Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the 2\1/2\ million grandparents acting as primary caregivers to their grandchildren. The situation may occur as a result of a death in the family, a parent being away in the military, or the effect of abuse and neglect.

I commend grandparents and other relatives who step forward to care for these children, often at great personal sacrifice, providing an alternative to foster care and giving them a safe, stable home. Supportive programs like subsidized guardianship help children exit foster care into the permanent care of caring and nurturing relatives.

In my State of New Jersey, 8 percent of the children live with nonparent relatives. Grandparents and other relative caregivers are often the best chance for a loving and stable childhood for the children in their care, but their hard work and dedication often go unnoticed.

I am deeply saddened that today the Senate made cuts in the budget that would deprive so many kinship caregivers of critical Federal support. We should be expanding support for these caregivers, not reducing it.

Mr. President, today I offer my formal acknowledgement and deepest appreciation for the ongoing service of

these caregivers to our country and our Nation's most valuable asset, our children. I commend Generations United for their hard work in helping improve the lives of our children.

Mr. President, I would like to give what I think will more than likely be the last speech I give on this great floor, this historic floor, in front of this deliberative body. I am grateful for your courtesies. It is with bittersweet feeling that I make these remarks.

I have been honored beyond words to be a United States Senator. I think all of us know that feeling in our hearts and souls. I will be forever grateful to the 9 million New Jerseyans who put their trust in me and asked Senator Lautenberg and myself, and others before us, to represent their hopes and dreams at this time and in this place.

In the 229 years of our Republic, fewer than 2,000 men and women have come to this floor and represented the voices of the people who elected them or selected them in previous times. And like each of my predecessors and those to follow, including Congressman Robert Menendez, who will be sworn in to fill out my term, we have all been sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution.

I now look at the great Senator, Robert Byrd, who has so eloquently and so frequently represented the challenge that all of us take on as we are sworn in to be Senators to represent and carry forward those traditions of our Constitution and to serve the interests of our people. So there are really two purposes. I can only hope that the people of New Jersey will believe that has been my sole purpose here on this floor.

Now as I take my leave, I guess there will be some folks who will say some nice things about me, and they have. That is a little bit different than in the last days of the campaign. It reminds me of a Jack Benny story. He was giving a presentation and listening to the presenter praise him at length. He said, ``I don't deserve this award, but I don't deserve diabetes either.'' I will take the compliments and the kind remarks. I very much appreciate it.

I want you to know that I cherish the friendships I have established with the men and women here. I admire the debates--I don't always agree with all of my colleagues--but I always respect and admire the commitments of the men and women who sit on this floor. And I add that it is on both sides of the aisle, not just my friends in the Democratic Party. Believe me, some of the remarks I have heard in the last few days are a little different than they were 6 years ago when I ran for my good friend Senator Lautenberg's open seat at that time. Ross Baker is a commentator on the national political scene, and he teaches at Rutgers. He told one reporter that the people in New Jersey don't know Jon Corzine from a cord of wood. Hopefully, we have gotten a little farther down the pike than a cord of wood.

This has been one of the most remarkable experiences anyone could ever dream of having. I came here for a clear purpose. I believe in American citizenship and the rights we have. We certainly have incredible opportunities in this Nation--I have experienced many of them--but it comes with responsibilities. To those of us whom much is given, much is required. I know that I had no chance to succeed in life without the kind of great support I have had from my community, my Nation, and my friends. That is why one comes here--to give back, to fight for fairness and the opportunity for all.

Senator Durbin knows of the little town in which I grew up. Like so many of you, I have lived the American promise. It is a little town in central Illinois called Willy Station, with a population of less than 50. In fact, there are more cows than people there. My father was a corn and soybean farmer. He sold insurance. My mom was a schoolteacher. To have a chance to walk on the floor of the Senate and represent the interests of a great State that is really entirely different than the background from where I came represents the American promise. I believe in it, and I believe we have a responsibility to give back.

Both of my parents were good Republicans, Senator Durbin. My mom still is, by the way. I am not sure if she voted for my friend. She had big dreams, and so did my father, about how life would serve us.

I grew up at a time when Adlai Stevenson was Governor and then ran for President. Paul Douglas and Paul Simon worked the circuits in central Illinois. We had great Democratic Senators who passionately stood for economic and social justice for all Americans. We had another great Illinois Senator who worked the same circuits, Everett Dirksen. Like my parents, he was a Republican, but he also stood up for the promise of justice and equality for everyone in America. He believed deeply enough in those promises to use his position as leader to help pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Yes.

Mr. President, there is not much that means more than that coming from a great Senator who has served this Nation so much. Thank you.

I was talking about Senator Dirksen. He actually sat at this desk and worked at this desk. So did George Mitchell and a whole host of great Americans. It is remarkable what the history of this institution presents and the opportunities it affords. It has been a remarkable time. I think all of you know that.

In the last 5 years, it seems as if we have jammed more historic moments in than you could ever imagine, with an unprecedented Presidential election in 2000, where we all sat in this Chamber and confirmed the results of that election. We had a 50/50 Senate, and everybody was trying to figure out how it worked. And then, with a shift of one vote in the caucus, that changed the control of the Senate.

That dark day on September 11 changed the lives of Americans forever. I live in Hoboken, NJ. It looks out almost directly across the river where the Twin Towers once stood. New Jersey's heart has never fully healed from those losses. It never will. We lost 700 of our citizens. We have much to do, and it has stimulated even the debate we have on this floor today. There were kids who lost their lives on that day whom I coached in soccer when they were growing up in my previous hometown of Summit. We still have a lot to do.

Today, we are challenged with the war against terrorism and debate about our constitutional freedoms, which we are talking about today-- the challenge of tradeoffs in security and freedom, and protecting what it is that the American Constitution stands for. This is a great institution for making sure the rights of our people are represented.

I came to the Senate to try to use my knowledge and experience to help work on some of those problems that are most important to our Nation--health care, economic and racial justice, education--there is a whole series of those things. I am proud of that progressive agenda. I see so many peers and colleagues who fight so hard on those every day.

Mr. President, 9/11 brought us together regardless of our political backgrounds in ways we could never have been imagined. I am proud of how our Nation responded and also how the leadership of this great body came together and acted, regardless of background or place, in ways I don't think any of us could have imagined. I am grateful to all of my colleagues for that leadership.

We also have great people in New Jersey. The Jersey girls, as a lot of my colleagues know, have been fighters for making sure we had the 9/ 11 Commission, the compensation fund, responses to human needs, as well as the strategic intelligence and homeland security needs that the American people deserve. I am proud of them. I am proud of the work we have all done because it encourages us.

We provided over $350 million to address New Jersey's unique security needs after the September 11th terrorist attacks.

There was an element of unity that I hope we can restore that was born in those moments because the challenges are just as great. The immediacy is a little different, but there is no reason we can't stand together.

I am proud of the opportunity to be a partner with my chairman, Senator Sarbanes, Chris Dodd, and others with regard to helping restore investor confidence that was also broken around that time where people lost their life savings, where people in the world I had come from had taken advantage of other human beings' savings, retirement securities, and their jobs. It is not a proud moment for those of us who believe in the capitalistic system.

With the kind of response that came through the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, I think we have actually made a major contribution to making sure that balance sheets and income statements are what they are, that people can have more confidence in our fundamental system. I was honored to be a part of the detail and the work that brought that back. We should protect it as we go forward.

There is more to do with our pension system. There are many things that are part of our financial structure which is such a fundamental defining element of what America is about. We need to make sure they have the integrity that was built into the theme of the Sarbanes-Oxley reforms.

I am proud to have represented the Democratic caucus for 2 years in the push back against the privatization of Social Security. We had a debate on the floor where Senator Santorum, Senator Sununu, Senator Durbin, and myself, for a remarkable hour and a half, had dialog among Senators. All of those elements of debate are still in play. We need to make sure we protect the security of our seniors. I know folks on this side of the aisle feel so strongly in winning that battle, and we should continue.

