funding is not based on risks and threats.

Under current law, 40 percent of all State homeland security grants, over $1 billion each year, are given out as revenue sharing. The system results in preposterous funding allocations.

For example, this year, New Jersey's homeland security grant was cut, reduced by 34 percent. I remind those who are listening, New Jersey lost 700 of its citizens. Our funding was cut despite the fact that we in New Jersey were under a code orange alert from August 1 to just after the election because of unspecified threats against the Prudential Building in Newark. The Prudential Building is a center of major financial activity and was highlighted as one of five locations that ought to be especially guarded. Yet the city of Newark saw its funding cut by 17 percent. Another high-risk urban area, Jersey City-- which is directly across from where the Trade Centers were in New York, and where so much of the rescue activity was directed, with police from that area, emergency response people--Jersey City saw its funding cut 60 percent. That does not make sense.

The FBI has identified a 2-mile strip between the Port of Newark and Newark-Liberty International Airport as the most at-risk area in the entire country for a terrorist attack--a 2-mile stretch, highly visible. If you fly into Newark-Liberty Airport, you see the bustling port that we have there and the activity that goes on. It is an area, certainly, that would represent, in the FBI's view, one of the most appealing targets for terror. Yet the area's homeland security funding was cut. It defies sense.

The system is broken. That is why my colleague, Senator Corzine, and I are introducing the Risk-Based Homeland Security Funding Act, to require that homeland security grants are allocated solely based on risk and threat to the area.

Our bill would take the 9/11 Commission's recommendations and turn them into law.

President Bush understands that risk and vulnerability must be the principal yardsticks for distributing homeland security funds. In the fiscal year 2006 budget just released, President Bush stated that homeland security funds need to be allocated on risks, threats, and vulnerabilities.

So I hope our colleagues will support the bill Senator Corzine and I are introducing today. Our bill will set the gold standard for determining whether homeland security grants are being properly allocated. I ask my colleagues to think of this as a national interest, to make sure that none of the areas of high vulnerability are open to attack any more than we can possibly do to prevent it because any attack in these areas will have a ripple effect throughout the country. Again, these places are an invitation to the terrorists. As much as we hate them, we know these people are not fools. We know they plan these things. We know they look for the most vulnerable targets. And we should not permit those targets to go without the protection they fully deserve.

So I hope our colleagues will support this bill. It would turn the 9/ 11 Commission's recommendations into law.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Sportsmanship in Hunting Act of 2005. This bill would prohibit the barbaric and unsporting practice of ``canned hunts.'' I am pleased to be joined by my cosponsors, Senators Biden, Kennedy, Levin, Corzine, Feingold, Kohl, Durbin, Schumer, Mikulski, and Akaka.

Canned hunts, also called canned shoots, take place on private land under circumstances that virtually assure a customer of a kill. Although they are advertised under a variety of names, such as hunting preserves or game ranches, canned hunts have two things in common: they charge a fee for killing an animal; and they violate the generally accepted practices of the hunting community, which are based on the concept of ``fair chase.'' Some canned hunts specialize in native species, such as white-tailed deer or elk, while others deal in exotic--non-native--animals that are either bred on-site or bought from dealers or breeders. Exotic animals include surplus animals bought from wild animal parks, circuses, and petting zoos. Many canned hunts offer both native and exotic species to their customers. The Humane Society of the United States estimates that there are more than 1000 canned hunt operations in at least 25 States.

Canned hunts cater to persons who lack the time, and sometimes the skill, for normal sports hunting. They do not require skill in tracking or shooting. For a price, many canned hunts quarantee a shooter a kill of the animal of his or her choice. A wild boar ``kill'' may sell for up to $1,000, a water buffalo for $3,500, and a red deer for up to $6,000.

The ``hunt'' of these tame animals occurs within a fenced enclosure, leaving the animal virtually no chance for escape. Fed and cared for by humans, these animals have often lost their instinctive impulse to flee from shooters who ``stalk'' them. In addition to fencing, canned hunts use other practices to assure their customers a kill. For example, they may bait them, using feeding stations to attract animals and make them easy targets from nearby shooting blinds or stands. These practices are prohibited by many State game commissions.

