Floor Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, in both support and the introduction of the Risk- Based Homeland Security Funding Act. I think this is simply urgent. It is fundamental to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, as Senator Lautenberg mentioned.

Quoting language that was in that Commission report:

Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an

assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.

Quoting further:

[F]ederal homeland security assistance should not remain a

program for general revenue sharing.

In fact, I believe we should relabel the bill. I had a little argument with my colleague from New Jersey. I think we ought to call it the Common Sense Homeland Security Act. It is only common sense. I think there is a consensus among all those who seriously contemplate this issue that we need to be smart and strategic about how we allocate our limited homeland security resources.

This is not a local issue, although people will often argue that we are trying to speak only from parochial interests. I think you have to think about this as protecting America where we are most vulnerable. It is a national issue.

Our economic assets are at stake. In New Jersey, that 2-mile stretch Senator Lautenberg spoke about in his comments has the Port of Newark, which is really what is often labeled the Port of New York. Mr. President, 80 percent of all of the incoming cargo containers that come into that east coast port are in Newark and Elizabeth. So you hear about the Port of New York and New Jersey. It is really the Port of New Jersey and Elizabeth. And that is in that 2-mile stretch.

Then on the other end of that 2-mile stretch is Liberty International or Newark Airport, which is, depending on which year and the number of flight landings, the third or fourth busiest airport in America--the busiest airport in the metropolitan region of New York and New Jersey.

In between, there are rail lines, chemical plants, oil refineries, all the economic assets that are important to the economic distribution of assets across the east coast.

It is incredible, as Senator Lautenberg talked about, that this particular area is seeing these cuts. Newark is getting cut 17 percent from 2004 to 2005, and, unbelievably, Jersey City is getting cut 64 percent, from $17 million down to about $6 million in homeland security, State, and local grants. It is very hard to justify. You look at your constituents and say we are talking about the threat-based allocation of risk, and we see these kinds of cuts given the kind of serious concerns that we have.

It is a national issue, it is not just a New Jersey issue because if that airport and that port come down, it has a major long-term impact on the economy of the Nation. It is important. I note, as Senator Lautenberg did, the Senator from Virginia has ports that have a major impact on more than just Virginia's economic well-being. The airports have more than just an economic impact on the individual State. We have to think about what the ripple impact is as we go forward. So we have to prioritize.

I am pleased the President cited almost the same language in his budget yesterday. Concentrating Federal funds for State and local homeland security assistance programs on the highest threats and vulnerabilities and needs is the Presidential goal. We need to translate that into specific legislative authority so we do not come up with formulas that are revenue sharing based.

Forty percent of the funds currently allocated are based on just equal allocation to the States. Nice idea, but we ought to do that in other areas, not with regard to homeland security where we ought to deal with the national economy, the national strategic interests of the country. So I hope we can take this act, this commonsensical approach, and implement it.

By the way, I also wonder why we are cutting 30 percent to our State and local communities. The first responders are the first line of defense in protecting the American people and in responding to these attacks. We certainly saw that in the 9/11 case.

I hope we can have a strong debate in Congress about how we are allocating within the expenditures we have with regard to homeland security. In my view, there is too much ignoring of the reality of the need to fund our local responders, making sure their communications equipment can talk to each other, making sure they have the kinds of equipment that would be able to respond, as was so heroically done by the people who responded to the 9/11 tragedy.

All this has to be put in the context of real-life experiences, though. And Senator Lautenberg talked about that. Seven hundred people in our community died. This is a hot issue in the State of New Jersey because it impacted families, and it still is very much a live part of their community. People want to see action. They want to see changes as we go forward. And they want to see us be particularly focused on those places where there are risks.

It is hard for New Jerseyans to understand when you put the city of Newark on the highest alert, singled out, along with New York City and Washington, DC, one day, and then get your homeland security funds cut by 20 percent or so 6 months later when the allocation comes out according to a formula, as apposed to thinking about where risks are. It is hard for the people not only in Newark, but we have Hamilton, NJ, which had a post office that was the site where all the anthrax letters were sent out. We had to shut it down. We spent $60 million cleaning up that post office, just like we had to clean up the Hart Building here in Washington.

And people say, I do not really understand why we are not concerned about what is going on with regard to risk in New Jersey when we have these kinds of practical realities: 700 of our citizens, orange alerts for Newark, Hamilton post office, and I could go on and on. There are a number of instances--Atlantic City, where the way the formula works is, if you are not a town of 225,000 people, you do not get considered for these grants. We have about 40,000 people in Atlantic City, but that does not take into account the people who come and visit there, which is about 100,000 on average a day; and then all the people who work there, which is about another 40,000. So you are getting up toward those numbers. And on peak days it can be 300,000 people. It is the second highest concentration of casinos in the country.

I think we need to bring common sense to where we are focusing homeland security dollars. I think that is what this act is about. I am thrilled that we have Michael Chertoff who is stepping in as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I do not think there is a smarter guy, a more objective, intellectually honest individual. I think he will push forward with commonsense approaches to allocation and recommendations.

Finally, this bill does not cover other programs. It does not include the COPS Program, fire grants, other things where you need to be reflective of the needs of general revenue sharing approaches. This is dealing with homeland security the same way we deal

with national security. There we identify what we think the threats are and apply the resources to match those needs.

We need to bring common sense to this. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation. It is very straightforward and a simple reflection of the 9/11 Commission Report, a reflection of the words the President put in his budget report. I think it is appropriate as to how we should move forward with regard to funding for homeland security allocations.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, in both support and the introduction of the Risk- Based Homeland Security Funding Act. I think this is simply urgent. It is fundamental to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, as Senator Lautenberg mentioned.

Quoting language that was in that Commission report:

Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an

assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.

Quoting further:

[F]ederal homeland security assistance should not remain a

program for general revenue sharing.

In fact, I believe we should relabel the bill. I had a little argument with my colleague from New Jersey. I think we ought to call it the Common Sense Homeland Security Act. It is only common sense. I think there is a consensus among all those who seriously contemplate this issue that we need to be smart and strategic about how we allocate our limited homeland security resources.

This is not a local issue, although people will often argue that we are trying to speak only from parochial interests. I think you have to think about this as protecting America where we are most vulnerable. It is a national issue.

