Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to address a troubling provision in the Criminal-Justice-State, CJS, Appropriations bill, contained in the omnibus, that applies to any nonprofit legal services organization receiving funding from the Legal Services Commission, (LSC). This ``private money restriction'' precludes these nonprofits from using any of their private funds--including individual donations, foundation grants, and State and local government funds--for any non-LSC-qualified services.

The private money restriction places an unfair and costly burden on private and other non-Federal funds dedicated to helping families in need. As a result of the private money restriction, most

civil legal services providers are forced to stop providing non-LSC- qualified services altogether. Many of the most vulnerable individuals and families--such as certain legal immigrants, including some battered women and children, mothers in prison trying to maintain visitation and custody of their children, and elderly homeowners seeking to file class actions to protect themselves from predatory lenders--find themselves without access to legal services at all.

LSC has attempted a ``fix'' for this problem by allowing organizations to use their own private funds for non-LSC-qualified services only if they create physically separate nonprofits with separate staff, offices and equipment. Wasting scarce private resources on duplicate staff and offices adds significant costs and results in fewer families being served.

Congress can provide a real ``fix'' for this problem by

amending the CJS Appropriations bill to treat the privately

funded activities of legal aid nonprofits equally with the

privately funded activities of other nonprofits. In

particular, we can require LSC grantees to abide by the same

longstanding rules promulgated by the Office of Management

and Budget for nonprofit grantees of Federal agencies and by

the IRS for all nonprofit 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) organizations,

as well as new rules promulgated by the Bush administration

for faith-based groups. These rules authorize nonprofits

receiving Federal funds to engage in various privately funded

activities without requiring them to maintain physically

separate entities with separate staff and equipment.

Under this alternative approach, the restrictions on

Federal LSC funds would still apply, whether one agrees with

them or not, but they would allow local providers and donors

to use private money to serve their communities as they see

fit. I hope that in future discussions about the CJS

Appropriations bill, we can consider this alternative

approach to the problems that this bill will create for

America's families and service providers.

Mr. President, I am pleased that Congress is in the final stage of reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. While I am glad that the bill emerged in a bipartisan way, I am still frustrated that Congress has yet again failed to fulfill its promise to fully fund IDEA. With IDEA still drastically underfunded, schools are left without the necessary resources to provide the best services to children with disabilities, and our communities are burdened with an unfulfilled federal promise.

In my home State of New Jersey, school budgets are capped by law at 3 percent annual growth. Therefore, districts often have to cut other programs to accommodate mandated and rising special-education costs. Or--local property taxpayers, who already are overburdened--have to pay increased taxes to cover expenses that the Federal Government should be sharing.

I have received many letters, phone calls, and emails from concerned constituents urging Congress to fulfill the promise of full funding for the services mandated under IDEA. I have supported efforts to require full funding of IDEA and intend to continue the fight so that every child receives the free and appropriate public education the law guarantees and we can ease the burden on our local communities.

In addition, I would like to highlight one specific issue related to IDEA that has not only affected the children of New Jersey, but children across this nation. That is the staggering increase in the number of children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, ASD. Recent epidemiology studies have shown that autism spectrum disorders are ten times more prevalent than they were just 10 years ago, making ASD the second most common developmental disability. While there is currently much debate and still no conclusive evidence as to the cause of this alarming trend, it is clear that this trend will continue. Equally clear is the critical need for Congress to address the issue of early intervention and effective treatment for children diagnosed with ASD.

Scientific evidence has proven that early intervention is a key to success when treating ASD. Over the last 20 years, experts have developed effective strategies for the correction of autism disorder, and research shows that with the early application of an effective therapy, substantial gains can be accomplished toward the remediation of autistic disorder in many children. With autism diagnoses escalating, expanding access to treatment, especially at an early age, is vital to improving the outcomes for children affected by ASD. That is why I introduced the Teacher Education for Autistic Children Act or TEACH Act. I worked closely with New Jersey Center for Outreach and Community Services for the Autism Community, NJCOSAC, Autism Coalition for Research and Education, and Parents of Autistic Children to create this legislation that addresses the needs of autistic children by bringing more qualified teachers into the classroom, helping families receive the support and services they need for their children, and ensuring quality vocational programs to assist people with autism transition from school to work.

I am happy to report that some critical provisions of the TEACH Act have been included in the IDEA conference report currently being considered by the Senate. These provisions will make Federal funds available to develop and improve programs for children with autism, using research grounded in science. The grants will help ensure quality professional development for special education teachers by providing in-service training to schools and personnel who teach children with ASD. With the demand for services grossly outpacing the supply of qualified teachers and therapists, these provisions are critical to increasing the number of special education teachers trained to teach children diagnosed with ASD and help them reach their full potential.

I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to the entire HELP Committee for their tireless efforts in working with me to get this essential language included in the bill. In particular, I would like to single out Connie Garner for her dedication and diligent work on behalf of children with special needs. I look forward to continuing to work on this important issue with my colleagues in Congress and with the autism community to ensure that all children with ASD have access to quality teachers trained in providing cutting-edge treatments.

The conference report was agreed to.

Madam President, first, let me say that it is this Senator's personal desire, following the comments the Senator from Kentucky has so ably given, that we came here to try to make things better for the world in the years beyond and for our children. So much of what he talk about--whether it is Social Security or the Tax Code or our needs and in foreign policy--does require that we work together.

I commend the Senator for his comments. We do have to work together as we go forward.

In fact, one of the things I want to talk about, and why I came to the Senate, one of the areas is where bipartisanship and joint effort has been fundamental to raising an issue, framing it, and getting it in front of the American people. I come to the Senate today to talk about the genocide in Darfur, Sudan, and what we, the United States of America, are going to be doing about it.

Today, the U.N. Security Council is meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, to discuss Sudan and to seek the end of the civil war between the north and the south. This is a good thing and I congratulate Ambassador Danforth, in particular, for his personal efforts in making this possibility real and tangible.

Multilateral diplomacy is critical. Peace between north and south is an important component of an overall political solution for the Sudan. At the end of the day, if we do not stop the killing in Darfur--which is independent in many ways from the north-south issue--if we do not stop the genocide, then we fail.

Members will hear me say repeatedly words are important; deeds are a reality. Lives are at stake. What greater moral imperative can we have than to stop genocide? What greater moral failure can there be than allowing genocide to occur? The death toll is mounting in Darfur with all kinds of estimates--70,000, over 100,000, 125,000.

The issue is stark: life or death. Deeds, not words, are what matters. History will judge us based on whether we actually stop this genocide--not whether we gave great speeches or

passed great resolutions or made statements, but what have we done to stop it.

The words have all been said. In July, this body unanimously passed a bipartisan resolution introduced by Senator Brownback and myself, declaring that the atrocities in Darfur were genocide. On the same day, the House passed a similar resolution. In September, Secretary Powell made the same declaration for the administration. We all welcomed the announcement.

Since then, the situation has only deteriorated. The death toll may have already gone over, as I suggested, 100,000 human beings. Armed militias continue to rape women and girls with impunity. Civilians are being driven from their homes by the hundreds of thousands. Now the refugees are being driven from one camp to another camp, or even out of the camps altogether. The displaced population in Darfur is over 1.5 million. That is what is confirmed.