There are many others issues: affordable drug benefits, college tuition. Senator Kennedy and others have fought so hard to make sure everybody has access to the American promise. I am proud that I had a role--an amendment role, a voting role, a sponsorship role--to be a part of those agendas. We can do, and have done, a lot to protect our environment to make quality of life better.

Together with my colleagues from New Jersey, we protected people in our state from federal changes that would have weakened New Jersey's model prescription drug program for seniors and people with disabilities.

We lifted federal home loans mortgage limits to help more New Jersey veterans buy their own homes.

We fought the administration's effort to reduce the availability of student loans. We held them off for a year--long enough to enable many students to stay in school instead of having to drop out.

We preserved the unspoiled beauty and critical water supply in the New Jersey Highlands.

And we stopped a plan by the administration that would have paved the way for oil and gas drilling off the New Jersey shore. Because America needs a balanced energy plan that invests in conservation and alternative energy sources--not oil derricks lining our beaches.

In the highway bill that passed this year, we increased New Jersey's rate of return on the federal highway tax dollar form 90.5 cents to 92 cents. And we paved the way for the New Jersey Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor.

There is a lot more to do. I have some challenges that I leave for all of my colleagues. Maybe the most important one, and the one I feel most passionately about, is the ongoing challenge to man's inhumanity to man in Darfur, Sudan. We have lost 300,000 lives, give or take. People don't really know the degree to which life has been lost. But we need to make sure that we don't revisit Rwanda and other places where we have turned our backs on the killing of one man and one woman, one at a time.

There is much to do. I am proud of the efforts that Senator Brownback and I have done to make sure this body recognized for the first time that genocide was taking place, that there was much to do, that we had some financing to sponsor the African Union to do that which would bring an end to the rape, the killing, and the pillaging that is going on. There is much more to do. Please, please, make sure, whether it is in Darfur or other places, that this body speaks out for humanity, something I know all of my colleagues carry in their hearts. It is one of the great hopes and dreams.

I know a number of my colleagues--Senator Obama, Senator Durbin, Congressman Payne on the other side of this great Capitol, communities of faith, concerned citizens--are really committed to these issues, particularly as it relates to Darfur. But we should stand up, and we should move forward.

I have a big hope that my colleagues will take the opportunity to move on chemical plant security, which is something I have hooted and hollered about and bored people to death with over the last 4 years. We are so close but yet so far and at such risk. Whether it is rail security,--and all of us have a number of other issues--it is painful for us to get such low marks in how we have addressed our homeland security.

Now I go to be a Governor of a State where the primary day-to-day practice and responsibility is to protect the lives of the people who live in these communities. I hope we will move forward in an expeditious manner to address some of those items that we all know are at great risk.

There is a lot of progress to be made in a lot of areas. I could go on. I am proud of the initiative on kids accounts, which I hope a lot of you will get behind. We can change the financial underpinnings and knowledge of so many folks. I am proud of this idea. I know there are a number of my colleagues who are interested in the idea of giving every child who gets a Social Security number a start in life. It is implemented in Great Britain. We ought to do it here. There is a real hope it can bring about a different opportunity and potential for every person.

And I'm proud of what we've done for financial literacy. It's mind- boggling to me that we live in a capitalist society, yet our schools provide students with few, if any, tools about how to navigate the system. We push our kids out into the world and say ``You're on your own. Good luck.'' As more financial risk is shifted onto individuals, the consequences of bad financial decisions grow more dire. That's why I pushed to include basic financial literacy in the No Child Left Behind Act to teach young people the basic principles of capitalism and responsible money management.

I will look to this body to come up with answers on health care, Medicare, making sure our children are educated appropriately. The agenda is large. There are great disappointments, by the way. I close with a few of those. It is hard for me to imagine when I came here that we were running a couple hundred billion dollars in surpluses, and now we have created debt that is greater in the 5 years than was ever created in the history of the country. I think we are really in danger of going over the precipice on the twin deficits with regard to fiscal management of this country. It seems grossly unfair that we are placing that burden on future generations the way we are.

I can tell my colleagues, as it ripples down to our State levels, they are going to hear a former Senator hooting and hollering pretty high about how we are crowding out and crowding in responsibilities that will be very difficult.

The fact we haven't raised the minimum wage in the years I have been in the Senate is hard to imagine. There is a study out this week that if you earn the minimum wage, there is not a county in this country where someone can afford a one-bedroom apartment. It is time to move on some of these issues.

I know I am preaching to the choir, but it is time to move. We ought to ban racial profiling. There are a whole host of issues.

Since I came to the Senate in 2001, the number of uninsured Americans has swelled to over 45 million people. We have made some important strides in improving access to care for certain populations, but these piecemeal attempts to address our health care crisis have fallen far short of providing all Americans with quality, affordable health care. I would like to see us come together as a nation to guarantee health care to each and every American.

Senator Lautenberg and I would like to see Bruce Springsteen honored, too. We think we ought to step up and acknowledge both the poetry and the majesty of his fights for the working men and women of this world.

I wish to thank my colleagues and the people of New Jersey for this great opportunity. I leave the Senate with incredible excitement and optimism about the future. I am looking forward to my new job in a way I cannot even get my mind around half the time because it seems so profoundly interesting and applies to the day-to-day lives of folks.

I have no serious regrets. I have sadness about not being able to walk onto this great floor, but I love this place and look forward to coming back and working together on those issues that matter.

I close by especially thanking my colleague, Senator Frank Lautenberg, who has just been a gem to work with, and my leaders, Tom Daschle and Harry Reid, who have been extraordinary.

Mr. President, I say to all of my colleagues, they have been great.

I mentioned Robert Byrd, a giant on this floor.

I cannot help but remember the man maybe I admired the most here, because he had the greatest courage, was Paul Wellstone and his incredible fire and commitment to equality and justice in every possible way.

It has been some run. I want to say thanks to my children, who supported me, Jennifer, Josh, and Jeffery; an incredible staff who have worked hard. I have a list of the names of the staff who have served the people of New Jersey with me. I do not think I will read them all, but I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

I would not be worth a darn without what they have been able to do. I want to say that the staff who works the floor has been remarkable. Without Lula Davis' help and people such as Marty and other folks who guide us through how we get things done, none of us would be in the same place, as well as the Parliamentarians, the clerks, and others. I am extraordinarily grateful for their support.

I would be remiss if I did not mention Jeri Thomson who has been so great.

To all of you and to all of those who go unmentioned but not unthought of, let me say thank you. It has been a privilege of a lifetime and I look forward to serving the people of the State of New Jersey and our great country in the years ahead.

I yield the floor.

(Applause.)

Will the Senator yield for my last word?

I am appreciative of the Senator's gracious and kind words as well. I follow with great interest her views and visions on a lot of major issues of the day. I know she is going to speak on one of the more important ones in a few minutes. I am particularly appreciative of her kindness.

Mr. President, I rise to in support of the End Racial Profiling Act a bill being introduced today by Senators Feingold, Obama and myself. This bill addresses an issue that is critical to the people of my home State of New Jersey and to all Americans.

I start by recognizing two of my colleagues with whom I have been working to address the problem of racial profiling. Senator Russ Feingold has been a tremendous leader on this issue he held the first Senate hearings on racial profiling in 2001, and he and his staff have worked tirelessly to elevate the importance of this issue as a matter of civil rights. I also want to recognize Senator Obama he has been a constant champion of efforts to combat racial profiling. Senator Obama took the lead in writing one of the Nation's most innovative pieces of legislation on the collection of racial profiling data when he was in the Illinois State Senate, and he has been equally committed to the issue since joining the U.S. Senate. Both Senators Feingold and Obama have worked tirelessly to make the bill we are introducing today a reality.

Racial profiling is anathema to the principles on which our Nation was founded, sowing division within our communities and striking at the heart of our democratic values.