Our economic assets are at stake. In New Jersey, that 2-mile stretch Senator Lautenberg spoke about in his comments has the Port of Newark, which is really what is often labeled the Port of New York. Mr. President, 80 percent of all of the incoming cargo containers that come into that east coast port are in Newark and Elizabeth. So you hear about the Port of New York and New Jersey. It is really the Port of New Jersey and Elizabeth. And that is in that 2-mile stretch.

Then on the other end of that 2-mile stretch is Liberty International or Newark Airport, which is, depending on which year and the number of flight landings, the third or fourth busiest airport in America--the busiest airport in the metropolitan region of New York and New Jersey.

In between, there are rail lines, chemical plants, oil refineries, all the economic assets that are important to the economic distribution of assets across the east coast.

It is incredible, as Senator Lautenberg talked about, that this particular area is seeing these cuts. Newark is getting cut 17 percent from 2004 to 2005, and, unbelievably, Jersey City is getting cut 64 percent, from $17 million down to about $6 million in homeland security, State, and local grants. It is very hard to justify. You look at your constituents and say we are talking about the threat-based allocation of risk, and we see these kinds of cuts given the kind of serious concerns that we have.

It is a national issue, it is not just a New Jersey issue because if that airport and that port come down, it has a major long-term impact on the economy of the Nation. It is important. I note, as Senator Lautenberg did, the Senator from Virginia has ports that have a major impact on more than just Virginia's economic well-being. The airports have more than just an economic impact on the individual State. We have to think about what the ripple impact is as we go forward. So we have to prioritize.

I am pleased the President cited almost the same language in his budget yesterday. Concentrating Federal funds for State and local homeland security assistance programs on the highest threats and vulnerabilities and needs is the Presidential goal. We need to translate that into specific legislative authority so we do not come up with formulas that are revenue sharing based.

Forty percent of the funds currently allocated are based on just equal allocation to the States. Nice idea, but we ought to do that in other areas, not with regard to homeland security where we ought to deal with the national economy, the national strategic interests of the country. So I hope we can take this act, this commonsensical approach, and implement it.

By the way, I also wonder why we are cutting 30 percent to our State and local communities. The first responders are the first line of defense in protecting the American people and in responding to these attacks. We certainly saw that in the 9/11 case.

I hope we can have a strong debate in Congress about how we are allocating within the expenditures we have with regard to homeland security. In my view, there is too much ignoring of the reality of the need to fund our local responders, making sure their communications equipment can talk to each other, making sure they have the kinds of equipment that would be able to respond, as was so heroically done by the people who responded to the 9/11 tragedy.

All this has to be put in the context of real-life experiences, though. And Senator Lautenberg talked about that. Seven hundred people in our community died. This is a hot issue in the State of New Jersey because it impacted families, and it still is very much a live part of their community. People want to see action. They want to see changes as we go forward. And they want to see us be particularly focused on those places where there are risks.

It is hard for New Jerseyans to understand when you put the city of Newark on the highest alert, singled out, along with New York City and Washington, DC, one day, and then get your homeland security funds cut by 20 percent or so 6 months later when the allocation comes out according to a formula, as apposed to thinking about where risks are. It is hard for the people not only in Newark, but we have Hamilton, NJ, which had a post office that was the site where all the anthrax letters were sent out. We had to shut it down. We spent $60 million cleaning up that post office, just like we had to clean up the Hart Building here in Washington.

And people say, I do not really understand why we are not concerned about what is going on with regard to risk in New Jersey when we have these kinds of practical realities: 700 of our citizens, orange alerts for Newark, Hamilton post office, and I could go on and on. There are a number of instances--Atlantic City, where the way the formula works is, if you are not a town of 225,000 people, you do not get considered for these grants. We have about 40,000 people in Atlantic City, but that does not take into account the people who come and visit there, which is about 100,000 on average a day; and then all the people who work there, which is about another 40,000. So you are getting up toward those numbers. And on peak days it can be 300,000 people. It is the second highest concentration of casinos in the country.

I think we need to bring common sense to where we are focusing homeland security dollars. I think that is what this act is about. I am thrilled that we have Michael Chertoff who is stepping in as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I do not think there is a smarter guy, a more objective, intellectually honest individual. I think he will push forward with commonsense approaches to allocation and recommendations.

Finally, this bill does not cover other programs. It does not include the COPS Program, fire grants, other things where you need to be reflective of the needs of general revenue sharing approaches. This is dealing with homeland security the same way we deal

with national security. There we identify what we think the threats are and apply the resources to match those needs.

We need to bring common sense to this. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation. It is very straightforward and a simple reflection of the 9/11 Commission Report, a reflection of the words the President put in his budget report. I think it is appropriate as to how we should move forward with regard to funding for homeland security allocations.

Mr. President, today we are considering the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be the next Attorney General of the United States. Like many of my colleagues, I was inclined to support Judge Gonzales's nomination. I have had several dealings with Judge Gonzales and each time I have found him to be both cooperative and a gentleman. He has been extremely helpful and gracious in our mutual effort to fill the vacancies on the New Jersey Federal bench, and for that I am thankful.

Unfortunately, I cannot in good conscience support his nomination. Even though my personal interactions with Judge Gonzales have always been positive and productive, I have serious reservations and concerns about his role in the administration's attack on our laws and, more importantly, our sensibilities of what is right and just.

My vote against Judge Gonzales is not a vote against the man. In many ways, Judge Gonzales's story is the American success story. He grew up of modest means, the son of immigrants who came to this country in search of a better life. Judge Gonzales would not disappoint his parents. He has persevered academically and professionally, displaying a work ethic that would see him rise to the upper echelons of his profession and earn the trust and confidence of a President.

Yet while Judge Gonzales has ably served President Bush as his Counsel, as Attorney General his duty will be to the American people. And therein lies my concern.

As White House Counsel, Judge Gonzales played an integral role in formulating the Bush administration's policy on coercive interrogations in its war on terror. He advised the President to suspend the application of the Geneva Conventions, calling these international standards for humane treatment of detainees ``quaint'' and ``obsolete.'' He then tasked the Department of Justice with the job of identifying legal authority to justify the harsh interrogation tactics that became an international stain on our country's once proud moral standing in the world.