In the last few weeks, Janjaweeds have attacked these IDP camps, the refugee camps, destroying shelters, beating civilians, and forcibly moving people from one location to another.

The escalating violence preventing humanitarian organizations from reaching needy people is also occurring. Already, nearly one-quarter of the children under the age of five in Darfur are certifiably malnourished and close to half of the families do not have enough food.

Recently, food convoys have been attacked and large areas of Darfur are now effectively closed to the humanitarian organizations that are distributing food, medicine, and other elements. Hundreds of thousands of needy refugees cannot be reached.

Before this wave of violence--even before it--World Food Program reported that it served 175,000 fewer people in October than September. Get that: Statistics for our program serving the needy are going down, 175,000 fewer people in October than in September.

When I visited Darfur in August, the conditions were grim. The one ray of hope was the pressure from the international community, including a threat of sanctions that forced the Government in Khartoum to allow access by humanitarian organizations. Humanitarian workers were overwhelmed by the number of refugees, but they were working hard and saving lives. As a result, estimates of the death toll, which could have gone as high as a million, were scaled back after that. With the violence intensifying and humanitarian organizations again restricted in their movements, we sadly revisit our gravest fears.

The other recent development is the disintegration of order in the region. Anger and resentment are on the rise among the displaced, and civil war between Khartoum and the rebels is escalating. All the conditions are in place for a complete collapse, for long-term instability and an indefinite humanitarian crisis.

As Jan Pronk, the U.N. Special Representative for Sudan, warned on November 4:

Darfur may easily enter a state of anarchy; a total

collapse of law and order.

Permitting such a thing to happen is not only immoral, it is antithetical to our national security interests. Remember, Sudan is the country that once harbored Osama bin Laden. The prospects of becoming a terrorist breeding ground are real. This is something that needs to be addressed now.

This has not happened since the administration declared genocide was taking place. Whatever the message that declaration sent, it was clearly not enough and may even have sent the wrong message that the United States may declare that genocide is existing and then not act to stop it.

Words without deeds violates the moral and legal obligation we have under the genocide convention but, more importantly, violates our sense of right and wrong and the standards we have as human beings about looking to care for one another. Words without deeds is an affront to the principle that guides our Nation and makes a mockery of the values we as public servants claim to love. The American people know this, which is why people of faith, of all religions and denominations and civic groups throughout the country, call for concerted, resolute, effective action.

Details matter. What will it actually take to stop this genocide? In September, this body passed by voice vote an amendment offered by myself and Senator DeWine to provide $75 million for an expanded African Union force in Darfur. The funding is now being negotiated with the House of Representatives in the so-called Omnibus bill but has had little if any support from the administration and some in the Senate.

Senator DeWine and myself offered the amendment after the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution calling for assistance to the AU and after Secretary Powell testified the current United States contribution of $20 million would not be enough. Get that, $20 million--not billions, trillions, which we normally are talking about.

An expanded African Union force of 3,000 will cost roughly $220 million. The European Union recently pledged half that amount would be forthcoming. We can afford to pay for the rest. We cannot afford to walk away from our moral obligation. Madam President, $75 million is less than half of what the administration sought for waste disposal in Iraq. It is insignificant compared to the costs of the wars that are waging around the globe. What we cannot afford is to provide anything less. Shortchanging AU troops or delivering only incremental assistance may be worse than doing nothing. They do need helicopters, vehicles, communication equipment, and housing to patrol Darfur. We are moving forces into Darfur, but we do not give them the tools they need to be able to do what they are there for and we are setting them up for failure. We risk undermining the very credibility of a burgeoning ability to deal with some of these crises that happen all across Africa, and not just in Darfur. It is precisely now when we need to give them the resources to be able to succeed.

We should not kid ourselves about the effectiveness of the AU force. They are responsible for monitoring the April cease-fire. There was an agreement reached November 9 that includes a no-fly zone that the AU force must enforce. To quote the current AU chair, Nigerian President Obsanjo, these agreements ``won't be worth the paper they're written on if they are not scrupulously implemented on the ground.'' His words are right. Words without deeds, without resources, is meaningless.

The potential for the situation to overwhelm the AU force is real. The region is enormous and every day as the violence gets worse, the challenge grows. The answer is not to dismiss the AU force but to do whatever it takes to make it effective. If 3,000 troops is not enough, we should consider others and more. If $220 million is not enough, we should, along with our allies, push to have additional resources. Hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake. If the AU cannot set up command-and-control communications or intelligence right away, we should help them do it.

In the end, the only test is whether we stop the killing. The same test applies to sanctions. This week's efforts to reach a north-south agreement are important, but we must not weaken in any way the pressure on Khartoum with regard to Darfur. Only consistent, strong, credible international pressure has ever changed Khartoum's behavior. I heard one senior administration official say that when their lips are moving, they are lying. This means we need to apply pressure. This means an embargo, seizing assets, restricting travel of government officials and, yes, going after Sudanese oil and gas companies that deal in the finances that allow this tragedy to continue to unfold. We should be working with our allies to put in place effective sanctions. If members of the U.N. Security Council are not amenable, we should work with the EU. We also have leverage through our own capital markets. The test is whether we are prepared to stop genocide, something we have all declared exists, something the administration has declared.

How can we be discussing these options? We should be acting. There is no more critical moment than now. The pieces are in place.

Today, the U.N. Security Council is meeting in Nairobi preparing to issue another resolution on Sudan, although I hear the discussion is very limited with regard to actions they will take with regard to Khartoum. The United States has rightfully called this genocide. The U.N. Security Council has

agreed on paper that sanctions should be imposed if Sudan does not stop the violence. That violence has not stopped.

The Security Council has called on member states to support an expanded AU force, and the African Union, 2 years old, has stepped up. Its leadership is committed to preventing another genocide if we will help. We are the world's only superpower. Genocide is happening and we must act. President Bush campaigned on a platform of acting wherever necessary to protect our interests overseas regardless of world opinion.

With all that has happened in the last few years, how can we claim to be constrained in this situation with this action taking place against the human race? We are the world's superpower. If we do everything that we should do, history will judge that we acted. But they will judge us harshly if we do not step up to save these lives that will be lost in the years and the months and the days ahead. If we hesitate now, if we make excuses, most of us think we will have a hard time forgiving ourselves for what we did not do. Rwanda is burned in our memory. We should not allow hundreds of thousands of people to die. We will have doomed the AU to ineffectual operations on the ground, and we will have damaged its credibility and its underlying ability to respond to crises in the future.

I hope we will act. I hope we will not turn the pages of this omnibus financing without giving the resources to act. Words are not good enough; deeds are required. I hope we will not have failed our people and our values we hold dear.

I thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, yesterday I voted against legislation that will authorize a massive increase in the Federal debt. This bill highlights the gross irresponsibility of our Nation's current fiscal policies. And I hope that, in casting a negative vote along with many of my colleagues, we have helped send a message to the White House that it is long past time to change course.

When President Bush came to office, we were expecting to run a surplus over the next ten years of $5.6 trillion. Instead, we now project a deficit of $3.5 trillion. That is a reversal of more than $9 trillion.

