Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, in introducing legislation to prohibit health insurers from denying benefits to plan participants if they are injured while engaging in legal recreational activities like skiing, snowmobiling, or horseback riding.

Among the many rules that were issued at the end of the Clinton Administration was one that was intended to ensure non-discrimination in health coverage in the group market. This rule was issued jointly on January 8, 2001, by the Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service and the Health Care Financing Administration--now the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services--in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996.

While I was pleased that the rule prohibits health plans and issuers from denying coverage to individuals who engage in certain types of recreational activities, such as skiing, horseback riding, snowmobiling or motorcycling, I am extremely concerned that it would allow insurers to deny health benefits for an otherwise covered injury that results from participation in these activities.

The rule states that: ``While a person cannot be excluded from a plan for engaging in certain recreational activities, benefits for a particular injury can, in some cases, be excluded based on the source of the injury.'' A plan could, for example, include a general exclusion for injuries sustained while

doing a specified list of recreational activities, even though treatment for those injuries--a broken arm for instance--would have been covered under the plan if the individual had tripped and fallen.

Because of this loophole, an individual who was injured while skiing or running could be denied health care coverage, while someone who is injured while drinking and driving a car would be protected.

This clearly is contrary to Congressional intent. One of the purposes of HIPAA was to prohibit plans and issuers from establishing eligibility rules for health coverage based on certain health-related factors, including evidence of insurability. To underscore that point, the conference report language stated that ``the inclusion of evidence of insurability in the definition of health status is intended to ensure, among other things, that individuals are not excluded from health care coverage due to their participation in activities such as motorcycling, snowmobiling, all-terrain vehicle riding, horseback riding, skiing and other similar activities.'' The conference report also states that ``this provision is meant to prohibit insurers or employers from excluding employees in a group from coverage or charging them higher premiums based on their health status and other related factors that could lead to higher health costs.''

Millions of Americans participate in these legal and common recreational activities which, if practiced with appropriate precautions, do not significantly increase the likelihood of serious injury. Moreover, in enacting HIPAA, Congress simply did not intend that people would be allowed to purchase health insurance only to find out, after the fact, that they have no coverage for an injury resulting from a common recreational activity. If this rule is allowed to stand, millions of Americans will be forced to forgo recreational activities that they currently enjoy lest they have an accident and find out that they are not covered for needed care resulting from that accident.

The legislation that we are introducing today will clarify that individuals participating in activities routinely enjoyed by millions of Americans cannot be denied access to health care coverage or health benefits as a result of their activities. The bill should not be controversial. In fact, it passed the Senate by unanimous consent last November. Unfortunately, however, the House did not have time to act before the end of the Congress.

I am therefore hopeful that we will be able to move quickly on this legislation this year, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Women's History Museum Act of 2005. I appreciate the support of my colleagues who have helped in this important effort and who have agreed to be cosponsors, including Senators Landrieu, Dole, Mikulski, Hutchison, Boxer, Snowe, Cantwell, Murkowski, Clinton, Feinstein, Lincoln, Murray, Stabenow, Voinovich, Akaka, Bennett, Durbin, Lautenberg, Sarbanes, and Pryor. I introduced this bill last Congress, and it passed the Senate unanimously.

The need to establish a museum recognizing the contributions of American women is clear. There is currently no national institution in the Washington, D.C. area that is dedicated to the legacy of women's contributions throughout our country's history. Sadly, fewer than 5 percent of the Nation's 2,200 National Historic Landmarks are dedicated to women, a troubling fact given the significant contributions of women throughout our Nation's history.

The proposed legislation would direct the General Services Administration (GSA) to negotiate and enter into an occupancy agreement with the National Women's History Museum, Inc. (NWHM) to establish a museum in the currently vacant Pavilion Annex of the Old Post Office building in Washington, D.C. The NWHM is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, educational institution in the District of Columbia that was created to research and present the historic contributions that women have made to all aspects of human endeavor and to present the contributions that women have made to the Nation in their various roles in family, the economy, and society. In 1999, the President's Commission on the celebrating of Women in American History concluded that ``efforts to implement an appropriate celebration of women's history in the next millennium should include,the designation of a focal point for women's history in our Nation's capital,'' citing the efforts of the NWHM to implement this goal.

The proposed legislation would serve two important purposes: Creating, as the President's Commission recommended, a national women's museum in the District of Columbia and, by designating the Pavilion Annex, utilizing a currently vacant space on Pennsylvania Avenue, considered ``America's Main Street.''