Canned hunts violate the principles of the sport of hunting. The Boone and Crockett Club, a hunting organization founded by Teddy Roosevelt, defines ``fair chase'' as the ``ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.'' Surely exotic animals held in canned hunt facilities can in no way be considered ``free-ranging,'' and the hunters at such facilities clearly have an enormous ``improper advantage'' over animals. As a result, many real hunters are opposed to the practice of canned hunting, believing it to make a mockery of their sport.

Canned hunts are strongly condemned by animal protection groups. Often, in order to preserve the animal as a ``trophy,'' customers will fire multiple shots into nonvital organs, condemning the animal to a slow and painful death. Because the animal cannot escape, the shooter has the time to place his shots. The Fund for animals has launched a national campaign against what it calls a ``cruel, unsporting, and egregious type of hunting.'' The Humane Society says that ``There is no more repugnant hunting practice than shooting tame, exotic mammals in fenced enclosures for a fee in order to obtain a trophy.'' The group believes that Federal legislation is needed ``to halt the cruel and unsportsmanlike business of canned hunts.''

In addition to being unethical, canned hunts may pose a serious health and safety threat to domestic livestock and native wildlife. Accidental escapes of exotic animals from game ranches is not uncommon, posing a danger to nearby livestock and indigenous wildlife. A dire threat to native deer and elk populations in this country is chronic wasting disease, the deer equivalent of cow disease. In some states, experts believe that canned hunts, with their high concentrations of animals, are encouraging transmission of this disease.

In recognition of these threats, several States have banned canned hunting of mammals. Unfortunately, most States lack laws to outlaw this practice. Because interstate commerce in exotic animals is common, federal legislation is essential to control these cruel practices.

My bill is essentially the same as legislation that was introduced in the 108th Congress, S. 2731, and legislation reported by the Judiciary Committee in the 107th Congress and sponsored by Senator Biden, S. 1655. It is similar to legislation that I introduced in the 106th, S. 1345, 105th, S. 995, and 104th, S. 1493, Congresses. The legislation that I am introducing today will target only canned hunt facilities that allow the hunting of exotic (nonnative) mammals. It is important to note what the bill does and does not do: 1. The bill does not regulate the hunting of native mammals, such as white-tail deer; 2. The bill does not regulate the hunting of any birds; 3. The bill protects only exotic (non-native) mammals in areas where they do not have an opportunity to avoid hunters, smaller than 1000 acres; and 4. The bill regulates the conduct of persons who operate canned hunts or traffic in exotic mammals used in such hunts, not the hunters who patronize canned hunt facilities. In summary, my bill would merely ban the transport and trade of non-native, exotic mammals for the purpose of staged trophy hunts.

The idea of a defenseless animal meeting a violent end as the target of a canned hunt is, at the very least, distasteful to many Americans. In an era when we are seeking to curb violence in our culture, canned hunts are certainly one form of gratuitous brutality that does not belong in society. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, which will help end this needless practice.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Sportsmanship in Hunting Act of 2005. This bill would prohibit the barbaric and unsporting practice of ``canned hunts.'' I am pleased to be joined by my cosponsors, Senators Biden, Kennedy, Levin, Corzine, Feingold, Kohl, Durbin, Schumer, Mikulski, and Akaka.

Canned hunts, also called canned shoots, take place on private land under circumstances that virtually assure a customer of a kill. Although they are advertised under a variety of names, such as hunting preserves or game ranches, canned hunts have two things in common: they charge a fee for killing an animal; and they violate the generally accepted practices of the hunting community, which are based on the concept of ``fair chase.'' Some canned hunts specialize in native species, such as white-tailed deer or elk, while others deal in exotic--non-native--animals that are either bred on-site or bought from dealers or breeders. Exotic animals include surplus animals bought from wild animal parks, circuses, and petting zoos. Many canned hunts offer both native and exotic species to their customers. The Humane Society of the United States estimates that there are more than 1000 canned hunt operations in at least 25 States.

Canned hunts cater to persons who lack the time, and sometimes the skill, for normal sports hunting. They do not require skill in tracking or shooting. For a price, many canned hunts quarantee a shooter a kill of the animal of his or her choice. A wild boar ``kill'' may sell for up to $1,000, a water buffalo for $3,500, and a red deer for up to $6,000.