The ramifications of this abhorrent policy condoning torture cannot be downplayed. The United States has the most to lose by turning its back on the Geneva Conventions. Not only does the position advocated by the administration prevent the United States from claiming the moral high ground in future international entanglements, it also compromises our Nation's ability to build international coalitions. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it signals to other countries that all bets are off, endangering U.S. troops who might be captured in future conflicts.

As many legal observers have noted, Judge Gonzales's advice was not only flawed from a legal standpoint, it also spoke to a larger failure. A client--even when he is the President--cannot always be deferred to. This is especially true when a client seeks justification for a position that runs contrary to the law. Judge Gonzales advocated for the administration's reversal of longstanding U.S. policies and practices supporting application of the Geneva Conventions and antitorture laws. He urged their suspension, relying on convoluted legal reasoning in order to justify an end. This willingness to skirt international law demonstrates a lack of independence from an administration committed to violating international principles of justice and humanity.

The job of Attorney General, unlike other Cabinet positions that advocate the President's agenda, requires independence. The Attorney General is tasked with enforcing the laws of the land, whether they advance or impede the President's policies. Judge Gonzales has not demonstrated a willingness to break from the President's agenda, and I fear his penchant for deferring to the President would hamper the Department of Justice in its mission to uphold the law. The need for independence is especially important in an administration that time and time again has demonstrated a cavalier attitude toward civil rights and civil liberties.

Should he eventually be confirmed, the challenges facing Judge Gonzales are numerous and daunting. And it is against this backdrop that I ask him to take on remedial efforts to restore not only America's moral standing in the world, but to restore the civil rights and liberties trampled on by this administration.

We need to strive to curb this administration's overreaching and to reinstate constitutionally protected civil liberties sacrificed by the administration in the name of fighting terrorism. I believe strongly that we can protect our Nation while preserving our cherished freedoms. Indeed, we can be both safe and free. Measures like racial profiling, which make people suspect because of their ethnicity or religion-- rather than because of suspicious activity--are repugnant to our citizens, divert valuable resources from finding real terrorists, and ignore our Nation's commitment to freedom. I am certain that we can fight terrorism without resorting to hateful tactics such as racial profiling that cast a cloud of immorality over our country.

I sincerely hope that, if confirmed, Judge Gonzales takes up these challenges and provides an independent voice for the Department of Justice.

I know Judge Gonzales to be a gentleman and a patriot. And while I regrettably must oppose his nomination, I know that his confirmation is assured and pledge to work with him to ensure that our laws are enforced and our freedoms protected.

Mr. President, this legislation addresses the serious national problem of drunk driving by helping to ensure that when drunken drivers are arrested, they can't simply get back into their car and put the lives of others in jeopardy. This is based on original legislation, known as ``John's Law,'' that I introduced in the Senate in the 108th Congress and that has already been enacted at the State level in New Jersey. I am proud that Senator Lautenberg will be co- sponsoring this legislation.

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

What makes this tragedy especially distressing is that this same driver had been arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, DUI, just three hours before the crash. After being processed for that offense, he had been released into the custody of a friend who drove him back to his car and allowed him to get behind the wheel, with tragic results.

We need to ensure that drunken drivers do not get back behind the wheel before they sober up. With this legislation, States would be allowed to use some of their drunk driver prevention grant money from the Federal Government to impound the vehicles of drunk drivers for no less than 12 hours. This would help ensure that a drunk driver cannot get back behind the wheel until he is sober. And that would make our roads safer, and prevent the loss of many innocent lives.

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

Mr. President, this legislation addresses the serious national problem of drunk driving by helping to ensure that when drunken drivers are arrested, they can't simply get back into their car and put the lives of others in jeopardy. This is based on original legislation, known as ``John's Law,'' that I introduced in the Senate in the 108th Congress and that has already been enacted at the State level in New Jersey. I am proud that Senator Lautenberg will be co- sponsoring this legislation.

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

What makes this tragedy especially distressing is that this same driver had been arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, DUI, just three hours before the crash. After being processed for that offense, he had been released into the custody of a friend who drove him back to his car and allowed him to get behind the wheel, with tragic results.

We need to ensure that drunken drivers do not get back behind the wheel before they sober up. With this legislation, States would be allowed to use some of their drunk driver prevention grant money from the Federal Government to impound the vehicles of drunk drivers for no less than 12 hours. This would help ensure that a drunk driver cannot get back behind the wheel until he is sober. And that would make our roads safer, and prevent the loss of many innocent lives.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein be added as a cosponsor of S. 187, the Ensuring College Access for All Americans Act.

I would like to note for the Record that Senator Feinstein should appear as an original cosponsor of S. 187. As a result of an administrative error by my office, she was not added to the bill when it was introduced.

Mr. President, today we are considering the nomination of Condoleezza Rice to be Secretary of State. Dr. Rice is professionally competent and accomplished. Her academic background is impressive and she has the diplomatic skills necessary to serve as Secretary of State. I intend to vote in favor of her nomination, but not without expressing serious reservations and concerns. This administration's first term was marked by a series of failures and miscalculations that have cost this country dearly. Dr. Rice, as National Security Adviser, must bear some of the responsibility for these mistakes. Now, however, she also has an opportunity to correct them. I will therefore cast this vote with the hope and expectation that she will work with the Congress to forge a new approach to our foreign policy.

Dr. Rice's tasks, if she is eventually confirmed, are numerous and daunting.

The administration should be rapidly expanding efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union and throughout the world. The prospect of these materials in the hands of terrorists is truly the greatest risk to our national security. Mobilizing our allies in a concerted and coordinated effort to stop Iran's nuclear program must also be at the top of the new Secretary's agenda.

Additionally, the administration must finally engage with the rest of the world in addressing global climate change. Almost every day, new scientific evidence raises the world's concern and challenges our fate.

The administration should also expand efforts to combat HIV/AIDS to include India and other second-tier countries. Thus far, its words have been right, but the financial reality has fallen short.

We should fully fund our development and disaster assistance accounts and finally meet the promises of the Millennium Challenge Account.

The administration, working with our allies, needs to broaden nation- building efforts in Afghanistan so that warlords and narcotics do not destroy the hope of Afghan democracy.

And it must confront human rights abusers, not just in the ``outposts of tyranny'' mentioned by Dr. Rice in her testimony to the Foreign Relations Committee, but in Saudi Arabia, China, Central Asia and throughout the world.