I would note that, last Congress the Government Accountability Office

(GAO) placed real property on its High Risk list noting that vacant and underutilized properties present significant potential risks to Federal agencies including lost dollars because of the need for maintenance and lost opportunities because the property could be put to more beneficial uses. The Annex has been vacant for more than 10 years and it is unclear whether, if at all, GSA will be able to generate a use for the building. While the adjacent Old Post Office is a national historic landmark, the Annex is not and has sat vacant and deteriorating for years, while Federal dollars are used to keep it maintained and secured.

In addition, the proposed legislation would generate revenue from this now vacant property for the Federal Government through rental payments, based on the fair market value. The museum would also benefit the city by drawing an estimated 1.5 million visitors annually to the District and promoting economic activities by attracting tourists.

I believe this legislation is clearly a win-win situation.

There is strong precedent for this type of legislation. In fact, museums in the District of Columbia are historically established by Congress through legislation that authorizes the use of Federal land or buildings. One recent legislative example is the National Museum for African American History and Culture, which identified potential sites for such a Museum. Another example is the National Law Enforcement Museum Act, which authorized the National Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial Fund, Inc. to build a Museum on Federal land. The current Building Museum located in the historic Pension Building was authorized by an act of Congress.

I believe that just as these museums serve very important public purposes of educating visitors about important aspects of our history and culture, so also would a national women's history museum fill a void in telling the story of women in our history.

The most compelling reasons to support this important piece of legislation are the stories of the women in American history, who helped change and shape our Nation: Women who were and are trailblazers such as Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court; Sally Ride, who was the first American woman in space; and Madeleine Albright, who was the first woman U.S. Secretary of State. We should ensure that the stories of women with unwavering bravery are told. Women like Harriet Tubman, who led slaves to freedom using the underground railroad, and Rosa Parks, who sparked a movement just by refusing to sit in the back of a bus. A national museum would record this history and tells the stories of these pioneering women, so that others might be inspired by them.

One woman who inspired me and who is my own role model is the woman who served in the Senate seat that I now hold, Maine's own Margaret Chase Smith, who was the first woman nominated for president of the United States by a major political party and the first woman to serve in both houses of Congress. Senator Smith began representing Maine in 1940. She was a woman who embodied the independent spirit of Maine. She was from Skowhegan and was known as a smart, courageous, and independent Member of Congress. Long after it became commonplace for women to serve in the highest ranks of our government, Senator Smith will be remembered in Maine and the Nation for her courage and service.

These women, and many like them, are the reason I am proud to sponsor a bill directing that the Old Post Office Annex be made available to house the National Women's History Museum. Women's history needs a place in our Capital and in our collective American history, so that we all cannot only learn about our past, but also be inspired to make history of our own.

I urge that my colleagues support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Women's History Museum Act of 2005. I appreciate the support of my colleagues who have helped in this important effort and who have agreed to be cosponsors, including Senators Landrieu, Dole, Mikulski, Hutchison, Boxer, Snowe, Cantwell, Murkowski, Clinton, Feinstein, Lincoln, Murray, Stabenow, Voinovich, Akaka, Bennett, Durbin, Lautenberg, Sarbanes, and Pryor. I introduced this bill last Congress, and it passed the Senate unanimously.

The need to establish a museum recognizing the contributions of American women is clear. There is currently no national institution in the Washington, D.C. area that is dedicated to the legacy of women's contributions throughout our country's history. Sadly, fewer than 5 percent of the Nation's 2,200 National Historic Landmarks are dedicated to women, a troubling fact given the significant contributions of women throughout our Nation's history.

The proposed legislation would direct the General Services Administration (GSA) to negotiate and enter into an occupancy agreement with the National Women's History Museum, Inc. (NWHM) to establish a museum in the currently vacant Pavilion Annex of the Old Post Office building in Washington, D.C. The NWHM is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, educational institution in the District of Columbia that was created to research and present the historic contributions that women have made to all aspects of human endeavor and to present the contributions that women have made to the Nation in their various roles in family, the economy, and society. In 1999, the President's Commission on the celebrating of Women in American History concluded that ``efforts to implement an appropriate celebration of women's history in the next millennium should include,the designation of a focal point for women's history in our Nation's capital,'' citing the efforts of the NWHM to implement this goal.

The proposed legislation would serve two important purposes: Creating, as the President's Commission recommended, a national women's museum in the District of Columbia and, by designating the Pavilion Annex, utilizing a currently vacant space on Pennsylvania Avenue, considered ``America's Main Street.''