President Bush promised that he would not raid the Social Security trust fund. But, instead, under the Bush budget, we will spend every last penny of Social Security surpluses over the next 10 years, all $2.4 trillion. These surpluses won't be saved. They won't be used to help us keep our promise to working Americans. They will be diverted for tax breaks and other spending programs. This is not what the President promised. It is the opposite.

In effect, the administration's policies are using payroll taxes paid by working Americans, and using them to finance tax breaks for the most fortunate among us. I think that is wrong.

The past few years have been marked by unprecedented fiscal recklessness. The 2004 deficit, even including the Social Security surplus, is $413 billion. That is a record. Last year, the deficit was $377 billion. That was another record. The budget is spinning out of control, and few in the administration seem to care.

Unfortunately, as bad as things have been in recent years, the outlook for the long term is even worse. The baby boomers are about to retire. And by 2050, 81 million Americans will be on Social Security-- about double the current level. We need to prepare for that. We need to save for it. Instead, we are doing the reverse. We are putting ourselves deeper and deeper in debt.

In 2001, gross Federal debt stood at $5.8 trillion. By 2014, that debt will have skyrocketed to almost $15 trillion.

With more debt, of course, comes higher interest costs. The 10-year cost of Federal interest payments has gone up from $622 billion in 2001, to $2.4 trillion.

All this debt, and all these interest payments, have consequences. They reduce the capital available for productive investment. They increase interest rates. They slow economic growth. And they lower the standard of living for American families.

Another consequence of all this debt is that our Nation is slowly losing its economic independence. Foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury debt has increased 83 percent under this administration. Today, the U.S. owes China more than $170 billion. We owe Japan more than $700 billion. Increasingly, our Nation is dependent on these countries to bolster our economy and to maintain the value of the dollar. But if

those countries and other foreign investors pull out in the face of rising fiscal imbalances, as has happened elsewhere, the consequences for our economy could be very serious.

In my view, the current course of fiscal policy is not only unwise and dangerous, it is ultimately unsustainable. We can't go on like this. Either our leaders here in Washington will face reality and reverse course, or the markets will punish us until we do. Either the dollar will collapse, or interest rates will rise substantially, or inflation will rise, or all these problems will hit at once.

When that might happen is anybody's guess. But you can't reverse the basic laws of economics. Sooner or later, the piper gets paid.

So, I think we have made a mistake by increasing the debt limit so substantially. Needless to say, we must protect the full faith and credit of the United States. But we do not need a debt limit extension of this magnitude. And we should not have approved it yesterday. Instead, we should have passed a much smaller increase, in order to put real pressure on the Congress next year to finally get serious about the need for fiscal discipline.

Next year we will begin perhaps the most important domestic policy debate in a generation when we take up President Bush's call to privatize Social Security. At that point, Congress will have to make a decision. Either we will keep our promise to American workers, or we will break that promise and cut earned benefits. I think we should keep our promise and protect benefits. But we can only afford to do that if we quickly reestablish some measure of fiscal discipline. Increasing our debt by $800 billion is not the way to do that and, in my view, is a serious mistake.

So for all these reasons, I cast my vote no yesterday. For the sake of our economy, for the sake of our future, and for the sake of our values as a Nation, we must restore fiscal discipline. And we must do it soon.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the decade of economic development and social service leadership provided to my State by the New Jersey Community Development Corporation. NJCDC's success has been widely and deservedly acknowledged. And the foundation for that success is the complete commitment to its mission of revitalizing urban areas through job creation, affordable housing, educational initiatives and effective and pragmatic social support services.

Established in Paterson, NJ, the city planned by Alexander Hamilton as this country's premier urban industrial center, NJCDC has built a corporate model for grassroots advocacy and activism based on Paterson's tradition of cultural diversity and industrial vitality.

The agency is the linchpin of a collaborative network of community, educational and government organizations and agencies. The results of this partnership are notable: an AmeriCorps project enlisting volunteers as mentors to at-risk youth and support companions for the frail elderly; community economic development and restoration efforts including the refurbishing of Paterson's historic raceway system and its Great Falls Historic District; the establishment of a transportation opportunities center to provide job training and jobs for a disadvantaged population; building and operating housing for homeless youth and the homeless mentally ill population; community residences and day programs to help developmentally disabled adults lead independent lives; educational initiatives including an alternative academy high school for inner-city students and a YouthBuild program; and one of my own priorities, financial literacy programs leading to economic security for inner-city and senior populations.

All of this in the relatively short span of 10 years.

I am pleased to enter this tribute into the Congressional Record, with every expectation for NJCDC's continued achievements.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation along with Senators Boxer, Murray, Schumer, Lautenberg, and Leahy the Preservation of Federalism in Banking Act, to clarify the relationship between state consumer protection laws and national banks.

This legislation responds to a sweeping new rule issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the agency that regulates national banks. The OCC's new rule gives the agency unprecedented authority to pre-empt State laws, thereby shielding national banks and their non- bank and State-chartered bank affiliates from many important consumer protections. It also potentially limits the ability of States to enforce many related laws. The most important immediate consequence of the OCC rule has been the preemption of State anti-predatory lending laws.

I feel strongly about the need to address predatory lending, which can trap people in endless cycles of debt and escalating fees. Many States, such as my own state of New Jersey, have enacted tough laws to deal with the problem. Unfortunately, the OCC's ruling substantially undermines these laws by regulatory fiat. That will leave many consumers unprotected, and it shifts too many responsibilities to a single agency here in Washington that is not equipped to handle them. After all, according to its own website, the OCC ``does not have the mandate to engage in consumer advocacy''.

Although the OCC has a long and successful record of regulating for safety and soundness, it has little experience dealing with abusive local practices, such as predatory lending. Believe it or not, the OCC actually is proposing to handle all consumer complaints through a single 22-person call center in Houston. This is totally unrealistic. Each year, State officials receive thousands of related complaints, which usually are very local in nature. These officials are at the forefront of the enforcement effort, identifying and combating new practices as they arise. The OCC's system simply could not fill this role without major changes.

The OCC rule also raises concerns about regulatory charter competition, the viability of a broad range of state laws, and the ability of consumers and state officials to seek remedies in court.

The OCC rule has provoked strong opposition from governors, attorneys general, banking supervisors, and many consumer advocacy groups, not to mention the public. The OCC received over 2,600 letters in response to its rules, and more than 90 percent opposed them.

The Preservation of Federalism in Banking Act is a limited and reasonable response to the OCC rule. The bill will clarify the state consumer protection laws with which banks and their

affiliates must comply. It also will protect financial institutions from overreaching state laws that seek to directly regulate the core activities of national banks.

While the OCC has long had the statutory responsibility to regulate the activities of national banks, it has never denied the ability of states to protect their citizens. The OCC historically has used its authority under the National Bank Act in a reasonable way to shield national banks from state banking laws that intrude on the OCC's congressionally-granted powers. While we should continue to support the appropriate use of the agency's authority, it is important that we immediately intervene to reverse the OCC's regulatory overreach and prevent the agency from preempting all state consumer protection laws and state authority to enforce related laws.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation along with Senators Boxer, Murray, Schumer, Lautenberg, and Leahy the Preservation of Federalism in Banking Act, to clarify the relationship between state consumer protection laws and national banks.