And, we must address these and many other challenges with a new commitment to our alliances. For 50 years, American leadership helped build international institutions to fight common threats and promote the common good. We drafted treaties to articulate universal values and entrench them in international law. And we constructed great military alliances to protect not just ourselves but our friends overseas. With a renewed commitment to alliance building and real engagement around the world, we can begin to end our own current isolation, rescue the reputation of U.S. policy overseas, and bring the resources of our friends and allies to bear on the global challenges we all face.

While Dr. Rice will face many challenges ahead, I intend to speak in detail today on two topics: Iraq and Darfur.

The administration's approach to Iraq has been disastrous from the start. The intelligence used by the administration on weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda were flat wrong. We must begin to learn the lesson of this colossal failure and ensure that we have accurate, objective intelligence. I have and will continue to call for a full accounting of the development and use of the intelligence that led us into Iraq. But in the coming years, I also expect our Secretary of State to join in demanding real intelligence reform. Without it, we will be unable to stabilize Iraq or confront other current and future threats. Our foreign policy must be based on an understanding of our enemies. And our policies and the intelligence behind them must be credible with our friends.

The Administration's approach to the war in Iraq was disastrously unilateral. It ignored the weapons inspectors, rejected our allies, and ended up isolating America. The result of these policies is now borne by our troops, who are fighting nearly alone in Iraq, and by American taxpayers, who are

paying 90 percent of the costs of the war. We cannot afford to continue in this vein. I hope that, in this second term, the administration will recognize the heavy costs of unilateralism and place a priority on diplomacy and alliances. With Iraqi elections less than a week away, the new Secretary of State can begin by acknowledging that ballots do not equal democracy, and that the hard work of stabilizing Iraq will require a concerted global effort. Intellectual honesty is a must for this administration and for our Secretary of State.

There have been a series of miscalculations with regard to almost every aspect of the occupation. The administration failed to commit sufficient troops. It did not consider the political, military and economic challenges inherent in occupying a foreign country. It anticipated neither an insurgency nor sectarian and ethnic conflict. It permitted looting and chaos, when order was so critical. It failed to raise an Iraqi security force before the insurgency was already raging. And its confused policies regarding detention and interrogation led to the abuses at Abu Ghraib. On the international stage and in Iraq itself, the damage caused by these mistakes must be addressed head on. Trust must be rebuilt, through candor and through real changes in policy.

Another great challenge facing the new Secretary of State is Darfur. Secretary of State Powell's declaration of September 9, 2004 that genocide was occurring was appropriate, and I applauded the administration at the time. But having made that declaration, we cannot allow genocide to continue. Nor is the reluctance of other nations to take a tougher position an excuse for inaction. In her testimony to the Foreign Relations Committee, Dr. Rice stated that the reason the U.N. Security Council resolutions on Darfur have been so weak was because other members of the Council opposed sanctions against Khartoum. While this is true, it is time to put real pressure on those countries. Hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake in Darfur. We cannot accept business as usual at the U.N. If our bilateral relations with countries that oppose action to stop the genocide suffer, then that is how it should be. Saving lives, stopping genocide is the high ground. It is a moral imperative.

But through principled and sustained leadership, we have an opportunity to find common ground with our allies and partners. Next week, a U.N. Commission is expected to identify those in Sudan responsible for crimes against humanity. This is the time for accountability. All parties need to put aside their own agendas and do what is right for the sake of stopping this genocide, and deterring future crimes against humanity. Those countries who have opposed sanctions against Sudan need to accept the findings of the Commission and change course. And the administration should be open to all forms of justice and accountability, including the International Criminal Court.

This week, the United Nations General Assembly is holding a special session to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camps. This session is convening in the spirit of ``never again.'' Soon we have the names of those committing genocide, brought to us by a U.N. Commission established thanks to pressure from the United States. We must not allow ideology to stand in the way of accountability. Referring this case to the ICC will not threaten any Americans. Rather, it will push the ICC toward the purpose for which it was created and affirm America's leadership with regard to universal values of justice and accountability.

Finally, on Darfur, we must push harder for the full deployment of African Union troops. Dr. Rice testified that only a third of a 3,300 person AU force is currently in Darfur. It has been more than 4 months since the U.N. Security Council called for the ``rapid expansion'' of the AU force. Congress has appropriated $75 million specifically for this expansion. Getting those troops in place immediately and providing them with all the resources they need to succeed must be a top priority for the new Secretary of State.

And if they succeed, this success will ripple outward across Africa. Having stopped a genocide, visionary African leaders will be positioned to address future crises on the continent and the AU will have taken an important step forward as a credible and forceful institution.

Darfur represents an opportunity for this administration to live up to the words articulated by the President in his inaugural address.

The President said, ``All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors.'' How, then, can we stand by in the face of genocide?

The President, quoting Abraham Lincoln, said, ``Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it.'' With the names of those responsible for the killing in Darfur, are we not obligated to see justice served?

And the President, speaking to our allies, said, ``We honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help.'' When the African Union expresses a desire to deploy an effective force in Darfur, how can we not do everything in our power to make sure that they succeed?

The challenges ahead our many. And this administration, in its first term, has made many mistakes. But the collective wisdom of America is great. Our new Secretary of State and the rest of the Administration's national security team can, if it chooses, work together with Congress and forge a new approach--one that will make us safer and create a better world.

Mr. President, I rise today to announce the introduction of the Military Retiree Survivor Benefit Equity Act of 2005. This bill is a major step forward in making our military's Survivor Benefit Program fairer, more equitable, and more in keeping with our Nation's promise to our service members and their families. The bill combines two important fixes to the SBP. The first corrects a serious inequity in SBP that currently requires over a hundred thousand older military survivors to pay extra into the system for the same benefits as more recent enrollees. I have been fighting to fix this problem since the last Congress and am confident that this year we will succeed in providing basic fairness to these survivors.

This bill also eliminates the dollar-for-dollar deduction of the dependency indemnity compensation, DIC, which the VA pays to survivors, from SBP annuities. This policy is effectively a tax on military survivors at a time when so many of our brave men and women in uniform are dying in Iraq and their families are struggling to get by. Senator Nelson has long fought to eliminate this unfairness, and I am proud to stand with him today in introducing this comprehensive legislation.