Stopping people on our highways, our streets, and at our borders because of the color of their skin is simply wrong, and it is incompatible with the fundamental American belief in fairness, justice, and equal protection under the law.

Every American is entitled to equal protection under the law. Our Constitution tolerates nothing less, and we should demand nothing less.

There is no equal protection there is no equal justice if law enforcement agencies engage in policies and practices that are premised on a theory that the way to stop crime is to go after minorities on the hunch that they are more likely to be criminals.

Let me add that not only is racial profiling wrong, it is simply not an effective law enforcement tool. There is no evidence that stopping people of color adds up to catching the ``bad guys.''

In fact, empirical evidence shows that singling out Black motorists or Hispanic motorists for stops and searches doesn't lead to a higher percentage of arrests because minority motorists are no more likely to break the law than white motorists.

What is more, the practice of racial profiling actually undermines public

safety, by contributing to the perception in minority neighborhoods that the criminal justice system is unfair, and eroding the trust between communities and the police that is so essential to effective law enforcement.

Nonetheless, racial profiling persists.

Unfortunately, the practice is real and widespread throughout the Nation.

A 2005 report of the Department of Justice found that Blacks and Hispanics throughout the Nation were much more likely to be handcuffed and have their cars searched by law enforcement during traffic stops, even though they were less likely to be harboring contraband.

A Government Accountability Office report on the U.S. Customs Service released in March 2000 found that Black, Asian, and Hispanic women were four to nine times more likely than White women to be subjected to xrays after being frisked or patted down.

But on the basis of the xray results, Black women were less than half as likely as White women to be found carrying contraband.

This is law enforcement by hunch. No warrants. No probable cause.

And what is the hunch based on?

Race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion plain and simple. And that is plain wrong.

Now--we know that many law enforcement agencies, including some from my home state, have acknowledged the danger of the practice and have taken steps to combat it. I commend them for their efforts.

That said, it is clear that this is a national problem that requires a Federal response applicable to all.

Our legislation is a strong but measured response to the destructive problem of racial profiling.

First, it defines racial profiling and bans it.

Racial profiling is defined in the bill to include routine or spontaneous investigatory stops based on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion. This conduct is wrong and must be stopped. The President and the Attorney General have said just that. The legislation would be the first Federal statute to prohibit this practice at the Federal, State, and local level.

To guarantee that the statute does not impede legitimate and responsible policing, the statute is careful to exclude from the ban on racial profiling those cases where there is trustworthy information that links a person of a particular race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion to a particular crime.

Our bill also gives the ban on racial profiling teeth by allowing the Department of Justice or an individual harmed by racial profiling to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief from a court if the Government does not take steps to end racial profiling.

Next, the statute will require the collection of statistical data to measure whether progress is being made. By collecting this data we will get a fair and honest picture of law enforcement at work. And we will provide law enforcement agencies with the information they need to detect problems early on.

Our bill directs the Attorney General to develop standards for data collection and instructs the Attorney General to consult with law enforcement and other stakeholders in developing those standards. It also specifically directs the Attorney General to establish standards for setting benchmarks against which the collected data should be measured so that no data is taken out of context, as some in law enforcement rightly fear. Finally, we will require the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the Department of Justice to analyze these statistics on an annual basis so that the Nation can gauge the success of its efforts to combat this corrosive practice.

Finally, we will encourage a change in law enforcement culture through the use of the carrot and the stick.

First, the carrot: We recognize that law enforcement shouldn't be expected to do this alone. So this bill says that if you do the job right fairly and equitably you are eligible to receive development grants to help pay for the following: Advanced training programs; computer technology to help collect data and statistics; video cameras and recorders for patrol cars; establishing or improving systems for handling complaints alleging ethnic or racial profiling; and establishing management systems to ensure that supervisors are held accountable for the conduct of subordinates.

Further, we will direct the Attorney General to conduct a demonstration project that will give grants to police departments to help them collect racial profiling data and then work with an institution of higher learning to analyze the collect data.

But if law enforcement agencies don't do the job right, there is also the stick. Our bill will require law enforcement agencies to put in place procedures to receive and investigate complaints alleging racial profiling. The bill gives the law enforcement agencies the flexibility and the options to adopt the procedures that best fit the needs of their local communities. Further, the bill permits localities to cooperate with other communities and with the State in which they are located to develop shared procedures to invest racial profiling problems in the community.

If State and local law enforcement agencies refuse to implement procedures to end and prevent profiling, they will be subject to a loss of Federal law enforcement funds.

Let me be clear this bill is not about blaming law enforcement. Most law enforcement officers discharge their duties responsibly. But stopping people based solely on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion will be outlawed.

We have introduced two bills in the last 5 years to eliminate racial profiling. The President of the United States has condemned racial profiling in his State of the Union address. There is a broad and bipartisan consensus that it is an unfair and destructive practice. And yet we have failed to act.

In the meantime, racial profiling has continued to breed humiliation, anger, resentment, and cynicism throughout this country.

It has weakened respect for the law by everyone, not just those offended.

Simply put it is wrong and we must finally end it. Today we pledge to do just that to define it, to ban it, and to enforce this ban.

Mr. President, I rise to in support of the End Racial Profiling Act a bill being introduced today by Senators Feingold, Obama and myself. This bill addresses an issue that is critical to the people of my home State of New Jersey and to all Americans.

I start by recognizing two of my colleagues with whom I have been working to address the problem of racial profiling. Senator Russ Feingold has been a tremendous leader on this issue he held the first Senate hearings on racial profiling in 2001, and he and his staff have worked tirelessly to elevate the importance of this issue as a matter of civil rights. I also want to recognize Senator Obama he has been a constant champion of efforts to combat racial profiling. Senator Obama took the lead in writing one of the Nation's most innovative pieces of legislation on the collection of racial profiling data when he was in the Illinois State Senate, and he has been equally committed to the issue since joining the U.S. Senate. Both Senators Feingold and Obama have worked tirelessly to make the bill we are introducing today a reality.

Racial profiling is anathema to the principles on which our Nation was founded, sowing division within our communities and striking at the heart of our democratic values.

Stopping people on our highways, our streets, and at our borders because of the color of their skin is simply wrong, and it is incompatible with the fundamental American belief in fairness, justice, and equal protection under the law.

Every American is entitled to equal protection under the law. Our Constitution tolerates nothing less, and we should demand nothing less.

There is no equal protection there is no equal justice if law enforcement agencies engage in policies and practices that are premised on a theory that the way to stop crime is to go after minorities on the hunch that they are more likely to be criminals.

Let me add that not only is racial profiling wrong, it is simply not an effective law enforcement tool. There is no evidence that stopping people of color adds up to catching the ``bad guys.''

In fact, empirical evidence shows that singling out Black motorists or Hispanic motorists for stops and searches doesn't lead to a higher percentage of arrests because minority motorists are no more likely to break the law than white motorists.

What is more, the practice of racial profiling actually undermines public

safety, by contributing to the perception in minority neighborhoods that the criminal justice system is unfair, and eroding the trust between communities and the police that is so essential to effective law enforcement.

Nonetheless, racial profiling persists.

Unfortunately, the practice is real and widespread throughout the Nation.

A 2005 report of the Department of Justice found that Blacks and Hispanics throughout the Nation were much more likely to be handcuffed and have their cars searched by law enforcement during traffic stops, even though they were less likely to be harboring contraband.

A Government Accountability Office report on the U.S. Customs Service released in March 2000 found that Black, Asian, and Hispanic women were four to nine times more likely than White women to be subjected to xrays after being frisked or patted down.

But on the basis of the xray results, Black women were less than half as likely as White women to be found carrying contraband.

This is law enforcement by hunch. No warrants. No probable cause.

And what is the hunch based on?

Race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion plain and simple. And that is plain wrong.

Now--we know that many law enforcement agencies, including some from my home state, have acknowledged the danger of the practice and have taken steps to combat it. I commend them for their efforts.