This legislation responds to a sweeping new rule issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the agency that regulates national banks. The OCC's new rule gives the agency unprecedented authority to pre-empt State laws, thereby shielding national banks and their non- bank and State-chartered bank affiliates from many important consumer protections. It also potentially limits the ability of States to enforce many related laws. The most important immediate consequence of the OCC rule has been the preemption of State anti-predatory lending laws.

I feel strongly about the need to address predatory lending, which can trap people in endless cycles of debt and escalating fees. Many States, such as my own state of New Jersey, have enacted tough laws to deal with the problem. Unfortunately, the OCC's ruling substantially undermines these laws by regulatory fiat. That will leave many consumers unprotected, and it shifts too many responsibilities to a single agency here in Washington that is not equipped to handle them. After all, according to its own website, the OCC ``does not have the mandate to engage in consumer advocacy''.

Although the OCC has a long and successful record of regulating for safety and soundness, it has little experience dealing with abusive local practices, such as predatory lending. Believe it or not, the OCC actually is proposing to handle all consumer complaints through a single 22-person call center in Houston. This is totally unrealistic. Each year, State officials receive thousands of related complaints, which usually are very local in nature. These officials are at the forefront of the enforcement effort, identifying and combating new practices as they arise. The OCC's system simply could not fill this role without major changes.

The OCC rule also raises concerns about regulatory charter competition, the viability of a broad range of state laws, and the ability of consumers and state officials to seek remedies in court.

The OCC rule has provoked strong opposition from governors, attorneys general, banking supervisors, and many consumer advocacy groups, not to mention the public. The OCC received over 2,600 letters in response to its rules, and more than 90 percent opposed them.

The Preservation of Federalism in Banking Act is a limited and reasonable response to the OCC rule. The bill will clarify the state consumer protection laws with which banks and their

affiliates must comply. It also will protect financial institutions from overreaching state laws that seek to directly regulate the core activities of national banks.

While the OCC has long had the statutory responsibility to regulate the activities of national banks, it has never denied the ability of states to protect their citizens. The OCC historically has used its authority under the National Bank Act in a reasonable way to shield national banks from state banking laws that intrude on the OCC's congressionally-granted powers. While we should continue to support the appropriate use of the agency's authority, it is important that we immediately intervene to reverse the OCC's regulatory overreach and prevent the agency from preempting all state consumer protection laws and state authority to enforce related laws.

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

Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Lautenberg, to introduce legislation to help ensure that convicted felons are not permitted to legally possess dangerous weapons. The bill would eliminate a discredited program under which convicted felons can apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, ATF, to seek a waiver that allows them to possess firearms or explosives.

Under Federal law, those convicted of felonies generally are prohibited from possessing firearms. However, ATF is authorized to grant a waiver from this prohibition if it believes that an individual is not likely to act in a manner that threatens public safety.

Interestingly, this waiver authority was enacted not to permit common criminals to obtain guns, but to assist a company called Winchester, which manufactures firearms. Winchester's parent company, Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation, had been convicted of a felony involving a kickback scheme. As a result, Winchester was legally prohibited from shipping firearms in interstate commerce. The provision was approved to allow Winchester to stay in business.

Because the provision was drafted broadly, however, the waiver provision applied to common criminals. Originally, waivers could not be granted to those convicted of firearms offenses. But in 1986, Congress expanded the law to allow even persons convicted of firearms offenses, and those involuntarily committed to a mental institution, to apply for a waiver.

Between 1981 and 1991, ATF processed more than 13,000 applications. These applications required some of ATF's best agents to abandon their law enforcement responsibilities and instead conduct extensive investigations on behalf of convicted felons. In the late 1980's, the cost of handling these petitions worked out to about $10,000 for each waiver granted--costs borne by ordinary taxpayers.

The Violence Policy Center investigated 100 cases in which a convicted felon had been allowed to legally possess firearms. In 41 percent of those cases, the felon had been convicted of a crime of violence, or a drug or firearms offense. The crimes of violence included several homicides, sexual assaults and armed robberies.

Between 1981 and 1991, 5600 waivers were granted. In many cases, those who regained their gun privileges later used their guns to commit serious crimes, such as attempted murder, rape, kidnapping, and child molestation.

This program makes no sense. It is not fair to taxpayers, who must foot the bill for ATF investigations. It is not fair to ATF agents, who have much more important things to do. And, most importantly, it is not fair to the public, whose safety is put at risk when convicted felons are allowed to carry guns.

Fortunately, there has long been bipartisan support for blocking the program. Since 1992, Congress has prohibited the use of appropriated funds to implement it, and President Bush's budget proposes that the prohibition be retained. Yet funding bans in appropriations bills are stopgap measures that are effective for only a single fiscal year. It is time to eliminate the waiver program permanently.

I urge my colleagues to support the legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to close a gaping loophole in the Medicaid law that allows pharmacies to double bill the Medicaid program for prescription drugs.

As you may know, many States are now encouraging or requiring health care facilities to return unused prescription drugs for Medicaid patients to pharmacies for re-dispensing as a way to save money. These drugs go unused because a nursing home patient has died, the prescription was incorrect, or the patient no longer needs the drugs.

Certainly, we should encourage states and pharmacies to re-dispense rather than simply discard these prescription drugs. However, while some States, including Connecticut, Missouri, and Texas, have laws that require pharmacies that re-stock drugs for re-dispensing to credit the State Medicaid program, many, including New Jersey, do not. This has resulted in pharmacy companies double charging Medicaid--for the sale and resale--of the restocked drugs.

We have an obligation to close this loophole. At a time in which all 50 States are proposing cuts to their Medicaid programs because of skyrocketing costs and the burden of these costs on the Federal Government continues to grow, we must eliminate such wasteful spending.

The absence of any Federal or State law or regulation prohibiting this practice has left our courts with no option but to allow this practice to continue. For example, a recent Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision found that a New Jersey pharmacy company, Omnicare, had indeed double charged the State's Medicaid program when it charged Medicaid twice for the sale and resale of restocked drugs. Because there was no State or Federal law prohibiting such double charges, however, the court could not assess penalties against the company. Writing for the court, Judge Jane Roth said, ``We are constrained by a lack of a regulation. We believe that Congress and/or the New Jersey legislature might serve Medicaid well if this lack of regulation were corrected.''

My legislation will close this loophole by prohibiting federal reimbursement for any prescription drugs that have been re-stocked. Recognizing that pharmacies that restock prescription drugs incur costs in verifying the integrity of the drugs and placing them back into the pharmacy's inventory, my legislation allows states to provide reasonable reimbursements to pharmacies for these costs.

In closing, I want to state that I am open to working with the Administration to close this loophole. I think that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have the authority to close this loophole and I hope that they will take immediate action to address this problem. This practice of double billing is nothing short of fraud. Congress and the Administration have a duty to safeguard the Medicaid program from such fraud, waste, and abuse. I urge my colleagues to join me in the effort to do just that.

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

Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Lautenberg, to introduce legislation to help ensure that convicted felons are not permitted to legally possess dangerous weapons. The bill would eliminate a discredited program under which convicted felons can apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, ATF, to seek a waiver that allows them to possess firearms or explosives.