The legislation that I introduced in the last Congress and which is included in this bill eliminates a major inequity in the SBP arising from a 1999 congressional act limiting the time required to pay into the plan. That act deemed retirees who are at least 70 years old and have already been paying into SBP for at least 30 years to be fully ``paid up'' for the purpose of receiving benefits. This was an important piece of legislation, but, unfortunately, Congress only made it effective in 2008. The result was that earlier enrollees--those who enrolled between 1972 and 1978--were forced to pay into SBP longer than enrollees from 1978 or later, up to 6 extra years of premiums. In other words, they had to pay in longer for the same benefits.

This inequity was further magnified by the fact that those earlier retirees paid much higher SBP premiums--10 percent of retired pay--for two full decades, until 1992, when the premium was reduced to 6.5 percent of retired pay.

This bill, by making the ``paid up'' provision effective this year, will finally grant these survivors--the widows and widowers of the Greatest Generation--the same benefits of those who enrolled in SBP in subsequent years. It will provide basic fairness to 135,000 survivors and allow us to honor their sacrifice and that of their loved ones.

This bill also eliminates the dollar-for-dollar reduction of SBP benefits by the amount received in dependency and indemnity compensation. Under current law, the surviving spouse of an active duty or retired military member who dies from a service-connected cause is entitled to $993 a month--for a survivor without children--from the Department of Veterans Affairs. However, the surviving spouse's SBP annuity is reduced by the amount of DIC.

SBP and DIC payments are paid for different reasons. SBP, in most cases, is elected and purchased by the retiree to provide a portion of retired pay to the survivor. DIC payments represent special compensation to a survivor whose sponsor's death was caused directly by his or her uniformed service. To offset DIC--which we provide to the families of those who have lost their life in the service of their country--from annuities earned and paid for, is blatantly unfair.

This bill has the broadest possible support among organizations representing our troops and their families, including Air Force Association, Air Force Sergeants Association, Air Force Women Officers Associated, American Logistics Association, AMVETS, Army Aviation Association of America, Associations of Military Surgeons of the United States, Association of the U.S. Army, Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health Service, CWO and WO Association U.S. Coast Guard, Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the U.S., Fleet Reserve Association, Gold Star Wives of America, Jewish War Veterans of the USA, Marine Corps League, Marine Corps Reserve Association, Military Officers Association of America, Military Order of the Purple Heart, National Association for Uniformed Services, National Guard Association of the U.S., National Military Family Association, National Order of Battlefield Commissions, Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, Naval Reserve Association, Navy League of the U.S., Noncommissioned Officers Association of the United States of America, Reserve Officers Association, Society of Medical Consultants to the Armed Forces, Military Chaplains Association of the USA, Retired Enlisted Association, United Armed Forces Association, USCG Chief Petty Officers Association, U.S. Army Warrant Officers Association, VFW, and Veterans' Widows International Network. The Military Coalition has described this bill as a top legislative goal, and it is my expectation that it will have strong support in the Senate.

It is vital that we keep faith with the men and women who serve in our military as well as their families. The widows and widowers of our service members, those who are serving now and those who served us in earlier times, are owed our deepest gratitude. But in the face of their sacrifice, there is more that we should do. We cannot ever fully compensate them for their loss. But we can ensure that the benefits that they have earned are fair and just.

Mr. President, I join with Senators Kennedy and Smith and twenty-seven of our colleagues today in introducing a very important piece of legislation, the Ensuring College Access for All Americans Act.

This bill would prevent any student from seeing a reduction in the Pell grants under recent changes by the Bush administration to the formula used to calculate student aid eligibility. On December 23, 2004--just 2 days before the Christmas holiday, I might note--the Department of Education published updates to the allowance for state and other taxes that is used by students and their families to calculate their expected family contribution, or EFC, to college tuition. The EFC is the amount that students and their families are expected to contribute towards college in a given year.

Changes in a student's ``expected family contribution'' have a direct impact on that student's eligibility for a variety of types of financial aid. Simply put, as a student's expected family contribution goes up, their eligibility for financial aid goes down.

The Administration's changes to the tax tables have the effect of cutting $300 million from the successful Pell grant program, upon which more than five million students nationwide rely. It is projected that, as a result of these cuts, 1.3 million students will see a reduction in their Pell grants and another 89,000 will become ineligible for Pell grant assistance.

Not only will these changes drastically affect Pell grant eligibility and aid, but because the EFC formula is used to calculate eligibility for other forms of Federal aid, including federal student loans, as well as private institutional and state aid, these changes will cut practically all forms of student aid. Unfortunately, the Department's changes to the state and local tax allowance will increase the EFC for nearly all American families and students. While no New Jersey students are projected to lose assistance under this year's proposed cuts, they were projected to lose assistance under similar cuts proposed in 2003. I am very concerned that New Jersey students could be hurt going forward if the administration continues to update the tax tables based on outdated tax information.

Certainly, I do not disagree that the tax tables used to determine EFC, which have not been updated since 1988, may need to be revised to reflect current state and local tax burden. However, the administration's proposal does not reflect current tax levels. The updates reduce the credit that families receive for paying state and local taxes at a time in which they are actually paying more taxes. For example, the administration's new tax tables are based on Fiscal Year 2002 state tax information. According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, though, since FY 2002, states have enacted $14.1 billion in tax and fee increases. Again, because the administration's proposal is based on outdated tax information, it does not take into account these substantial increases in State tax burden.

In fact, the General Accounting Office issued a report last week that found that the Department of Education's procedures for revising the tax tables and the formula the Department used are seriously flawed. The GAO report, entitled Student Financial Aid: Need Determination Could be Enhanced through Improvements in Education's Estimate of Applicants' State Tax Payments, states, ``Education could not provide us with written procedures guiding staff on the routine steps necessary to update the tax allowance, nor did it maintain detailed records of its efforts to obtain data.'' The report goes on to say of the data the Department used to revise the tables,

As a result of certain limitations of the SOI [statistics

of income] dataset for the purpose of calculating the

allowance and problems with how Education uses this dataset,

the current state and other tax allowance may not fully

reflect the amount of taxes paid by students and families.

The dataset itself is not ideally suited for calculating the

allowance because it is limited to financial data from those

who itemize their taxes, does not include state and local

taxes, and is several years older than the income information

reported by students and families on the FAFSA.