That said, it is clear that this is a national problem that requires a Federal response applicable to all.

Our legislation is a strong but measured response to the destructive problem of racial profiling.

First, it defines racial profiling and bans it.

Racial profiling is defined in the bill to include routine or spontaneous investigatory stops based on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion. This conduct is wrong and must be stopped. The President and the Attorney General have said just that. The legislation would be the first Federal statute to prohibit this practice at the Federal, State, and local level.

To guarantee that the statute does not impede legitimate and responsible policing, the statute is careful to exclude from the ban on racial profiling those cases where there is trustworthy information that links a person of a particular race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion to a particular crime.

Our bill also gives the ban on racial profiling teeth by allowing the Department of Justice or an individual harmed by racial profiling to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief from a court if the Government does not take steps to end racial profiling.

Next, the statute will require the collection of statistical data to measure whether progress is being made. By collecting this data we will get a fair and honest picture of law enforcement at work. And we will provide law enforcement agencies with the information they need to detect problems early on.

Our bill directs the Attorney General to develop standards for data collection and instructs the Attorney General to consult with law enforcement and other stakeholders in developing those standards. It also specifically directs the Attorney General to establish standards for setting benchmarks against which the collected data should be measured so that no data is taken out of context, as some in law enforcement rightly fear. Finally, we will require the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the Department of Justice to analyze these statistics on an annual basis so that the Nation can gauge the success of its efforts to combat this corrosive practice.

Finally, we will encourage a change in law enforcement culture through the use of the carrot and the stick.

First, the carrot: We recognize that law enforcement shouldn't be expected to do this alone. So this bill says that if you do the job right fairly and equitably you are eligible to receive development grants to help pay for the following: Advanced training programs; computer technology to help collect data and statistics; video cameras and recorders for patrol cars; establishing or improving systems for handling complaints alleging ethnic or racial profiling; and establishing management systems to ensure that supervisors are held accountable for the conduct of subordinates.

Further, we will direct the Attorney General to conduct a demonstration project that will give grants to police departments to help them collect racial profiling data and then work with an institution of higher learning to analyze the collect data.

But if law enforcement agencies don't do the job right, there is also the stick. Our bill will require law enforcement agencies to put in place procedures to receive and investigate complaints alleging racial profiling. The bill gives the law enforcement agencies the flexibility and the options to adopt the procedures that best fit the needs of their local communities. Further, the bill permits localities to cooperate with other communities and with the State in which they are located to develop shared procedures to invest racial profiling problems in the community.

If State and local law enforcement agencies refuse to implement procedures to end and prevent profiling, they will be subject to a loss of Federal law enforcement funds.

Let me be clear this bill is not about blaming law enforcement. Most law enforcement officers discharge their duties responsibly. But stopping people based solely on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion will be outlawed.

We have introduced two bills in the last 5 years to eliminate racial profiling. The President of the United States has condemned racial profiling in his State of the Union address. There is a broad and bipartisan consensus that it is an unfair and destructive practice. And yet we have failed to act.

In the meantime, racial profiling has continued to breed humiliation, anger, resentment, and cynicism throughout this country.

It has weakened respect for the law by everyone, not just those offended.

Simply put it is wrong and we must finally end it. Today we pledge to do just that to define it, to ban it, and to enforce this ban.

Mr. President, today the Senate has passed the bipartisan Darfur Peace and Accountability Act introduced by my colleague, Senator Brownback, and myself. This legislation is a critical step in finally stopping the genocide raging in Darfur and bringing lasting peace to the region.

It has been 15 months since the Congress declared the atrocities in Darfur to be genocide, and over a year since the administration made the same declaration. Yet far too little has been done to live up to our moral obligation to actually save lives. Fellow human beings are being mercilessly slaughtered. We have the capacity to protect them. If we do not, history will forever condemn our failure. That is what this bill is about.

This is the second time a version of this bill has passed the Senate. In April, the bill was included as an amendment to the emergency supplement appropriations bill but was stripped out in conference. This time, however, I am hopeful that the bill will be passed into law. A dedicated, bipartisan group of House members, including Congressman Payne, have pushed this legislation. Through their efforts and with the support of leadership, we can pass this bill.

That's when the work will really begin. This legislation outlines the policies and provides the authorities necessary to stop the genocide.

First, the bill recognizes that boots on the ground are needed to provide security. It calls for the rapid expansion of the size and mandate of African Union, AU, forces in Darfur. We must, however, provide actual resources to the AU for it to be effective. Just a few weeks ago, a Senate amendment to the Foreign Operations appropriations bill for $50 million was removed in conference, leaving the AU with an ever-increasing shortfall at precisely the worst moment. By passing this legislation, the Senate has once again stressed the need for greater U.S. assistance to the AU. The administration must now follow up by requesting significant funding for the AU in its next supplemental request.

While we must provide all necessary resources to the AU, we should also recognize its limitations. This bill identifies specific areas where NATO should provide assistance, including training, logistics, command and control, and intelligence.

The message is clear: the AU's failure will be ours. And, as the genocide continues to unfold, there will be only one question. Were all available resources expended to stop it?

Second, the bill insists that the United States work to impose sanctions currently available under existing U.N. Security Council resolutions and seek to pass a new, more effective resolution. The U.N. must impose the targeted sanctions promised under previous resolutions. And it must extend the arms embargo to include all of Sudan and thus truly ensure that weapons do not end up in Darfur.

The bill grants the President the authority to impose real sanctions--blocking of assets and denial of visas--to those responsible for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and requires that he report to Congress any waiver of those sanctions. Individual accountability changes behavior. This is a powerful tool, and I am hopeful that the President will use it to its fullest.

This bill has other critical provisions. It denies entry to our ports to ships working with Sudan's oil sector. It prohibits assistance to countries violating the arms embargo. And it calls for a Presidential envoy to bring the full weight of this administration to bear on stopping the genocide and resolving the crisis engulfing Sudan and the region.

Darfur must be a priority. The United States has faced resistance to multilateral sanctions against Sudan. But the answer is not to give up. The issue should be raised in bilateral and multilateral settings. Countries that do business with Sudan and seek to shield the government from sanctions need to understand that we are absolutely committed to stopping genocide and that our bilateral relations are at stake.

There is no time to lose. The situation in Darfur is deteriorating by the day. AU troops have been attacked, held hostage and killed. IDP camps have been overrun in recent weeks and dozens have been slaughtered. Hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons can no longer be reached by humanitarian organizations. The conflict has spread into Chad, which already is straining to support 200,000 Darfur refugees. We are looking at the complete meltdown of the region. What positive efforts have been made in the last year and a half, the incredible work of NGOs, the important efforts of a couple thousand AU troops in a region the size of Texas, could soon be reversed.

I am grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have supported this bill and have joined me in

demanding that we end this genocide. I must also recognize the incredible efforts of civic and student groups, people of faith of all religions and denominations, and Americans from all over the country and from all walks of life who have come together on this issue.

I have visited the IDP camps of Darfur and camps for Darfur refugees in Chad. But in our time, when news of human misery crosses the globe in an instant, none of us can pretend that we don't see. That is why so many of our citizens have risen up and demanded action, not just words.

The American people understand what Elie Wiesel said about Darfur well over a year ago. He asked:

How can a citizen of a free country not pay attention? How can anyone, anywhere not feel outraged? How can a person, whether religious or secular, not be moved by compassion? And above all, how can anyone who remembers remain silent?

Elie Wiesel was referring of course to the memory of the Holocaust from which the moral imperative of our day was borne: ``never again.'' Never again will we stand by. Never again will we forget our common humanity. Never again will we turn away.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my serious concern about and opposition to the Senate budget reconciliation package.

The bill we are considering today contains harmful program cuts that would fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable in our society. And though its sponsors claim it is fiscally responsible, it is part of a budget reconciliation package that adds to the deficit rather than reducing it.