The ``hunt'' of these tame animals occurs within a fenced enclosure, leaving the animal virtually no chance for escape. Fed and cared for by humans, these animals have often lost their instinctive impulse to flee from shooters who ``stalk'' them. In addition to fencing, canned hunts use other practices to assure their customers a kill. For example, they may bait them, using feeding stations to attract animals and make them easy targets from nearby shooting blinds or stands. These practices are prohibited by many State game commissions.

Canned hunts violate the principles of the sport of hunting. The Boone and Crockett Club, a hunting organization founded by Teddy Roosevelt, defines ``fair chase'' as the ``ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.'' Surely exotic animals held in canned hunt facilities can in no way be considered ``free-ranging,'' and the hunters at such facilities clearly have an enormous ``improper advantage'' over animals. As a result, many real hunters are opposed to the practice of canned hunting, believing it to make a mockery of their sport.

Canned hunts are strongly condemned by animal protection groups. Often, in order to preserve the animal as a ``trophy,'' customers will fire multiple shots into nonvital organs, condemning the animal to a slow and painful death. Because the animal cannot escape, the shooter has the time to place his shots. The Fund for animals has launched a national campaign against what it calls a ``cruel, unsporting, and egregious type of hunting.'' The Humane Society says that ``There is no more repugnant hunting practice than shooting tame, exotic mammals in fenced enclosures for a fee in order to obtain a trophy.'' The group believes that Federal legislation is needed ``to halt the cruel and unsportsmanlike business of canned hunts.''

In addition to being unethical, canned hunts may pose a serious health and safety threat to domestic livestock and native wildlife. Accidental escapes of exotic animals from game ranches is not uncommon, posing a danger to nearby livestock and indigenous wildlife. A dire threat to native deer and elk populations in this country is chronic wasting disease, the deer equivalent of cow disease. In some states, experts believe that canned hunts, with their high concentrations of animals, are encouraging transmission of this disease.

In recognition of these threats, several States have banned canned hunting of mammals. Unfortunately, most States lack laws to outlaw this practice. Because interstate commerce in exotic animals is common, federal legislation is essential to control these cruel practices.

My bill is essentially the same as legislation that was introduced in the 108th Congress, S. 2731, and legislation reported by the Judiciary Committee in the 107th Congress and sponsored by Senator Biden, S. 1655. It is similar to legislation that I introduced in the 106th, S. 1345, 105th, S. 995, and 104th, S. 1493, Congresses. The legislation that I am introducing today will target only canned hunt facilities that allow the hunting of exotic (nonnative) mammals. It is important to note what the bill does and does not do: 1. The bill does not regulate the hunting of native mammals, such as white-tail deer; 2. The bill does not regulate the hunting of any birds; 3. The bill protects only exotic (non-native) mammals in areas where they do not have an opportunity to avoid hunters, smaller than 1000 acres; and 4. The bill regulates the conduct of persons who operate canned hunts or traffic in exotic mammals used in such hunts, not the hunters who patronize canned hunt facilities. In summary, my bill would merely ban the transport and trade of non-native, exotic mammals for the purpose of staged trophy hunts.

The idea of a defenseless animal meeting a violent end as the target of a canned hunt is, at the very least, distasteful to many Americans. In an era when we are seeking to curb violence in our culture, canned hunts are certainly one form of gratuitous brutality that does not belong in society. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, which will help end this needless practice.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to put an end to the spate of propaganda we are seeing across our government. In my view, it is a practice that is inconsistent with democracy, and we have to put a stop to it.

That is why Senator Kennedy and I have drafted the ``Stop Government Propaganda Act'' which we are introducing today, along with our cosponsors, Senators Durbin, Corzine, Clinton, Dorgan, Murray, Johnson, Jack Reed, Lieberman and Leahy.

Our bill will shut down the Administration's propaganda mill once and for all.

Propaganda had its place in Saddam's Iraq. Propaganda was a staple of the old Soviet Union. But covert government propaganda has no place in the United States Government.