The report further notes that because the SOI compiles data only for those who itemize their tax deductions, who may pay different tax rates than non-itemizers, the data is further flawed. The GAO goes on to suggest improvements to the Department's calculations and the data they use.

These changes also come at a time when tuition is rising dramatically at double digit rates, and students and working families are straining to provide the financial wherewithal to access America's promise of education. According to the College Board, tuition, room, and board at a four-year public university costs an average of $11,354, $824 more than last year and $1775 more than 2 years ago. In other words, tuition at public institutions has been increasing by almost ten percent a year. In fact, according to the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, tuition and fees at public institutions in New Jersey has increased by more than 40 percent since the 1999-2000 school year. In some states they've increased by more than 60 percent in the last five years.

To really understand these numbers, though, it's necessary to look at the people who are struggling to afford to go to college. To that end, I would like to read a couple of personal stories about the importance of the Pell grant program to a college-bound student and a student struggling to afford college now.

One student writes,

I am lucky enough to be attending a top-rate University and

receiving a quality education, but I rely on many federal

loans and aid, including a Pell Grant, in order to remain

where I am. When President Bush decided not to fully fund

Pell Grants, he left me and many others in a precarious

position. My Pell grant is still pending and I really am

counting on it to cover some of my basic expenses; it will be

a hardship until it comes--or worse if it doesn't come in

full. The President says he's an advocate for young people

with his dubious social security plans, but he leaves us

behind with his non-commitment to higher education.

A mother who fears she will no longer be able to afford to send her son to school writes,

I've saved money from the day my son was born so that he

may attend the college of his dreams. He is a gifted musician

and was awarded scholarships to attend Berklee in Boston.

With the help of the Pell Grant and other student loans, he

is now a freshman there and I'm proud to say is doing very

well. However, I am worried that with Bush having lowered the

income standard for Pell, Timmy may lose his grant and there

won't be enough money saved for him to stay in school. I

would like to give him the opportunity to pursue his dreams

and let his talent take him where it may. I see Bush cutting

programs from the have nots to give to the haves. How many

dreams is he going to destroy and how many more programs is

he going to cut?''

It's wrong, to cut $300 million--a small price to pay to ensure that low-income families can afford to send their children to college--from this program. And it's even worse to cut aid to 1.4 million families based on faulty calculations.

A college education today is essential to survival in our competitive marketplace. Not only does our economy thrive on an educated workforce, but also those who are educated and as a result are gainfully employed contribute enormously to our tax base. I am willing to venture that the costs of the Pell grant program are more than paid back by those who were able to go to attend college because of a Pell grant and today are productive, tax-paying citizens.

The Senate must prevent these cuts from becoming a reality. Thirty Senators stand behind the legislation I introduce today a bipartisan group of thirty Senators, I might add.

I hope that we can put politics aside and pass this legislation immediately to prevent any student from losing Pell grant assistance. Finally, I strongly urge the administration to take a close look at the GAO report and to reform the flawed system they have used to revise the tax tables.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to announce the introduction of the Military Retiree Survivor Benefit Equity Act of 2005. This bill is a major step forward in making our military's Survivor Benefit Program fairer, more equitable, and more in keeping with our Nation's promise to our service members and their families. The bill combines two important fixes to the SBP. The first corrects a serious inequity in SBP that currently requires over a hundred thousand older military survivors to pay extra into the system for the same benefits as more recent enrollees. I have been fighting to fix this problem since the last Congress and am confident that this year we will succeed in providing basic fairness to these survivors.

This bill also eliminates the dollar-for-dollar deduction of the dependency indemnity compensation, DIC, which the VA pays to survivors, from SBP annuities. This policy is effectively a tax on military survivors at a time when so many of our brave men and women in uniform are dying in Iraq and their families are struggling to get by. Senator Nelson has long fought to eliminate this unfairness, and I am proud to stand with him today in introducing this comprehensive legislation.

The legislation that I introduced in the last Congress and which is included in this bill eliminates a major inequity in the SBP arising from a 1999 congressional act limiting the time required to pay into the plan. That act deemed retirees who are at least 70 years old and have already been paying into SBP for at least 30 years to be fully ``paid up'' for the purpose of receiving benefits. This was an important piece of legislation, but, unfortunately, Congress only made it effective in 2008. The result was that earlier enrollees--those who enrolled between 1972 and 1978--were forced to pay into SBP longer than enrollees from 1978 or later, up to 6 extra years of premiums. In other words, they had to pay in longer for the same benefits.

This inequity was further magnified by the fact that those earlier retirees paid much higher SBP premiums--10 percent of retired pay--for two full decades, until 1992, when the premium was reduced to 6.5 percent of retired pay.

This bill, by making the ``paid up'' provision effective this year, will finally grant these survivors--the widows and widowers of the Greatest Generation--the same benefits of those who enrolled in SBP in subsequent years. It will provide basic fairness to 135,000 survivors and allow us to honor their sacrifice and that of their loved ones.

This bill also eliminates the dollar-for-dollar reduction of SBP benefits by the amount received in dependency and indemnity compensation. Under current law, the surviving spouse of an active duty or retired military member who dies from a service-connected cause is entitled to $993 a month--for a survivor without children--from the Department of Veterans Affairs. However, the surviving spouse's SBP annuity is reduced by the amount of DIC.

SBP and DIC payments are paid for different reasons. SBP, in most cases, is elected and purchased by the retiree to provide a portion of retired pay to the survivor. DIC payments represent special compensation to a survivor whose sponsor's death was caused directly by his or her uniformed service. To offset DIC--which we provide to the families of those who have lost their life in the service of their country--from annuities earned and paid for, is blatantly unfair.