This legislation cuts funding for health care provided through the Medicaid Program, which provides health insurance to poor children, pregnant women, and elderly. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that we must cut waste and fraud in the Medicaid Program. I agree with that. But, what I don't agree with is taking money out of this critical safety net program--without which millions of Americans would be uninsured--and using that money to pay for tax cuts for people with high incomes. This amounts to a direct transfer of benefits that just doesn't make any sense.

In addition, much of the reduction in Medicaid spending comes not from reducing costs but from shifting them to States. The Federal Government can make its books look a little prettier, but one way or the other, taxpayers are still paying the same bill. Some of the cuts also come from reducing important services. For example, under this bill, my home State of New Jersey would lose critical Federal resources that it relies on to provide health insurance to parents of children enrolled in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. And, the State would be prohibited from using any SCHIP funding to expand coverage to other adult populations. In fact, my State has estimated that it will lose $44.6 million in Federal SCHIP funding. As usual, the most vulnerable in our society will feel the most pain from these cuts, while reaping the least benefit from the associated tax breaks.

The reconciliation bill also includes authorization for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which I strongly oppose. It is simply unacceptable that the majority is using the protection of deficit-reduction procedural rules to enact controversial, environmentally damaging policy. In fact, the language opening the coastal plain does not even afford ANWR the same environmental protections afforded to every other wildlife refuge or public land that is currently open to oil and gas development.

The cost to our environment is too great to bear and will not improve our energy independence. Drilling in ANWR, by nearly all credible predictions, is expected to yield only marginal amounts of oil that will have little or no effect to reduce our Nation's dependence of foreign oil.

Adding insult to injury, not one cent of the savings achieved from the cuts in this legislation will be going towards reducing the deficit. Instead, they will be used to pay for barely half the cost of the package of tax breaks that will be considered next in the reconciliation process. So it would be wrong to pat ourselves on the back and misrepresent today's legislation as ``fiscally responsible'' because that only tells part of the story.

Our Nation faces serious challenges right now, with the war in Iraq, the war on terror, and the need to rebuild the gulf coast region devastated by Hurricane Katrina. We must keep our economy strong by keeping our workforce competitive and investing in our human and physical capital. Now is not the time to be cutting important benefits for those in need.

If we intend to seriously confront these issues, we need to stop with the irresponsible fiscal policies that have driven us deep into deficit. We need to stop with the wasteful tax cut giveaways. And we need to stop forcing the most vulnerable members of our society to pay for the costs of our irresponsibility.

This legislation before us today accomplishes none of these goals, and so I cannot support it. Mr. President, we can do better than this.

Mr. President, in Greek communities around the world, Oxi Day celebrates the fateful day, October 28, 1940, when Greece said ``NO'' to Mussolini's demand for immediate free passage of Italian army troops through Greece, and thereby changed the course of World War II. When Greece refused, Mussolini invaded, expecting no serious resistance to his much larger and better-equipped army. In fact, the outnumbered Greek forces offered such stiff resistance that Mussolini was soon thrown on the defensive and the Italians retreated into Albania. The Greeks held the Axis forces at bay for months, forcing Hitler to divert to Greece, forces that had been intended for the invasion of the Soviet Union, which in turn caused a delay in the invasion. Within months, the German armies were bogged down in the harsh winter conditions from which they were never able to recover.

In the brutal campaign that Hitler's armies waged in Greece, nearly 16,000 Greeks were killed and more than 300,000 taken prisoner, but from that campaign emerged the determined and courageous Greek resistance. In World War II, Greece and the United States were partners in the struggle against fascism as today they are partners in the effort to build a free, democratic and prosperous world.

In Greek communities everywhere, Oxi Day is a time to celebrate Greece's stunning defeat of Mussolini's armies and the Greek role in assuring the Allied victory in World War II. It is also a time to reflect on the democratic spirit that inspired that victory, a spirit Greece gave to the world more than two millennia ago. Today, I join our Greek American friends in recognizing a momentous day in which we are reminded that tyranny will always be defeated by the enduring light of freedom.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of Senator Kennedy's amendment to increase the Federal minimum wage to $6.25 an hour. I strongly support this amendment. Unfortunately, I was delayed in arriving in Washington, DC, this afternoon. Had I been here, I would have voted yes.

An increase in the Federal minimum wage is long overdue.

It has now been over 8 year since the minimum wage was increased to its current level of $5.15 per hour. Since that last increase, Congress's failure to adjust the wage for inflation has reduced the purchasing power of the minimum wage to record low levels. In fact, after accounting for the loss of real value due to inflation, the purchasing power of the minimum wage has not been this low since the wage increase of 1945.

When Congress acted to raise the minimum wage in 1996, the wage was raised from $4.75 to its current $5.15. At the time, this modest increase had real results for American families. The adjustment increased the take-home pay of nearly 10 million hard-working Americans. But with inflation, the real dollar value of that increase is long gone.

So that we are clear, raising the minimum wage is a family issue. So often in this body we talk about family issues. This is our chance to act.

No family gets rich from earning the minimum wage. In fact, the current minimum wage does not even lift a family out of poverty. A person earning the current minimum wage, working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, earns only $10,700--nearly $4,000 below the poverty line for a family of three.

Seven out of every 10 minimum wage workers are adults, and 40 percent of minimum wage workers are the sole breadwinners of their families. Moreover, a disproportionate number of minimum wage workers are women. Sixty percent of minimum wage workers are women, and many are single mothers who must put food on the table, make rent payments, and provide childcare. Increasing the minimum wage by a mere $1.10 per hour would provide tangible help to these families in the form of groceries, rent, and the ability to pay rising energy costs.

I am proud that lawmakers in my State have recognized that the Federal minimum wage level simply is not adequate for a decent standard of living in high-cost States such as New Jersey. On October 1, the minimum wage in my State increased to $6.15, and on October 1, 2006, it will increase again to $7.15. I know that this increase will have a meaningful effect on people's lives: it means on average 15 months of child care; over a year of tuition at a community college; 10 months of heat and electricity; 6 months of groceries; and 5 months of rent. It is estimated that the increase will directly benefit some 200,000 workers.

But fair wages should not be guaranteed only to workers in a few States. I support Senator Kennedy's amendment because I believe that all Americans should be entitled to a decent standard of living. Unfortunately, neither the current minimum wage, nor Senator Enzi's amendment, can relieve the problems of low-income families in this country.

I support the Kennedy amendment because it seeks to provide a real- wage increase to workers that will help them keep up with the rising cost of living in our Nation. I strongly oppose the Enzi amendment offered by my Republican colleagues, because it is a cruel hoax on hard-working Americans.

It is politics over policy, and it is just plain wrong.

All of our hard-working families nationwide need and deserve a minimum wage that reflects the increased cost of living in America. It is the least we can do for people who work hard and make a positive contribution to our great Nation.

I strongly support a raise in the minimum wage for the millions of Americans who work so hard to support their families. We as Americans can do better. We must act now.

Amendment No. 2115

Mr. President, I rise today in observance of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Today, 3 million American women are living with this disease. In 2005, an additional 200,000 women are expected to be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and over 40,000 will die from this disease. While in recent years we have seen significant advances in breast cancer research, scientists are still researching many questions that remain unanswered regarding the causes and prevention of this disease.

I am particularly concerned about the likely impact that environmental factors have in contributing to the prevalence of breast cancer. That is why I support the bipartisan Breast Cancer Environmental Research Act, S. 757, which would provide $30 million a year for 5 years for the development and operation of multi- institutional, multi-disciplinary research centers to study environmental factors potentially linked to breast cancer. There is a clear need for research. We owe it to breast cancer survivors and victims to pass this legislation.

Over the past several years, New Jersey has consistently ranked in the top 10 states in the Nation for breast cancer incidence and mortality. That is why I feel especially strongly about supporting further progress and future advancements in the fight against this awful disease that will only continue to cause suffering among American women if we fail to act.