Under Federal law, those convicted of felonies generally are prohibited from possessing firearms. However, ATF is authorized to grant a waiver from this prohibition if it believes that an individual is not likely to act in a manner that threatens public safety.

Interestingly, this waiver authority was enacted not to permit common criminals to obtain guns, but to assist a company called Winchester, which manufactures firearms. Winchester's parent company, Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation, had been convicted of a felony involving a kickback scheme. As a result, Winchester was legally prohibited from shipping firearms in interstate commerce. The provision was approved to allow Winchester to stay in business.

Because the provision was drafted broadly, however, the waiver provision applied to common criminals. Originally, waivers could not be granted to those convicted of firearms offenses. But in 1986, Congress expanded the law to allow even persons convicted of firearms offenses, and those involuntarily committed to a mental institution, to apply for a waiver.

Between 1981 and 1991, ATF processed more than 13,000 applications. These applications required some of ATF's best agents to abandon their law enforcement responsibilities and instead conduct extensive investigations on behalf of convicted felons. In the late 1980's, the cost of handling these petitions worked out to about $10,000 for each waiver granted--costs borne by ordinary taxpayers.

The Violence Policy Center investigated 100 cases in which a convicted felon had been allowed to legally possess firearms. In 41 percent of those cases, the felon had been convicted of a crime of violence, or a drug or firearms offense. The crimes of violence included several homicides, sexual assaults and armed robberies.

Between 1981 and 1991, 5600 waivers were granted. In many cases, those who regained their gun privileges later used their guns to commit serious crimes, such as attempted murder, rape, kidnapping, and child molestation.

This program makes no sense. It is not fair to taxpayers, who must foot the bill for ATF investigations. It is not fair to ATF agents, who have much more important things to do. And, most importantly, it is not fair to the public, whose safety is put at risk when convicted felons are allowed to carry guns.

Fortunately, there has long been bipartisan support for blocking the program. Since 1992, Congress has prohibited the use of appropriated funds to implement it, and President Bush's budget proposes that the prohibition be retained. Yet funding bans in appropriations bills are stopgap measures that are effective for only a single fiscal year. It is time to eliminate the waiver program permanently.

I urge my colleagues to support the legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to close a gaping loophole in the Medicaid law that allows pharmacies to double bill the Medicaid program for prescription drugs.

As you may know, many States are now encouraging or requiring health care facilities to return unused prescription drugs for Medicaid patients to pharmacies for re-dispensing as a way to save money. These drugs go unused because a nursing home patient has died, the prescription was incorrect, or the patient no longer needs the drugs.

Certainly, we should encourage states and pharmacies to re-dispense rather than simply discard these prescription drugs. However, while some States, including Connecticut, Missouri, and Texas, have laws that require pharmacies that re-stock drugs for re-dispensing to credit the State Medicaid program, many, including New Jersey, do not. This has resulted in pharmacy companies double charging Medicaid--for the sale and resale--of the restocked drugs.

We have an obligation to close this loophole. At a time in which all 50 States are proposing cuts to their Medicaid programs because of skyrocketing costs and the burden of these costs on the Federal Government continues to grow, we must eliminate such wasteful spending.

The absence of any Federal or State law or regulation prohibiting this practice has left our courts with no option but to allow this practice to continue. For example, a recent Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision found that a New Jersey pharmacy company, Omnicare, had indeed double charged the State's Medicaid program when it charged Medicaid twice for the sale and resale of restocked drugs. Because there was no State or Federal law prohibiting such double charges, however, the court could not assess penalties against the company. Writing for the court, Judge Jane Roth said, ``We are constrained by a lack of a regulation. We believe that Congress and/or the New Jersey legislature might serve Medicaid well if this lack of regulation were corrected.''

My legislation will close this loophole by prohibiting federal reimbursement for any prescription drugs that have been re-stocked. Recognizing that pharmacies that restock prescription drugs incur costs in verifying the integrity of the drugs and placing them back into the pharmacy's inventory, my legislation allows states to provide reasonable reimbursements to pharmacies for these costs.

In closing, I want to state that I am open to working with the Administration to close this loophole. I think that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have the authority to close this loophole and I hope that they will take immediate action to address this problem. This practice of double billing is nothing short of fraud. Congress and the Administration have a duty to safeguard the Medicaid program from such fraud, waste, and abuse. I urge my colleagues to join me in the effort to do just that.

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

Mr. President, I rise to recognize the 30th anniversary of the New Jersey Alliance for Action, an organization that has worked tirelessly to improve the quality of life for all New Jerseyans.

The New Jersey Alliance for Action is a nonprofit, nonpartisan consortium of business, labor, government and academic leaders dedicated to creating jobs, improving the economy and protecting the environment. These goals are achieved by modernizing our State's infrastructure to meet the needs of a growing New Jersey. Since its creation in 1974, the New Jersey Alliance for Action has worked to obtain funding and secure permits for road, rail, and aviation improvements, water projects, school construction, shore preservation, business expansion and other key infrastructure initiatives. Today, it boasts more than 600 dedicated members and has developed a solid track record of working closely with state and local governments.

The Board of Trustees of the New Jersey Alliance for Action is composed of some of New Jersey's most prominent business, labor, professional and educational leaders. Through creative partnerships between the public and private sectors, the foundation addresses many of the pressing issues that affect the great State of New Jersey.

While this organization is exemplary, two men must be singled out for their vision and hard work: Richard M. Hale and Ellis S. Vieser. They were responsible for creating an organization that crossed the boundaries, establishing an environment where the interests of New Jersey's citizens are top priority. We owe a deep debt of gratitude for their lifetime of dedication and remarkable leadership. They embodied a can-do attitude together with a sense of community. It is not difficult to see how the alliance has made such giant strides in such a relatively short period of time.

I thank the members of the New Jersey Alliance for Action for continuing the work of Richard M. Hale and Ellis S. Vieser. It is their commitment to the work of the alliance's founders that allows New Jersey to shine so brightly. Congratulations on this very special milestone.

I call up amendment No. 3671 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Absolutely.

Fifteen minutes or less.

I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors: Senators Biden, Durbin, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Landrieu, Feingold, and Leahy.

Mr. President, this amendment simply adds $75 million in support of an expanded African union mission in Darfur, Sudan, moneys critically needed to stop the genocide that we all agree, voted on on this floor, is occurring. Hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake. We have heard estimates north of 300,000 to as many as a million.

Actually, the life of the whole country is at stake. The facts on the ground are well known. There have been 1.2 million people violently displaced. So-called Janjaweed or the militia supported by the government of Sudan have deliberately and systematically destroyed villages, foodstocks, poisoned water supplies, murdered and raped civilians, and an estimated 50,000 civilians have died.

There is no dispute in this country about what is happening. We heard a declaration a week ago from Secretary Powell that the rightful term with regard to what is going on in Darfur is ``genocide.'' The question now is, what do we do about it? Are we responsible to give voice and meaning and money to do something to stop it?

It is terrific and it is very positive how the United States has reacted with regard to humanitarian assistance. It is critical if we hope to save lives, and it has made a huge difference. I know the majority leader, Senator Brownback, myself, and others have visited. The humanitarian aid is making a difference. Is that enough?

The real challenge is to make sure we stop the genocide, not just feed the hungry. We need to do everything we can to bring security to the people of Darfur.