This bill has the broadest possible support among organizations representing our troops and their families, including Air Force Association, Air Force Sergeants Association, Air Force Women Officers Associated, American Logistics Association, AMVETS, Army Aviation Association of America, Associations of Military Surgeons of the United States, Association of the U.S. Army, Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health Service, CWO and WO Association U.S. Coast Guard, Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the U.S., Fleet Reserve Association, Gold Star Wives of America, Jewish War Veterans of the USA, Marine Corps League, Marine Corps Reserve Association, Military Officers Association of America, Military Order of the Purple Heart, National Association for Uniformed Services, National Guard Association of the U.S., National Military Family Association, National Order of Battlefield Commissions, Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, Naval Reserve Association, Navy League of the U.S., Noncommissioned Officers Association of the United States of America, Reserve Officers Association, Society of Medical Consultants to the Armed Forces, Military Chaplains Association of the USA, Retired Enlisted Association, United Armed Forces Association, USCG Chief Petty Officers Association, U.S. Army Warrant Officers Association, VFW, and Veterans' Widows International Network. The Military Coalition has described this bill as a top legislative goal, and it is my expectation that it will have strong support in the Senate.

It is vital that we keep faith with the men and women who serve in our military as well as their families. The widows and widowers of our service members, those who are serving now and those who served us in earlier times, are owed our deepest gratitude. But in the face of their sacrifice, there is more that we should do. We cannot ever fully compensate them for their loss. But we can ensure that the benefits that they have earned are fair and just.

Mr. President, I join with Senators Kennedy and Smith and twenty-seven of our colleagues today in introducing a very important piece of legislation, the Ensuring College Access for All Americans Act.

This bill would prevent any student from seeing a reduction in the Pell grants under recent changes by the Bush administration to the formula used to calculate student aid eligibility. On December 23, 2004--just 2 days before the Christmas holiday, I might note--the Department of Education published updates to the allowance for state and other taxes that is used by students and their families to calculate their expected family contribution, or EFC, to college tuition. The EFC is the amount that students and their families are expected to contribute towards college in a given year.

Changes in a student's ``expected family contribution'' have a direct impact on that student's eligibility for a variety of types of financial aid. Simply put, as a student's expected family contribution goes up, their eligibility for financial aid goes down.

The Administration's changes to the tax tables have the effect of cutting $300 million from the successful Pell grant program, upon which more than five million students nationwide rely. It is projected that, as a result of these cuts, 1.3 million students will see a reduction in their Pell grants and another 89,000 will become ineligible for Pell grant assistance.

Not only will these changes drastically affect Pell grant eligibility and aid, but because the EFC formula is used to calculate eligibility for other forms of Federal aid, including federal student loans, as well as private institutional and state aid, these changes will cut practically all forms of student aid. Unfortunately, the Department's changes to the state and local tax allowance will increase the EFC for nearly all American families and students. While no New Jersey students are projected to lose assistance under this year's proposed cuts, they were projected to lose assistance under similar cuts proposed in 2003. I am very concerned that New Jersey students could be hurt going forward if the administration continues to update the tax tables based on outdated tax information.

Certainly, I do not disagree that the tax tables used to determine EFC, which have not been updated since 1988, may need to be revised to reflect current state and local tax burden. However, the administration's proposal does not reflect current tax levels. The updates reduce the credit that families receive for paying state and local taxes at a time in which they are actually paying more taxes. For example, the administration's new tax tables are based on Fiscal Year 2002 state tax information. According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, though, since FY 2002, states have enacted $14.1 billion in tax and fee increases. Again, because the administration's proposal is based on outdated tax information, it does not take into account these substantial increases in State tax burden.

In fact, the General Accounting Office issued a report last week that found that the Department of Education's procedures for revising the tax tables and the formula the Department used are seriously flawed. The GAO report, entitled Student Financial Aid: Need Determination Could be Enhanced through Improvements in Education's Estimate of Applicants' State Tax Payments, states, ``Education could not provide us with written procedures guiding staff on the routine steps necessary to update the tax allowance, nor did it maintain detailed records of its efforts to obtain data.'' The report goes on to say of the data the Department used to revise the tables,

As a result of certain limitations of the SOI [statistics

of income] dataset for the purpose of calculating the

allowance and problems with how Education uses this dataset,

the current state and other tax allowance may not fully

reflect the amount of taxes paid by students and families.

The dataset itself is not ideally suited for calculating the

allowance because it is limited to financial data from those

who itemize their taxes, does not include state and local

taxes, and is several years older than the income information

reported by students and families on the FAFSA.

The report further notes that because the SOI compiles data only for those who itemize their tax deductions, who may pay different tax rates than non-itemizers, the data is further flawed. The GAO goes on to suggest improvements to the Department's calculations and the data they use.

These changes also come at a time when tuition is rising dramatically at double digit rates, and students and working families are straining to provide the financial wherewithal to access America's promise of education. According to the College Board, tuition, room, and board at a four-year public university costs an average of $11,354, $824 more than last year and $1775 more than 2 years ago. In other words, tuition at public institutions has been increasing by almost ten percent a year. In fact, according to the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, tuition and fees at public institutions in New Jersey has increased by more than 40 percent since the 1999-2000 school year. In some states they've increased by more than 60 percent in the last five years.

To really understand these numbers, though, it's necessary to look at the people who are struggling to afford to go to college. To that end, I would like to read a couple of personal stories about the importance of the Pell grant program to a college-bound student and a student struggling to afford college now.

One student writes,

I am lucky enough to be attending a top-rate University and

receiving a quality education, but I rely on many federal

loans and aid, including a Pell Grant, in order to remain

where I am. When President Bush decided not to fully fund

Pell Grants, he left me and many others in a precarious

position. My Pell grant is still pending and I really am

counting on it to cover some of my basic expenses; it will be

a hardship until it comes--or worse if it doesn't come in

full. The President says he's an advocate for young people

with his dubious social security plans, but he leaves us

behind with his non-commitment to higher education.

A mother who fears she will no longer be able to afford to send her son to school writes,

I've saved money from the day my son was born so that he

may attend the college of his dreams. He is a gifted musician

and was awarded scholarships to attend Berklee in Boston.

With the help of the Pell Grant and other student loans, he

is now a freshman there and I'm proud to say is doing very

well. However, I am worried that with Bush having lowered the

income standard for Pell, Timmy may lose his grant and there

won't be enough money saved for him to stay in school. I

would like to give him the opportunity to pursue his dreams

and let his talent take him where it may. I see Bush cutting

programs from the have nots to give to the haves. How many

dreams is he going to destroy and how many more programs is

he going to cut?''

It's wrong, to cut $300 million--a small price to pay to ensure that low-income families can afford to send their children to college--from this program. And it's even worse to cut aid to 1.4 million families based on faulty calculations.