In addition to passing S. 757, we must also increase funding for the National Institutes of Health, NIH, the National Cancer Institute, NCI, and the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, all of which have played a major role in the development of improved treatment. Despite the critical role these agencies play in developing tools to fight and prevent cancer, the President and Republican-led Congress have significantly underfunded breast cancer initiatives at NIH, NCI, and CDC. We need to do more.

We need a collaborative, comprehensive, national strategy to study the etiology of breast cancer. The Breast Cancer Environmental Research Act would accomplish this. I urge all of my colleagues to observe National Breast Cancer Awareness month by supporting this critical piece of legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Act to Save America's Forests. The purpose of this legislation is to protect our national forests from needless clearcutting, safeguard our roadless areas, and preserve the last remaining stands of ancient forests in this country.

At one time there was approximately billions of acres of forest on the land that is now the United States. Sadly, less than 10 percent of the original unlogged forests of the United States remain, and in the lower 48 States only 1 percent is in a form large enough to support all the native plants and animals. The 1 percent left is under constant threat, so we must act as soon as possible to keep us from losing these precious forest lands forever.

Our national forests also are under attack from clearcutting. The process

of clearcutting, or removing huge groups of trees at once, devastates wildlife habitats, creates a blighted landscape, increases soil erosion, and degrades water quality. Over a quarter-million acres of our national forests were clearcut in the past decade alone. The process of clearcutting annihilates vibrant, ecologically diverse forests are usually replaced, if at all, with a single species tree farm. This is irresponsible forest management that ignores ecology and concentrates solely on flawed economics.

This bill utilizes a scientific approach to forest management. By banning all logging operations in roadless areas, ancient forests, and forests that have extraordinary biological, scenic, or recreational values, this bill seeks to protect our Nation's most precious and fragile ecosystems. In addition, this bill bans clearcutting in our national forests except in specific cases where complete removal of nonnative invasive tree species is ecologically necessary.

While the bill bans certain logging, it does not ban all logging in our national forests. Instead, it allows a method of logging called selection management, which cuts individual trees instead of the whole forest, leaving a healthy, biologically diverse forest ecosystem. This method reduces the devastation to the environment because it retains natural forest structure and function, focuses on long-term rather than short-term management, and allows new growth without completely destroying old growth. It is also less disturbing to people who enjoy the scenic beauty of our forests. Not only is selection management more environmentally friendly, but it also can be sustainable and even profitable, as demonstrated by a number of private forests around the country.

This legislation emphasizes biodiversity and sustainable management, allowing ecologically sound logging practices in some of our national forestland and fully protecting the rest. I am proud to reintroduce this legislation in the 109th Congress, which will be a major step in the protection of America's forests. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Act to Save America's Forests. The purpose of this legislation is to protect our national forests from needless clearcutting, safeguard our roadless areas, and preserve the last remaining stands of ancient forests in this country.

At one time there was approximately billions of acres of forest on the land that is now the United States. Sadly, less than 10 percent of the original unlogged forests of the United States remain, and in the lower 48 States only 1 percent is in a form large enough to support all the native plants and animals. The 1 percent left is under constant threat, so we must act as soon as possible to keep us from losing these precious forest lands forever.

Our national forests also are under attack from clearcutting. The process

of clearcutting, or removing huge groups of trees at once, devastates wildlife habitats, creates a blighted landscape, increases soil erosion, and degrades water quality. Over a quarter-million acres of our national forests were clearcut in the past decade alone. The process of clearcutting annihilates vibrant, ecologically diverse forests are usually replaced, if at all, with a single species tree farm. This is irresponsible forest management that ignores ecology and concentrates solely on flawed economics.

This bill utilizes a scientific approach to forest management. By banning all logging operations in roadless areas, ancient forests, and forests that have extraordinary biological, scenic, or recreational values, this bill seeks to protect our Nation's most precious and fragile ecosystems. In addition, this bill bans clearcutting in our national forests except in specific cases where complete removal of nonnative invasive tree species is ecologically necessary.

While the bill bans certain logging, it does not ban all logging in our national forests. Instead, it allows a method of logging called selection management, which cuts individual trees instead of the whole forest, leaving a healthy, biologically diverse forest ecosystem. This method reduces the devastation to the environment because it retains natural forest structure and function, focuses on long-term rather than short-term management, and allows new growth without completely destroying old growth. It is also less disturbing to people who enjoy the scenic beauty of our forests. Not only is selection management more environmentally friendly, but it also can be sustainable and even profitable, as demonstrated by a number of private forests around the country.

This legislation emphasizes biodiversity and sustainable management, allowing ecologically sound logging practices in some of our national forestland and fully protecting the rest. I am proud to reintroduce this legislation in the 109th Congress, which will be a major step in the protection of America's forests. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure and admiration that I support the nomination of Wan J. Kim, of my home State of New Jersey, to be the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice.

Wan Kim's life is a testament to the American dream. Mr. Kim's father came to New York from South Korea in 1971, with only a few hundred dollars in his pocket and the dream of building a better life for his family. He spoke no English and he took a job washing dishes. His wife joined him several months later, and worked in a garment factory. In 1973, Wan Kim and his sister left South Korea, where they had been staying with their grandmother, to reunite with their parents on U.S. soil. Wan Kim was 5 years old at the time.

The family soon moved to New Jersey, where Mr. Kim's parents purchased a luncheonette in Jersey City, and later a home in Union Township. Mr. Kim's parents worked 7 days a week to provide an education and a life of opportunity for their children. Mr. Kim excelled in school, graduating as valedictorian of his high school class and serving this country in the Army Reserves. He received his bachelor's degree from Johns Hopkins University and his law degree from the University of Chicago Law School.

Following law school, Mr. Kim clerked for Federal Judge James L. Buckley on the DC Circuit Court. He then worked as a trial attorney in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, where he participated in the prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombing case. Mr. Kim later served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, as counsel on the Senate Judiciary committee, and as a lawyer in private practice. Since August 2003, Mr. Kim has served as a deputy assistant attorney general of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, where he is charged with oversight of the criminal, educational opportunities, and housing and civil enforcement sections.

If confirmed as assistant attorney general, Mr. Kim will be the Nation's top civil rights law enforcement officer. In that capacity, he will be responsible for overseeing more than 300 attorneys nationwide and with ensuring the vigorous enforcement of this nation's civil rights laws--including those relating to voting rights, employment discrimination, human trafficking, and police misconduct. Mr. Kim will enjoy the distinction of being the first Korean-American and the first naturalized citizen to assume that post.

The position to which Mr. Kim is nominated is one of vital importance to our Nation. There are those who

would weaken or narrow the authority of the Civil Rights Division, or remove it from Congressional oversight altogether. I disagree. The Department of Justice, and the Civil Rights Division in particular, must continue to carry out its indispensable role in safeguarding the civil rights of all Americans. The Department must hold firm in ensuring that no person, big or small, strong or weak, Black or White, Latino or Asian, is treated with anything less than fairness, equality, and justice under our laws. To this end, it is essential that the powers of the Civil Rights Division and the oversight authority of this body be vigorous, and that the Division hire only the very best attorneys possible to carry out its mission.

There is no doubt that the Civil Rights Division will face many challenges in the years ahead. The office will require a leader with a firm commitment to civil rights and the resolve to place the considerable resources of the Federal Government behind the protection of those fundamental rights. Mr. Kim has an impressive record of public service and has earned the strong respect of his colleagues and the legal community. I am confident that Mr. Kim will do all he can to preserve and strengthen our civil rights protections, and that in so doing, he will continue to make his family, his home State of New Jersey, and his country proud.

Mr. President, I believe that the U.S. Constitution is about protecting the rights of Americans, not about restricting those rights. And that is why I will vote against Judge John Roberts' nomination to be Chief Justice of the United States.