During my 3-day visit, I spoke with an incredible number of displaced people from all over that area of Darfur, which is roughly the size of France, who described rape, murder, starvation, hundreds of thousands of people displaced, families broken up. It is time to act.

Even after people have been able to move into camps, they have described how the Janjaweed will come in after dark and continue harassing, hurting, and challenging the actual viability of the people in the camps.

The camps keep growing. There are more displaced people all the time who are attacked and forced from their homes. International humanitarian organizations are struggling to assist these folks. Our humanitarian aid has made a difference, as a number of us have seen, but it goes on and on. It is estimated that from illnesses, starvation, and other means, somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 people die a month. There is fear that it could accelerate if an epidemic were to take hold in one of these camps or in a number of them.

There is also a security problem. Poor humanitarian conditions within those camps are creating anger among the displaced people, which might be quite obvious to anyone. If my colleagues could have seen one of these places, people are living in hovels and without any kind of quality water considerations, even if they have rations and food. This anger that is building in the camps is fueling this revolution that is going on between the Government of Sudan and the Darfur rebels. It is inciting even more of it.

Given the complete lack of security and stability in the region, a seemingly endless crisis involving displaced people which will go on for years if there is not something done about both the security situation and the political situation, we are going to end up spending $500 million for as far as the eye can see to maintain people staying and living in these camps.

That does not make sense. Remember, if we build up the anger in those camps, what have we created? We have created a breeding ground for further violence and also the fomenting of terrorism. Remember, Sudan 8 years ago was the home to Osama bin Laden and the terrorist groups--al- Qaida.

We can help stop the genocide, bring security to Darfur, start to stabilize the region, and create the conditions for peace. What is more, there is at this brief critical moment a real consensus. You hear it in the Foreign Relations Committee. You read it in the newspapers. You see it from the people who are sponsoring the efforts on genocide. This is something we can deal with today if we are prepared to allow in this bill the resources that will allow the United States to help the African Union fund the kinds of peacekeeping troops on the ground that will make a difference.

Right now there are currently 125 African Union monitors in Darfur and an additional 305 monitors, watchers, protective forces for the monitors who are looking at this area that is the size of France. It is kind of ridiculous on the surface of it, as a peacekeeping force.

There is an opportunity. The African Union wants to provide the troops. It doesn't have the money. It doesn't have the logistical support. But it has the ability to put the troops on the ground.

We should not send American troops. Nobody is asking to send American troops. What we are trying to do is get the resources so we can stop this genocide by putting a legitimate peacekeeping force on the ground.

It is an incredible tradeoff. Are we going to continue to spend $500 million a year on humanitarian aid to keep people in camps or are we going to try to create a secure situation where people can go back to the villages, start their lives, and maintain some safety in their world? To me, this is an easy expenditure. It is a cost-benefit analysis that we should be able to understand. It brings an opportunity for people to have security in the villages, in and around the camps, and change the terms and conditions of security which is the precondition to get on with a political settlement between the Darfurian rebels and the central government--which, by the way, was also locked with the whole issue of how the southern Sudanese rebels and the central government were working together, which we as a nation have put so much effort to bring about. But this is standing in the way of that moving forward.

I do not understand why we would not want to make an investment that will work on the security, that will lay the pathway to have us get to a political settlement that will make a difference and save incredible amounts. This is being supported, endorsed, and embraced by African leaders across the continent. They just don't have the resources to deal with it. It is being led by Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, who currently heads the AU. He has done everything he can to get the rebels and the central government to negotiate a political settlement, but as long as there is continuing violence and anger building up in these camps, we are not going to get to that answer. We are not going to get to it, and we need to make sure we invest in something that will bring change, bring security as well as the humanitarian aid so we can get on with that political settlement.

There are very few times when you can say, if we invest $75 million now, over a longer period of time we will save having to bring all this humanitarian aid. People really care deeply about trying to prevent the kind of loss of life that is estimated by officials from all parts of the world. This is something that is clear and present and should be dealt with. This is where the United States ought to show the moral courage to stand up and act because there is something that is going to happen that is very clear in people's eyes if we do not.

I encourage my colleagues to say this is $75 million; it is going to be above

the budget resolution. If I am not mistaken, we just approved $146 billion worth of overage, over-budget resolutions, without any paying for it. Here we are talking about $75 million that can start us on the pathway to peace and protection of as many as 1.2 million individuals.

I hope we will be reasonable, particularly in light of how we dealt with the budget resolution on tax cuts. We ought to think about the cost-benefit that will be very obvious. It will make a real difference in human life and it is something we can all be proud of because we are making a statement that we want to stand with humanity on straightening out a very serious problem.

To reiterate, this amendment would add $75 million to support an expanded African Union mission in Darfur, Sudan. This money is critically needed to stop the genocide that we all agree is occurring there. Hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake, as is the future of an entire country.

The facts on the ground are now well known. There are 1.2 million people who have been violently displaced. The Janjaweed militia, supported by the Government of Sudan, have deliberately and systematically destroyed villages and food stocks, poisoned water supplies, murdered and raped civilians. An estimated 50,000 civilians have died.

There now is no dispute in this country about what is happening. On July 22, both houses of Congress spoke, calling the atrocities in Darfur by their rightful name: ``genocide.'' On September 9, Secretary of State Colin Powell made the same declaration. The question now is what do we do about it?

Humanitarian assistance is critical if we hope to save lives, and I have and will continue to push for the maximum amount of U.S. and international aid. The crisis in Darfur requires more than a half a billion dollars this year, and we are still hundreds of million of dollars short.

But we also must do everything we can to begin to bring security to Darfur. During my recent trip, I spoke with internally displaced people who described for me the attacks that forced them from their villages. I asked one man when he expected to return. He told me, ``maybe 30 years.'' Other displaced people told me how they can't venture outside the camps and how women are at constant risk of rape. They even described how the Janjaweed ride through the camps at night, terrorizing those who recently fled their attacks.

Meanwhile the camps are growing, as more and more displaced people are attacked and forced from their homes. As a result, the international humanitarian organizations are struggling to assist the new displaced people. When I was in Krinding camp, in Geneina, I saw newly arrived displaced people without shelter, huddling under makeshift lean-tos of sticks and pieces of burlap and other materials they had found. These conditions persist in the midst of the rainy season and are fueling the current death toll, which is estimated at between 6,000 and 10,000 a month.

The security problems and the poor humanitarian conditions in the camps are creating increasing anger among the displaced people. This rage risks spinning out of control and fueling the civil war currently being waged between the Government of Sudan and the rebels. Given the complete lack of security and stability in Darfur and the seemingly endless crisis involving displaced people, we can anticipate years of crisis--costing the international community half a billion dollars a year, eliminating any possibility of stability or economic growth in Sudan, and possibly leading to the kind of failed state that breeds chronic violence and terrorism.

We can help stop the genocide, bring security to Darfur, start to stabilize the region and create the conditions for peace. What's more, there is--at this brief and critical moment--real consensus, here in America and among our allies about what to do.