In the last few weeks, we have seen revelations that a number of conservative columnists are actually on the Bush Administration's payroll to push the President's agenda.

Armstrong Williams was paid to improve the image of President Bush's education programs, and the columnists Maggie Gallagher and Mike McManus were paid to promote the President's ``marriage initiative.''

Some have called it the ``pundit payola'' scandal. But this scandal goes well beyond these particular payments to journalists.

In fact, these secret payments are only the latest in a series of covert propaganda activities conducted by this Administration.

Last year, we discovered that the Administration was paying a public relations firm to creat fake television news stories. These fake news stories touting the new Medicare law made their way onto local news shows on forty television stations across the country.

These fake news stories even featured a fake reporter--Karen Ryan ``reporting from Washington.'' While Karen Ryan does exist, she's not a reporter. She is a public relations consultant based here in Washington.

Worse, the viewers who watched these fake news stories thought they were hearing real news. But what they were watching was Government- produced propaganda.

The Government Accountability Office investigated the legality of these fake news stories and came back with a clear decision: it was illegal propaganda. The GAO also said that the Administration must officially report the misspent funds to Congress.

But the Bush Administration simply ignored GAO's legal ruling. The Administration said that because of the separation of powers, the GAO can't tell them what to do.

So, in other words, the Administration has said that they will ignore the current law on the books. That is why we are introducing new legislation today that will put real teeth in the anti-propaganda law.

Our bill, the Stop Government Propaganda Act, does two major things:

First, it makes the Anti-Propaganda law permanent.

Right now, the anti-propaganda law is passed year to year as a ``rider'' in our appropriations bills. Making the law permanent will show that we are serious about it and want it obeyed.

Also, our bill has real consequences for violations by the Administration. The current law is enforced by GAO, and the Administration is obviously ignoring their rulings. That has to change.

Our bill calls for the Justice Department to pursue these violations. But in cases where DOJ fails to act, our bill authorizes citizen lawsuits to enforce the law.

And we also give added power to the GAO. Right now, the Administration ignores the GAO's legal decisions. But our bill will make it downright painful for the Administration to ignore the GAO.

When the GAO finds that taxpayer funds are misspent for propaganda purposes, and the agency fails to follow the GAO's ordered actions, our bill would call for the head of that agency's salary to be withheld.

Our bill establishes a point of order against any appropriations bill that fails to enforce the salary reduction.

Last week, President Bush said he agrees that it is wrong to pay journalists and that the practice must stop. But at the same time, the Bush Administration continues to ignore GAO's rulings on their propaganda violations.

And while the attention was on Armstrong Williams, the Administration has been ramping up propaganda efforts at the Social Security Administration. In fact, last week, the Democratic Policy Committee heard testimony from two Social Security employees who revealed how they are being forced to push the White House agenda on the public.

Rather than concentrate on getting benefits out or servicing people on Social Security, the White House is using SSA employees to spread its false propaganda message of a ``crisis'' in Social Security.

That is why we must act now to put a stop to all of these practices. I urge my colleagues to support our bill, the Stop Government Propaganda Act.

As we seek to establish democracy in Iraq, let's first remove this taint from our own democracy.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to put an end to the spate of propaganda we are seeing across our government. In my view, it is a practice that is inconsistent with democracy, and we have to put a stop to it.

That is why Senator Kennedy and I have drafted the ``Stop Government Propaganda Act'' which we are introducing today, along with our cosponsors, Senators Durbin, Corzine, Clinton, Dorgan, Murray, Johnson, Jack Reed, Lieberman and Leahy.

Our bill will shut down the Administration's propaganda mill once and for all.

Propaganda had its place in Saddam's Iraq. Propaganda was a staple of the old Soviet Union. But covert government propaganda has no place in the United States Government.

In the last few weeks, we have seen revelations that a number of conservative columnists are actually on the Bush Administration's payroll to push the President's agenda.

Armstrong Williams was paid to improve the image of President Bush's education programs, and the columnists Maggie Gallagher and Mike McManus were paid to promote the President's ``marriage initiative.''

Some have called it the ``pundit payola'' scandal. But this scandal goes well beyond these particular payments to journalists.

In fact, these secret payments are only the latest in a series of covert propaganda activities conducted by this Administration.