Judge Roberts and I appear to hold different views of the role that the Federal Government should play in our country. I believe that Government is here to preserve rights, to protect and support our citizens, and to offer opportunity to those less fortunate. Based on the limited record before us, I am not convinced that John Roberts shares these views.

Though he is clearly intelligent, articulate, and accomplished, I am deeply concerned that Judge Roberts' narrow and cramped view of the Constitution will lead inevitably to the restriction of our most scared rights and protections. I fear that Judge Roberts will interpret the Constitution so narrowly that he will reach results that are inconsistent with decades of well-established Supreme Court precedent.

From civil liberties to the ability of courts to protect minorities, from voting rights to school desegregation, from privacy to environmental protections, Judge Roberts has consistently adopted positions intended to limit the role of Government in a way that would harm all Americans.

I simply cannot vote to confirm a nominee who may vote to roll back decades of progress and protections for our most fundamental rights. Our most basic rights hang in the balance and I am not prepared to gamble with these rights.

Before the hearings on Judge Roberts began, I stated that we needed to learn his positions on all of the important issues that face Americans today, including the right to privacy, a woman's right to choose, civil rights, the rights of consumers, federalism, the scope of executive power, and the Government's ability to help those who need it most. I asserted that it was essential to learn Judge Roberts' position on first amendment protections and the authority of Congress to enact laws protecting the environment.

I also requested that the White House and Judge Roberts release documents relating to 16 cases in which he was involved from 1989 to 1993 as the Principal Deputy Solicitor General in the Justice Department. I wanted to review these documents to learn all we needed to know about a man selected for a lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the Nation.

I sought this information and asked for these documents because I strongly believe that Senators have both a right and a duty to evaluate thoroughly Supreme Court nominees. We have a right to request that the nominee answer relevant questions about legal philosophy and we have a corresponding duty to look carefully into all aspects of the nominee's record, including his or her prior statements, memoranda, and judicial opinions. When faced with a nominee who has an extremely sparse record, as Judge Roberts does, the level of scrutiny required in evaluating answers and reviewing documents must necessarily be higher.

Unfortunately, during 3 days of testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Roberts raised more questions than he answered. And we have never been given the opportunity to review the documents requested from the Solicitor General's Office. This lack of information, when coupled with Judge Roberts' early writings in which he advanced an exceedingly restrictive view of the civil rights laws as a lawyer in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, raises serious concerns.

During his testimony, Judge Roberts failed to answer the most basic questions about his constitutional and legal philosophy--in total, he refused to answer almost 100 questions during the hearings. Judge Roberts also refused to distance himself from the vast majority of his prior, controversial writings. In failing to state his position on many critical issues, Judge Roberts left us with little to go on beyond his prior writings and limited judicial record.

I have been struck, in listening to the statements of many of my colleagues who have struggled with how to vote on this nomination, by the simple fact that we are all guessing--guessing if Judge Roberts will uphold the right to privacy, guessing if he will restrict the right of a woman to choose, guessing if he will uphold Federal laws regulating the environment, guessing if he will greatly expand Executive power, and guessing if he will support the gains we have made in the area of civil rights during the past 40

years. I cannot in good conscience cast a vote for the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court based on conjecture.

My concerns about Judge Roberts' legal philosophy run deepest in the areas of privacy, civil rights, and federalism.

One of our most important liberties is the right of individuals to privacy, which includes a woman's right to choose. During his hearings, Judge Roberts acknowledged that the due process clause of the Constitution encompasses the right to privacy. He also stated that he believed that the right to privacy encompasses the right of married couples to access contraception as established by the Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). However, beyond these broad, generalized statements supporting the constitutional underpinnings of the right to privacy and the holding in Griswold, Judge Roberts failed to explain his views on the right to privacy.

When pressed with questions on the landmark 1973 decision, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, which extended the right to privacy recognized in Griswold to encompass a woman's right to choose, Judge Roberts either refused to answer the questions or responded with generalizations about precedent. Judge Roberts made it clear that his analysis on this issue starts with the holding in the 1992 Supreme Court case, Planned Parenthood of Connecticut v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, which held that the right to choose may be restricted so long as State statutes do not have the purpose or effect of imposing an ``undue burden'' on a woman's right. In using this as his starting point, Judge Roberts leaves open the strong possibility that he may vote, perhaps as early as the upcoming Supreme Court term, to further restrict a woman's right to choose.

I cannot overlook the similarity between Judge Roberts' responses to questions about a woman's right to choose and the answers given by Justice Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings. Like Judge Roberts, Justice Thomas acknowledged a right to privacy in the Constitution. Justice Thomas also expressed support for the decision in Griswold. However, once he was confirmed to the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas argued vehemently against the existence of a general right to privacy and even called for the reversal of Roe v. Wade, describing the decision as ``grievously wrong.''

We simply cannot allow this to happen again. And we should not have to. We should not be in a position today where we have to guess if Judge Roberts will attempt to overrule Roe v. Wade or to further restrict the constitutional right of all women to choose.

In addition to my concerns about the right to privacy, I have serious concerns about Judge Roberts' views on civil rights. His record is extremely limited, but what little evidence we have reveals Judge Roberts' repeated attempts to roll back legal protections afforded to minorities and to those less fortunate.

In the area of affirmative action, Roberts urged the Reagan and the first Bush administrations to oppose affirmative action programs. Roberts sought to overturn established precedent supporting affirmative action programs and, in 1981, he fought to abolish race-and gender- conscious remedies for discrimination. This position was contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling in United Steelworkers of America v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979), which upheld affirmative action in employment. During his confirmation hearings, Judge Roberts refused to state his present position on this issue.

Judge Roberts also has a detailed record of opposing a broad interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, which is considered one of the most powerful and effective civil rights laws ever enacted. While working in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration, Judge Roberts urged the administration to oppose a bill that allowed discrimination under section 2 of the act to be proven through a showing of the discriminatory effects, and not just the discriminatory intent, of State voting restrictions. Congress enacted the bill over the administration's objections. Judge Roberts' approach, had it been adopted, would have made it tremendously difficult to overturn discriminatory voting laws. Again, during his confirmation hearings, Judge Roberts refused to state his present position on this issue.

Judge Roberts' record in the area of access to education is also troubling. In prior writings, Judge Roberts expressed opposition to the Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), wherein the Court ruled that the Constitution mandates that all children, including the children of undocumented immigrants, have the same access to education. Again, during his confirmation hearings, Judge Roberts refused to state his present position on this issue.

Additionally, memoranda written by Judge Roberts during his tenure at the Department of Justice raise concerns about his eagerness to deny the Supreme Court the power to decide questions of constitutional interpretation and subsequent remedies. In one writing, Judge Roberts argued that Congress had the power to strip courts of the power to desegregate schools through busing in the wake of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). During his hearings, Judge Roberts neither stated his present view on this issue nor distanced himself from his prior writings.

Had Judge Roberts' views prevailed on these civil rights issues or on other similar issues during his tenure in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, we would today live in a far different world. It would be a world with fewer protections for minorities, women, and people with disabilities.

I am also concerned about Judge Roberts' views on the power of the Federal Government to pass legislation under the commerce clause of the Constitution. Although Judge Roberts' record is sparse, his dissent from a full court opinion denying a rehearing en banc in Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1158 (2003), causes concern. Judge Roberts was one of only two judges on the entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to challenge the decision of the panel to uphold the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act. Although Judge Roberts allowed in a footnote that there could be alternative grounds on which the full DC Circuit might uphold the constitutionality of the Act, his opinion demonstrates a narrow view of Congress's power to legislate under the commerce clause.

I am concerned that, based upon this critical view of Federal power, Judge Roberts may vote to limit Congress's authority to enact laws that help all American citizens. In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the role of the Federal Government in protecting all Americans, and particularly those less fortunate, has never been clearer. Congress must have the power to assist those in need, and to help citizens during times of natural and manmade disasters.