Our option--our only option at this time--is to support the mission of the African Union. There are currently 125 AU monitors in Darfur, sent following the cease fire signed between the Government of Sudan and the rebels on April 8 in Chad. There are also 305 Rwandan and Nigerian troops deployed as protection forces for the monitors. I visited the monitoring teams when I was in Darfur. Their efforts to investigate and document violations of the cease fire are critical to establishing accountability, and their presence and the presence of the troops are the only hope for deterring attacks by the warring parties and the Janjaweed.

But the small AU contingent is, by all accounts, insufficient. Darfur is the size of France, and much of it is not easily accessible. To really address the security crisis in Darfur, we need more monitoring teams, deployed throughout the region. And we need thousands of troops with an expanded mission, to protect civilians and bring security to the region. The monitors and troops need meaningful support--air lift, vehicles, communications equipment, and other resources. This support is not insignificant--the United Nations has estimated that a 4,200- person force will cost $228 million per year. But, when we are considering an indefinite humanitarian crisis costing half a billion a year, how can we fail to spend less than half that amount for the only possibility of stabilizing Darfur and eventually resolving what is, in the end, a political and military crisis.

As for the U.S. contribution, my amendment would make available $75 million for an expanded AU force, one third of the UN estimate. Clearly, we need to engage with the EU and our other allies, with Arab and Muslim countries, and with other member states of the UN so that support for the AU is truly an international endeavor. But we can provide real leadership by demonstrating America's commitment to ending this genocide, not just in words but in a real contribution to peace and security.

This particular moment is made even more critical by the fact that the African Union has stepped up. The AU's leadership, whom I met in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, has demonstrated initiative and courage in standing up to the Government of Sudan and insisting on a real and effective mission in Darfur. Almost 2 months ago, on July 27, 2004, the AU Peace and Security Council called for a ``comprehensive plan'' to enhance the effectiveness of the mission, including, ``the possibility of turning the mission into a full-fledged peacekeeping mission, with the requisite mandate and size,'' a mission that would emphasize, ``the disarmament and neutralization of the Janjaweed militia, the protection of the civilian population and the facilitation of the delivery of the humanitarian assistance.'' Then, on August 4, the AU as a whole stated its interest in expanding its force in Darfur to several thousand troops.

This vision has been pushed by visionary African leaders such as Nigerian President Obasanjo who currently heads the AU. President Obasanjo has not only supported an expanded role in Darfur, but pushed in his own country for more troops.

This will not be easy. The AU is a new institution and, despite its strong leadership, does not have meaningful experience, as a bureaucracy, with peacekeeping. Darfur is, in every sense, a real test of the AU. But it is also a test for us. African leaders are taking bold initiatives to confront a crisis on the continent, and we have expressed our support. But they need real help to succeed. If we merely support the AU in theory, but don't put resources where our mouth is, the tragedy will be almost beyond comprehension. Even beyond the genocide in Darfur, we will have set up the AU for failure at precisely the moment when it could really succeed. We will have crippled the AU, when it stands ready to help bring peace to this and other parts of Africa.

An expanded AU mission in Darfur has bipartisan support in Congress. The administration has also said, and begun to do, the right things. On September 9, Secretary Powell said:

The most practical contribution we can make to the security

of Darfur, in the short-term, is to do everything we can to

increase the number of Union monitors.

He also stated that the expansion of the AU force:

Will be first priority for our efforts in the days ahead.

We are currently providing $6.8 million to the tiny AU force now deployed in Darfur, and I was pleased that Secretary Powell came before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and identified another $20.5 million. But, as

Secretary Powell acknowledged, the expansion of the African Union force will require money, assets, planes, logistics support and current funding levels are simply not enough.

Finally, a word about the international support for an expanded AU mission. Last Saturday, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1564 which supported:

The intention of the African Union to enhance and augment

its monitoring mission in the Darfur region of Sudan.

The Resolution also urged member states to support the AU by providing all:

Equipment, logistical, financial, material, and other

resources necessary to support the rapid expansion of the

African Union Mission.

This is precisely what this amendment would do--it would support the AU and send a powerful message to the rest of the world that America will provide real, tangible leadership on this issue.

There is one sticking point, and that is the Government of Sudan, whose leadership has stated that it does not oppose the expansion of the AU force, but has hardly been welcoming. The Government of Sudan has also resisted any AU force with an explicit peacekeeping mandate. We must bring the full weight of the international community and use all available leverage, including the explicit threat of sanctions to get this expanded AU force on the ground. The Security Council resolution alluded to this threat, stating that if the Government of Sudan fails to cooperate fully with the expansion and extension of the AU mission, it would, quote, ``consider taking additional measures.''

While the resolution also made reference to Sudan's petroleum sector and measures against the Government of Sudan or individual members of the Government of Sudan, it could have been, and should have been much stronger and more specific. But, last week's Security Council action at least puts the international community on record. Now we need to treat this situation with the urgency it demands. We need to make it perfectly clear to the Government of Sudan that there will be multilateral sanctions if it does not cooperate with an expanded AU mission. This threat must be real. We cannot allow it to be watered down in the Security Council. Khartoum either allows the mission in, or it doesn't. The Council has said there will be consequences for not cooperating. Those consequences should be immediate; there should be no extensions.

And we should signal our seriousness to the Government of Sudan, to our allies and to the AU by putting in place everything that an expanded AU mission in Darfur will need. We have the resources to do this. There are practical ways for us to stop this genocide. We can, if we have the will, do this now.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Mikulski and my friend from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, as well, as cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. President, I am not certain but I think Senator DeWine wanted to speak. I don't know how much time we have left.

Mr. President, after much deliberation, I have decided to vote against the confirmation of Porter Goss to be Director of Central Intelligence. The conclusions of the 9/11 Commission, as well as the failures of our pre-war intelligence on Iraq, have demonstrated the enormous challenges we face in restructuring, reforming and improving our intelligence capabilities. At this critical moment, we should be focusing our efforts on enacting into law the recommendations of the commission, including the creation of the position of National Intelligence Director. The confirmation of a new Director of Central Intelligence, when the role of the DCI has yet to even be defined, does not advance the hard reform work yet to be done. Nor does the appointment of Porter Goss, whose objectivity, capacity to work across party lines, and openness to reform are subject to serious question.

The National Intelligence Director envisioned by the 9/11 Commission will oversee our intelligence community, including the DCI. It is critical that we clarify, in law, the relationship between these two positions. Unfortunately, the administration, by prioritizing the nomination of the DCI over the restructuring of our intelligence community, seems to be signaling an attachment to the status quo.

Congressman Goss's record, in which he has repeatedly rejected independent efforts to improve our intelligence whenever those efforts were perceived to be contrary to the interests of the Bush administration, is also cause for concern. He opposed the establishment of the 9/11 Commission, he attacked the integrity of Richard Clarke, the former coordinator for counter-terrorism at the National Security Council, he opposed an investigation into the disclosure of the identity of a CIA operative, and he referred to the bipartisan Senate investigation into the abuse of Iraqi detainees as a ``circus.''

Congressman Goss has also opposed investigations into intelligence on Iraq, in particular the use of intelligence by the administration. He dismissed Senators who called for an examination of the circumstances that led us to war as ``attack dogs'' and charged that they were expressing ``artificial outrage.'' He has also implied that open discussions of the challenges facing our intelligence damage the morale of our armed forces and aid our enemies. These are not the statements of someone who appears prepared to undertake the difficult work of reform, without regard to political considerations.