Last year, we discovered that the Administration was paying a public relations firm to creat fake television news stories. These fake news stories touting the new Medicare law made their way onto local news shows on forty television stations across the country.

These fake news stories even featured a fake reporter--Karen Ryan ``reporting from Washington.'' While Karen Ryan does exist, she's not a reporter. She is a public relations consultant based here in Washington.

Worse, the viewers who watched these fake news stories thought they were hearing real news. But what they were watching was Government- produced propaganda.

The Government Accountability Office investigated the legality of these fake news stories and came back with a clear decision: it was illegal propaganda. The GAO also said that the Administration must officially report the misspent funds to Congress.

But the Bush Administration simply ignored GAO's legal ruling. The Administration said that because of the separation of powers, the GAO can't tell them what to do.

So, in other words, the Administration has said that they will ignore the current law on the books. That is why we are introducing new legislation today that will put real teeth in the anti-propaganda law.

Our bill, the Stop Government Propaganda Act, does two major things:

First, it makes the Anti-Propaganda law permanent.

Right now, the anti-propaganda law is passed year to year as a ``rider'' in our appropriations bills. Making the law permanent will show that we are serious about it and want it obeyed.

Also, our bill has real consequences for violations by the Administration. The current law is enforced by GAO, and the Administration is obviously ignoring their rulings. That has to change.

Our bill calls for the Justice Department to pursue these violations. But in cases where DOJ fails to act, our bill authorizes citizen lawsuits to enforce the law.

And we also give added power to the GAO. Right now, the Administration ignores the GAO's legal decisions. But our bill will make it downright painful for the Administration to ignore the GAO.

When the GAO finds that taxpayer funds are misspent for propaganda purposes, and the agency fails to follow the GAO's ordered actions, our bill would call for the head of that agency's salary to be withheld.

Our bill establishes a point of order against any appropriations bill that fails to enforce the salary reduction.

Last week, President Bush said he agrees that it is wrong to pay journalists and that the practice must stop. But at the same time, the Bush Administration continues to ignore GAO's rulings on their propaganda violations.

And while the attention was on Armstrong Williams, the Administration has been ramping up propaganda efforts at the Social Security Administration. In fact, last week, the Democratic Policy Committee heard testimony from two Social Security employees who revealed how they are being forced to push the White House agenda on the public.

Rather than concentrate on getting benefits out or servicing people on Social Security, the White House is using SSA employees to spread its false propaganda message of a ``crisis'' in Social Security.

That is why we must act now to put a stop to all of these practices. I urge my colleagues to support our bill, the Stop Government Propaganda Act.

As we seek to establish democracy in Iraq, let's first remove this taint from our own democracy.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to correct a serious problem in Federal law which prevents States like New Jersey from receiving vital Federal highway funds under certain conditions.

On September 22, 2004, former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey issued an Executive Order that prohibited the State from entering into certain contracts. Governor McGreevey took this step to ensure fairness and transparency in the contracting process, and under current Federal laws, our State is being punished for it.

Bush administration officials interpreted Federal law as prohibiting this type of action by New Jersey and consequently withheld authorization of Federal funding for highway projects in our State, putting some $250 million in highway projects at risk.

I worked with Department of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta in an attempt to resolve this problem quickly. Ultimately, Acting Governor Richard Codey reluctantly suspended the part of the Executive Order causing the problem. But since that's not really a permanent solution, I am introducing this legislation today.

New Jersey's transportation infrastructure is vital to millions of travelers and the entire East Coast economy. It is estimated that some 70 billion vehicle miles are traveled in New Jersey each year, but only 6 million drivers are licensed in our State. In addition, projected increases in port traffic will put 80 percent more trucks on the roads in the next 15 years, which will exacerbate congestion and continue to tax our infrastructure.

In short, I believe that New Jersey's good intentions should not cost our State the Federal highway funding we need so desperately.

I thank my colleague and friend Senator Corzine for co-sponsoring this legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in getting it enacted.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to correct a serious problem in Federal law which prevents States like New Jersey from receiving vital Federal highway funds under certain conditions.