I am mindful of Judge Roberts' frequent statements that he would approach the law with modesty and restraint. However, we have never learned the reference point for this modesty and restraint. The starting point in this inquiry is as important as the ending point, for either can dictate the result. It is difficult to tell from Judge Roberts' testimony and writings whether, in exercising restraint, Judge Roberts would be deferring to the original intent of the Founders, Supreme Court precedent, the contemporary understanding of the Constitution, or something else entirely. Without this information, we are unable to meaningfully understand Judge Roberts' judicial philosophy.

If he begins at the point where Justices Scalia and Thomas do, Judge Roberts would view judicial restraint and modesty as adherence to a static, narrow, antiquated, and inaccurate originalist view of the Constitution that fails to acknowledge the realities of modern America. This form of ``modesty'' and ``restraint'', followed by Justices Scalia and Thomas, quite openly seeks to overrule the accomplishments of much of our Supreme Court jurisprudence during the past 200 years. Justices Scalia and Thomas believe that they exercise judicial restraint when they attempt to overturn Supreme Court precedent such as Roe v. Wade on the ground that it is inconsistent with their own originalist understanding of the Constitution. Although they may call this modesty and restraint, this view of the Constitution is

neither modest nor restrained; rather, it is a form of judicial activism as aggressive as any the Court has ever seen.

I have carefully weighed my concerns in light of my constitutional duty as a U.S. Senator. And I have concluded that, fundamentally, I cannot vote yes without being confident that Judge Roberts will not vote to roll back the protections and rights our Nation fought so hard to attain.

I am deeply mindful that we must never become so cynical or political that we fail to do what is best for the citizens of our Nation. And that means that we must place the value of an independent judiciary above the partisan politics of the day. That also means that we must not be afraid to stand up to the President and vote against a nominee who puts us in a position of guessing about his constitutional and legal philosophy.

We must never forget that our Supreme Court depends, first and foremost, on the Justices who hear arguments and issue rulings each and every day. As all Americans know, the Supreme Court is the highest Court in the United States. This is the Court that issues final rulings on many of the most important issues of our time, ones that touch the lives of all Americans. Therefore, it is essential that we know the views of each and every person whom we approve for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

There is no question that Judge John Roberts will get an up-or-down vote in the full Senate. However, that does not mean that he will get my vote. I will only vote to confirm Justices who will uphold established precedent and understand that the Constitution is about protecting rights, not about restricting them.

The stakes are simply too high to guess about the future of our fundamental rights and protections.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Simon Wiesenthal, the moral conscience of our generation and of generations to come. I was proud to cosponsor the resolution authored by my friend and colleague, Senator Schumer, that passed the Senate by unanimous consent, commemorating Mr. Wiesenthal's life and accomplishments.

Mr. Wiesenthal died on Tuesday, September 20, 2005, at the age of 96. After surviving internment in 12 Nazi concentration camps, Mr. Wiesenthal took on a mission for the world--to ensure that through the crucible of the Holocaust we acknowledge and understand our common humanity.

Simon Wiesenthal's name has become synonymous with the term ``Nazi hunter,'' the man responsible for bringing more than 1,100 Holocaust collaborators to justice. But as the noted author, Robert Lifton, has said, what defined Wiesenthal ``wasn't so much his identifying particular Nazi criminals, . . . it was his insisting on an attitude of confronting what happened and constantly keeping what happened in mind and doing so at times when a lot of people would have preferred to forget.''

Simon Wiesenthal constantly made sure that we understood the Holocaust was not a discrete event relegated to a particular time and place, but that it was, and is, emblematic of the depths to which humanity can descend and the heights to which it can soar.

Simon Wiesenthal survived the Nazi death camps through what some might call luck, some might call random acts of kindness or just indifference, or what some might call miracles. Whatever the reason, fathomable or unfathomable, Wiesenthal became our guide on a painful and essential journey through memory and consciousness, an examination of what we are and what we should be. That is a journey that is never- ending by definition--it was not for him and should not be for us.

He was a detective searching for criminals, and he was a philosopher seeking after truth and justice. He found and helped find many criminals. His search for truth and justice is passed on to us and to our children. It lives on in the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, home to the Museum of Tolerance. It lives on in our assumption of responsibility.

Mr. Wiesenthal died in his sleep at his home in Vienna, Austria, his body at peace, his spirit among us.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Medicare Do Not Call Act, to prohibit private insurance companies from telemarketing their Medicare prescription drug and Medicare Advantage plans to Medicare beneficiaries. I am very pleased to be introducing this bill along with my colleagues, Senators Johnson and Lautenberg. I thank my colleagues for their support of this important legislation.

Beginning this Saturday, October 1, private insurance plans offering Medicare prescription drug coverage will begin marketing their products to Medicare beneficiaries.

Depending on which Medicare region they live in, beneficiaries will be confronted with selecting from as many as 20 stand-alone prescription different plans. In New Jersey, beneficiaries will choose among 17 different plans. Under current law, these plans can both send mail to and call seniors and people with disabilities who are eligible to enroll in the Medicare Part D benefit. As a result, in addition to being flooded with mail, our seniors and disabled will be flooded with phone calls.

I am extremely concerned that permitting plans to telemarket creates great potential for unscrupulous individuals and businesses to defraud this vulnerable population. Even if the plans themselves are honest brokers, it may be difficult for a senior or disabled beneficiary to distinguish between who is honest and who is not.

I am very concerned that such individuals may seize the opportunity to take advantage of this vulnerable population. Unless we act now, there will be an endless potential for fraud and identity theft within the Medicare Part D plan.

Beneficiaries are already confused about what their rights are with respect to the new prescription drug benefit. A senior who is told that she must provide her Social Security or credit card number to a telemarketer in order to obtain Medicare prescription drug coverage may feel compelled to do so, lest she forgo her opportunity to obtain prescription drug coverage.

Concerns about telemarketing fraud against seniors are very real. The Department of Justice estimates that telemarketing crooks cheat one out of six consumers every year, resulting in costs to Americans of $40 billion a year. Americans over 65, our Nation's seniors, are the primary target of these scams.

At a time when identity theft is at an all time high, the Federal government should take every precaution available to protect the American public. We should not permit government-sponsored programs, such as the Medicare prescription drug program, to engage in telemarketing. The best way to prevent such fraud from occurring is to prohibit telemarketing of any and all Medicare sponsored prescription drug products. The Medicare Do Not Call Act will do just that. My legislation imposes serious criminal penalties on unscrupulous individuals and companies that seek to defraud Medicare beneficiaries through telemarketing appeals. We must do everything we can to protect this vulnerable population.

The bottom line is that telemarketing simply is not necessary to educate seniors about their prescription drug options. My legislation permits insurance companies who are contacted by beneficiaries to discuss plan options with them. As beneficiaries talk to trusted friends and organizations and read over the literature about the different drugs plans, they can then contact plans to discuss their options further. My legislation does not stop beneficiaries from speaking to these companies; it simply prohibits these companies from making the initial `cold call' to beneficiaries.

I deeply believe that the Federal government has a responsibility to do everything in its power to prevent telemarketing fraud. Permitting drug plans to telemarket to seniors and people with disabilities may provide a source of information to these individuals; however, because each plan wants to sell their own products, telemarketers may not provide the most objective information about a beneficiary's options.

There are better ways to educate seniors and disabled about the prescription drug benefit. The Medicare Do Not Call Act provides additional resources--$2 per Medicare beneficiary--to the State Health Insurance Counseling and Assistance Programs (SHIPs) to provide counseling and enrollment assistance services to Medicare beneficiaries. SHIPs provide valuable objective information to beneficiaries and can provide tremendous assistance in helping beneficiaries select the plan that best suits their needs.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. By prohibiting these un-invited calls we can protect seniors and other Medicare beneficiaries from fraudulent intentions and ensure that this complicated transition within the Medicare program be as straightforward, and safe, as possible.

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