This reform will require cooperation between the administration and the Congress and between Republicans and Democrats. Unfortunately, Congressman Goss has made repeated, incendiary charges, including allegations that the Democratic Party does not support the intelligence community and that Senator Kerry seeks to ``dismantle the nation's intelligence capabilities.'' These charges are not only flat wrong, they are completely counterproductive to the bipartisan effort that is urgently needed at this moment.

Repairing our intelligence capabilities is critical to fighting the war on

terrorism and is an urgent priority. We must enact into law the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. We must examine the failures of our intelligence related to Iraq. We must begin the work of restructuring our intelligence community so that it is more effective and less politicized. These challenges require the utmost objectivity, independence, and nonpartisanship from the Director of Central Intelligence. Any reluctance on the part of the DCI to fully engage in the reform process, for whatever reason, could set us back at a moment when we can least afford it.

Mr. President, today, along with Senator Daschle, Senator Baucus and Senator Durbin, I am submitting a resolution that calls on the Congress to reject Social Security privatization plans, including those that require deep cuts in guaranteed benefits, such as the proposals by President Bush's Social Security Commission.

For nearly 70 years, Social Security has reflected the best of America's values. Social Security promises Americans that if you work hard, pay your taxes, and play by the rules, you will be able to retire and live in dignity.

Social Security benefits are far from lavish. The average retiree receives only about $900 a month. That doesn't go far in many parts of the country--certainly not in New Jersey. Unfortunately, even the benefits promised under current law are now at risk.

President Bush says he wants to move toward privatization. But what he does not say is that shifting funds from the Social Security Trust Fund into privatized accounts almost inevitably leads to deep cuts in guaranteed benefits.

To appreciate the depth of the cuts that flow from privatization, one need only consider the privatization plans developed by President Bush's own Social Security Commission. That commission included only proponents of privatization selected by President Bush, and it developed privatization plans that call for deep benefits cuts. According to the nonpartisan actuaries at the Social Security Administration, those cuts would exceed 25 percent for some current workers. In the future, seniors could face a 45 percent cut in benefits.

The President likes to argue that privatization is about choice. But there would be no choice about these cuts--they would harm every senior. In fact, those who chose to participate in privatized accounts would see their benefits cut even deeper.

That is why, in response to the Bush Commission's report, 50 members of the Senate wrote to President Bush, urging him to reject the Commission's proposed cuts in benefits. Unfortunately, we have yet to receive a response.

Privatization advocates try to justify cuts in Social Security by pointing to future projected shortfalls in the Trust Fund. But diverting payroll taxes from the Trust Fund only makes matters worse, and would substantially accelerate the date by which the Fund would become insolvent. That is why privatization almost inevitably leads to deep cuts in benefits.

It is critical that this issue be fully discussed now--before the election. So I will be looking for an opportunity to bring this resolution before the Senate before the end of the year. I hope we can kill this radical idea before it has a chance to get off the ground.

We must never accept any plan that takes the security out of Social Security.

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

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to modify amendment No. 3619 at the desk. The change is to allow for funding of the offset of the proposed amendment, regarding chemical security plants.

Yes.

Mr. President, I send the modified amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, this amendment addresses one of the most serious security threats facing our Nation: the threat of terrorist attacks on chemical facilities. It is a subject I have worked on with a number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle over the last 3 years. It addresses an issue where there are literally thousands of chemical facilities across the country where a chemical release could expose tens of thousands of Americans to highly toxic gases.

I have tried to stress that there are 123 of these where more than a million people could be exposed. About eight of those are in New Jersey, so this is an intensely important subject matter for the community I represent. We need to change this.

While we are working today on the Department of Homeland Security appropriations, there is authorizing legislation working through the Environment and Public Works Committee that would deal with this problem. I want to be a constructive element in bringing that to a conclusion. We have a security problem now with our chemical plants. My modified amendment would provide $70 million to State and local governments in order to enhance the security of those chemical plants. Also, it includes that offset I mentioned, which is changed from the original version of the amendment.

This amendment only takes a modest first step by appropriating that money to these State and local efforts. Funds could be used, for example, to strengthen law enforcement's presence around chemical plants. When we go to Code Orange, the Department of Homeland Security requests that our local law enforcement provide additional security for these plants. It is not like they are not doing this already. That is overtime for additional individuals. Also, this money would go to train and prepare officials to respond to a terrorist attack. The release of a chemical toxic cloud is not like fighting a fire; it takes different kinds of actions. This amendment would provide some of that support. It would also provide guidance and assistance to plant managers. It would have the proper interface with State and local officials on how to respond and maybe even prevent attacks on chemical security plants.

As I said, the funds will be offset by eliminating funds for a new Department of Homeland Security performance pay system, and we will provide the resources that I think--at least looking at a tradeoff of how I see it in New Jersey, and I think it is the case across the country, since 123 plants expose more than a million people, it is a good tradeoff. It may be an important issue to get on with pay systems, but I don't understand how we trade that off versus the security of the individuals who surround the plants.

Remember, these plants were built in a different era, at a different time. They are very prominently located in densely populated areas in the country. We ought to do what we can to protect them. One of the ways is to provide these funds. That is what this amendment is about. I spoke about it at length the other day on the Senate floor. I believe very strongly that there are real reasons for us to pay attention to chemical plant security in this country. Every time the Department of Homeland Security raises the code level, they mention chemical plant security. It is in the Hart-Rudman report. It is in studies of the vulnerabilities of the critical infrastructure in this country. We ought to take special steps to make sure there is security at these plants. We would not tolerate the kind of security arrangement we have in chemical plants if

they were nuclear powerplants, and there are as many people exposed to these toxic exposures, if there were to be a terrorist attack, as there would be in many, if not most, nuclear powerplants, which are located in many different areas.

I hope my colleagues will realize this is an important consideration, a modest first step. It is paid for, and I believe we can make the American people a little bit more secure by adjusting where we are spending $70 million to provide for chemical plant security. I appreciate it, and I hope that it will be favorably considered by my colleagues.

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

Mr. President, this amendment addresses one of the most serious security threats we have in the Nation, the threat of terrorist attack on our chemical plants. There are literally thousands--not 230 but literally thousands--of plants that are exposed to more than 10,000 folks in the country; 123 plants expose a million people or more.

My amendment provides $70 million to State and local governments, particularly to focus on this issue of security of chemical plants. It includes an offset, as I mentioned a few minutes ago.

The facts speak loudly: We need to address chemical plants. Time and time again, there are reports where people can walk on to plants without there being any kind of protection and actually following through on a lot of the security plans that were talked about before.

There is a whole further authorization bill working its way through the Environment and Public Works Committee right now, which is a very bipartisan effort to try to get at this issue, but we need to do something now.

There are, as I said, literally thousands of plants across this country. We need to provide the support to State and local officials to be able to provide the security, the overtime, needed at these plants, and particularly when we raise our code levels. The lack of security at our chemical plants has been cited as one of the greatest threats to our infrastructure. We need to provide for training. We need to provide funds for guidance and assistance to plant managers and for other steps that State and local officials can take to prevent and respond to attacks on chemical plants.

I hope my colleagues will recognize we have a problem. We ought to be doing everything we can to support and protect the American people.