On September 22, 2004, former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey issued an Executive Order that prohibited the State from entering into certain contracts. Governor McGreevey took this step to ensure fairness and transparency in the contracting process, and under current Federal laws, our State is being punished for it.

Bush administration officials interpreted Federal law as prohibiting this type of action by New Jersey and consequently withheld authorization of Federal funding for highway projects in our State, putting some $250 million in highway projects at risk.

I worked with Department of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta in an attempt to resolve this problem quickly. Ultimately, Acting Governor Richard Codey reluctantly suspended the part of the Executive Order causing the problem. But since that's not really a permanent solution, I am introducing this legislation today.

New Jersey's transportation infrastructure is vital to millions of travelers and the entire East Coast economy. It is estimated that some 70 billion vehicle miles are traveled in New Jersey each year, but only 6 million drivers are licensed in our State. In addition, projected increases in port traffic will put 80 percent more trucks on the roads in the next 15 years, which will exacerbate congestion and continue to tax our infrastructure.

In short, I believe that New Jersey's good intentions should not cost our State the Federal highway funding we need so desperately.

I thank my colleague and friend Senator Corzine for co-sponsoring this legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in getting it enacted.

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

Mr. President, today is a very sad day when we hear that we lost somewhere around 37 or 38 of our finest in the Marine Corps with the crash of a helicopter and additional deaths from the ground fight.

Like everyone here, this information is very painful to me. I have had the experience, as most of my colleagues have, to visit with families as their sons and daughters are buried as a result of their exposure in Afghanistan and Iraq in the military.

Most recently, about 2 weeks ago, I went to a funeral in New Jersey for a 19-year-old marine corporal. I sat with the family who was very proud of their son's contribution to his country. Twin brothers, young men were making comments at the funeral, participating in the eulogy, and the parents, grief stricken about the loss of this wonderful, apparently, young man. I did not know him, but the history of his short years was resplendent with good accomplishments in school.

I mention that because it sets the tone for my feelings about how we portray this war to the American public.

I am a veteran of a war a long time ago. As a matter of fact, I think I am one of three remaining here from World War II. The experiences are, though such a long time ago, still vivid in my mind. I remember the enthusiasm of my friends in high school--I was 18 when I enlisted in the Army--and those in the community and how spirited the support was for everything we did.

I do not see any failing of support for our troops in the theater. We are ready to do whatever we have to to make sure they have the materiel they need. On a visit I made in March of this past year with four other Senators, it was distressful to learn, as we visited with the young people who were doing the fighting there, that they did not have everything they needed. I talked with a small group from New Jersey-- eight enlisted personnel and one young captain. I asked if there was anything they needed to conduct their service that would help them.

They were reluctant to complain, but finally this young captain stood up and said: Senator, the flack vest you are wearing is the best that money can buy. I see these vests on some members of the coalition, but we don't have them, Senator, and I would like to ask why.

He said further: When one of our humvees is hit with a rocket grenade or other weapon, very often they will go up in flames, like a firecracker.

He talked about a rifle that was issued to some of the other troops and how much more reliable it was, how much lighter it was, how much easier it was to carry.

I was very upset at hearing that news because the last thing that any of our soldiers should have to do is worry about whether they have the best equipment or whether their lives are going to be protected.

I went to visit at Walter Reed Hospital and saw a fellow who was banged up a little bit. His companion friend with whom he had been injured in Iraq said: You know, if we had not had the new vests, my friend here would have been dead. But he had one of those new vests, and it really helped. He is alive and recovering.

When I saw that families, in many instances, sent gifts of an article or funds to buy a vest that would protect their loved ones, privately raised money to send a vest for a soldier that we sent over there to fight for our views, and we can't provide the equipment? That set a tone for me, and I must say that many questions arose in my mind as to whether the information we were getting was credible information about all of these commitments that were being talked about from the administration about how we were going to do everything we could to protect our troops. It was not true. No, it was not true.