A college education today is essential to survival in our competitive marketplace. Not only does our economy thrive on an educated workforce, but also those who are educated and as a result are gainfully employed contribute enormously to our tax base. I am willing to venture that the costs of the Pell grant program are more than paid back by those who were able to go to attend college because of a Pell grant and today are productive, tax-paying citizens.

The Senate must prevent these cuts from becoming a reality. Thirty Senators stand behind the legislation I introduce today a bipartisan group of thirty Senators, I might add.

I hope that we can put politics aside and pass this legislation immediately to prevent any student from losing Pell grant assistance. Finally, I strongly urge the administration to take a close look at the GAO report and to reform the flawed system they have used to revise the tax tables.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as we prepare to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, we are called on to look back and reflect on whether we have fixed the systemic problems that this historic legislation sought to address. Have we ensured that all citizens are provided equal access to the ballot, regardless of race, ethnicity, or language-minority status? Have we created the proper safeguards and procedures that make certain that every vote is counted? Have we done enough to protect our democracy's most sacred right--the right to vote?

The accounts from our most recent Presidential election suggest that we have not yet met our goal of securing a free and fair election for all Americans. Driving this point home is yesterday's 102-page report published by the House Judiciary Committee's Democratic staff. The report goes into great detail describing the voting irregularities that arose in Ohio last November. The allegations include accounts of voter registration barriers, voter intimidation, voting machine shortages and failures, and confusion over the counting of provisional ballots. These accounts raise serious doubts about whether Ohio electors selected on December 13, 2004, were chosen in a manner that conforms to Ohio law or Federal requirements and constitutional standards.

The most troubling revelation from the committee staff's report is the seeming disproportionate impact these voting irregularities had on minority voters. And so I ask, 40 years later, have we done enough to make sure the letter and spirit of the Voting Rights Act is being enforced?

I ask my colleagues to join me in pushing for congressional hearings on the alleged voting irregularities witnessed in Ohio and elsewhere this past election season. I also ask them to join me in examining whether we need to reform our election laws to ensure that we have free and fair elections for all Americans, regardless of race or ethnicity. Only then can we be sure that we have adequately protected the constitutional right of all qualified citizens to participate in our democracy's most cherished right.

I am traveling overseas on a humanitarian mission to Southeast Asia to visit the areas most affected by the recent tsunami and regret that I will not be available to participate in this afternoon's debate. I nonetheless commend my colleagues who are raising these important issues, and applaud their efforts to give a voice to those who were disenfranchised last November.

Mr. President, this week, our Nation suffered the loss of two of the finest Americans to grace the public stage in my life time.

Congressman Matsui and I served here together, and as a result of our passionate efforts to preserve and protect Social Security, and from leading our respective caucus's campaign efforts last year, Bob and I became friends.

Bob was a man of strong beliefs and principles and a tireless advocate for children, women, minorities, seniors and virtually every segment of society that too often has been left behind. I am saddened by his passing and my heart goes out to his family, friends and constituents.

Those of us who knew Bob are richer for the experience, and the institution of Congress is poorer now that he is gone.

Shirley Chisholm too was a woman of strong belief and character. I am deeply saddened by her death and my thoughts and prayers are with her family.

When Shirley Chisholm was elected the first African-American woman to Congress in 1968 America was in the midst of dramatic change. Congresswoman Chisholm's refusal to be labeled or marginalized by what she called ``a small group of old men'' in Washington challenged the status quo and changed America for the better. Her barrier-breaking run for the 1972 Democratic Presidential nomination represented the best qualities of our democracy. Her unique friendships, bi-partisan style and staunch advocacy for the people she represented are a lesson to us all. She will be missed.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to vote for the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The bill represents a critical step toward improving our intelligence capabilities. If faithfully implemented, it will allow our intelligence community to coordinate its efforts to thwart terrorism and defeat terrorists abroad. The establishment of a Director of National Intelligence is also necessary if we are to successfully prioritize our efforts to fight terrorism, confront threats from nation states, stabilize failed states that act as breeding grounds for terrorists, and stop the proliferation of nuclear and other dangerous weapons. The Director will also be responsible for ensuring that our policies are once again informed by accurate and objective intelligence.

Improving our intelligence capabilities is especially important to the people of New Jersey. More than 700 of New Jersey's citizens died on September 11, 2001. At least two of the 9/11 terrorists lived in New Jersey, and the anthrax that struck Washington in October 2001 originated in New Jersey. Our State is also especially vulnerable to terrorist attack. Our transportation infrastructure, chemical plants and ports are not adequately secured, and one stretch of road has been called by the FBI the most dangerous 2 miles in America.

We would not be passing this bill were it not for the families of 9/ 11 victims. They turned our national tragedy into meaningful reform. They have inspired us, even as they have helped make us safer. This bill is also a testament to the incredible work of the 9/11 Commission. Under the steady leadership of former New Jersey Governor Tom Kean and former Representative Lee Hamilton, the bipartisan commission put our Nation's safety ahead of politics. The Commission brought the country together in understanding the attacks of 9/11 and the events that preceded the attacks. Through its public hearings and transparent approach, they also rallied the country behind the hard, but critical work of intelligence reform.

The bill itself will not, however, make us safer, unless it is fully implemented in letter and spirit. The success of these reforms is also dependent on the people tasked with carrying them out. As a new member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I will make sure that the bill is implemented as intended, that our intelligence community has the tools and resources to protect us, and that reforming our intelligence does not result in the infringement of our civil liberties. I will also ensure that our intelligence agencies are led by the best people our country has to offer.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, it is my understanding this provision now being described not only deals with conscience issues but also deals with what potentially HMOs or insurance companies can choose to not inform, not because of an issue of morality or religious beliefs, but because they just flat out believe it is not in their best business interests to do that. So we are changing the whole generic and fundamental reason on how we are addressing this issue.

Mr. President, to put this in the context of this 3,500- page bill that we are legislating outside of the Constitution, of the formal processes of hearings, not unlike the abomination of the IRS where we are creating policies that are changing both State law and privacy issues, both in the case of a woman's right to have access to protecting her health, and dealing with things like the Federal privacy laws with regard to the IRS--what we are doing with these 3,500 pages is the American people are getting legislation tucked into bills without any kind of debate or transparency.