We did not have enough soldiers over there to do the job starting early in this campaign. We have been reminded on this floor a dozen times that General Shinseki, Chief of the Army, said we needed 300,000 troops to do this job. And, instead, we skinnied it on down and sent 130,000. They could not protect themselves. The cost was a horrible cost. Lots of young ones died. And now over 1,400 have died as a result of the effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, over 40 people from the State of New Jersey. I care about those. I am sure all of our colleagues care about the casualties that we have suffered in this war. One cannot be indifferent to a reminder that we are deep in the mud and we do not know when our troops are coming home and we do not know how many more we are going to lose before this endeavor is over.

So for me, the question centers around the information supply that we had: How did we make so many mistakes about weapons of mass destruction? How did we make so many mistakes about how we were going to be treated when we got there? How did we make so many mistakes when it was said we would be there for a short stay, that we would turn this job over to the Iraqis and they would take care of it and we would get out of there in time?

It was not true. No, it was not true. Unfortunately, when Dr. Condoleezza Rice's credentials were presented it was quite a review, quite a hearing, in the committee of jurisdiction. When they tried to find out more about how she would be acting as the Secretary of State, the Foreign Relations Committee did their job very well.

I do not question her extensive and impressive experience in academia and foreign policy. What I question today is her judgment and her ability to be candid with the American people and the Congress about critical information. No, those are not the things we question. What we question is the attention being given to detail. What we question is the attention being given to the commentary that arose in that committee.

During her confirmation, she had many opportunities to reflect on early decisions that were made in statements on Iraq in her position as National Security Adviser to the President, but when Dr. Rice was confronted with her misstatements and inaccuracies she refused to acknowledge any errors or take responsibility. I found that very disappointing.

During her hearing, Dr. Rice was given a chance to correct the record about what she said about Iraq being a

nuclear threat to the United States. Prior to the war, Dr. Rice stated that the smoking gun in Iraq could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. What an assertion that is, a mushroom cloud. That means a nuclear bomb. It means perhaps millions being killed. There was this specter of that kind of damage, that kind of catastrophe, because there were weapons of mass destruction in play there that were available to Saddam Hussein, but we know the evidence to that effect was not there.

In January 2004, the U.S. chief weapons inspector David Kay announced his group found no evidence that Iraq had stockpiled any weapons of mass destruction before our invasion. In October 2004, less than 6 months ago, the Duelfer report was released and contradicted the administration's prewar contention that Iraq had a strong WMD, weapons of mass destruction, program. The Duelfer report's conclusions are so definitive they compelled the administration to announce earlier this month that the search for WMD had officially ended.

Despite all of that information, Dr. Rice refused to admit at her hearing that she made serious mistakes in continuously overstating Iraq's nuclear capabilities. At her hearing, Dr. Rice was also given the chance to speak honestly about the current size of Iraq's security forces. She said that 120,000 Iraqis have been trained so far, but a much more accurate on-the-ground assessment reveals that only 4,000 have been trained. Imagine, on the one hand Dr. Rice said 120,000 Iraqis have been trained and we are trying to get out of there and what we need is a force that is able and large enough and trained well enough so we can bring our kids home, reunite our families.

Four thousand have been trained. We are so far away from having that force ready to take over that no one can tell what the timeframe might be.

When I was in Iraq, I went to a training facility for police officers. About every 6 weeks they graduated 80 officers, and we needed 53,000. So that meant, using the 6-week factor and calculating that by 10, we might be training 800 of these police officers a year, and we need 53,000. Yet we cannot now even find the truth out about what it is that is required.

Dr. Rice also could not explain or at least she would not explain to the committee what our exit strategy is or should be for Iraq. Here she simply chose not to answer the question at all. With more than 1,400 of our brave young men and women in uniform killed, including 48 with ties to my home State of New Jersey, I believe we deserved an answer. Instead, Dr. Rice chose silence.

When it comes to Iraq, unfortunately this administration has lost its credibility with the American people and with the global community, and it is the job of the Secretary of State to restore our credibility abroad, especially with our allies. In my view, promoting Dr. Rice to the position of Secretary of State puts a stamp of approval on the administration's policies and actions, and I cannot, in good faith, go along with that. Despite ample opportunity, Dr. Rice has shown no inclination to be more forthright about any of the mistakes she and this administration made and continue to make in Iraq or indicate that any change in course might be necessary. I find that very troubling.

Therefore, I feel compelled to vote against her confirmation.