I would note that, last Congress the Government Accountability Office

(GAO) placed real property on its High Risk list noting that vacant and underutilized properties present significant potential risks to Federal agencies including lost dollars because of the need for maintenance and lost opportunities because the property could be put to more beneficial uses. The Annex has been vacant for more than 10 years and it is unclear whether, if at all, GSA will be able to generate a use for the building. While the adjacent Old Post Office is a national historic landmark, the Annex is not and has sat vacant and deteriorating for years, while Federal dollars are used to keep it maintained and secured.

In addition, the proposed legislation would generate revenue from this now vacant property for the Federal Government through rental payments, based on the fair market value. The museum would also benefit the city by drawing an estimated 1.5 million visitors annually to the District and promoting economic activities by attracting tourists.

I believe this legislation is clearly a win-win situation.

There is strong precedent for this type of legislation. In fact, museums in the District of Columbia are historically established by Congress through legislation that authorizes the use of Federal land or buildings. One recent legislative example is the National Museum for African American History and Culture, which identified potential sites for such a Museum. Another example is the National Law Enforcement Museum Act, which authorized the National Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial Fund, Inc. to build a Museum on Federal land. The current Building Museum located in the historic Pension Building was authorized by an act of Congress.

I believe that just as these museums serve very important public purposes of educating visitors about important aspects of our history and culture, so also would a national women's history museum fill a void in telling the story of women in our history.

The most compelling reasons to support this important piece of legislation are the stories of the women in American history, who helped change and shape our Nation: Women who were and are trailblazers such as Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court; Sally Ride, who was the first American woman in space; and Madeleine Albright, who was the first woman U.S. Secretary of State. We should ensure that the stories of women with unwavering bravery are told. Women like Harriet Tubman, who led slaves to freedom using the underground railroad, and Rosa Parks, who sparked a movement just by refusing to sit in the back of a bus. A national museum would record this history and tells the stories of these pioneering women, so that others might be inspired by them.

One woman who inspired me and who is my own role model is the woman who served in the Senate seat that I now hold, Maine's own Margaret Chase Smith, who was the first woman nominated for president of the United States by a major political party and the first woman to serve in both houses of Congress. Senator Smith began representing Maine in 1940. She was a woman who embodied the independent spirit of Maine. She was from Skowhegan and was known as a smart, courageous, and independent Member of Congress. Long after it became commonplace for women to serve in the highest ranks of our government, Senator Smith will be remembered in Maine and the Nation for her courage and service.

These women, and many like them, are the reason I am proud to sponsor a bill directing that the Old Post Office Annex be made available to house the National Women's History Museum. Women's history needs a place in our Capital and in our collective American history, so that we all cannot only learn about our past, but also be inspired to make history of our own.

I urge that my colleagues support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, Senate Standing Rule XXVI requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedure of the committee and to publish those rules in the Record not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress. On February 28, 2005, a majority of the members of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations adopted subcommittee rules of procedure.

Consistent with Standing Rule XXVI, today I am submitting for printing in the Record a copy of the rules of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

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

Mr. President, I rise to join with my senior colleague from Maine in sponsoring the Commercial Truck Highway Safety Demonstration Program Act, an important bill that addresses a significant safety problem in our State.

Under current law, trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are allowed to travel on Interstate 95 from Maine's border with New Hampshire to Augusta, our capital city. At Augusta, trucks are forced off Interstate 95, which proceeds north to Houlton. Heavy trucks are forced onto smaller, secondary roads that pass through cities, towns and villages.

Trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds are permitted on interstate highways in New Hampshire, Massachusetts and New York as well as the Canadian provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec. The weight limit disparity on various segments of Maine's interstate highway system forces trucks traveling to and from destinations in these States and provinces to use Maine's State and local roads, nearly all of which have two lanes, rather than four. Consequently, many Maine communities along the interstate see substantially more truck traffic than would

otherwise be the case if the weight limit were 100,000 pounds for all of Maine's interstate highways.

The problem Maine faces due to the disparity in truck weight limits affects many communities and is clearly evident in the eastern Maine cities of Bangor and Brewer. In this region, a 2-mile stretch of Interstate 395 connects two major State highways that carry significant truck traffic across Maine. I-395 affords direct and safe access between these major corridors, but because of the existing Federal truck weight limit, many heavy trucks are prohibited from using this multi-lane, limited access highway.

Instead, these trucks, which sometimes carry hazardous materials, are required to maneuver through the downtown portions of Bangor and Brewer on two-lane roadways. Truckers are faced with two options; the first is a 3.5-mile diversion through downtown Bangor that requires several very difficult and dangerous turns. The second route is a 7.5-mile diversion that includes 20 traffic lights and requires travel through portions of downtown Bangor, as well. Congestion is a significant issue and safety is seriously compromised as a result of these required diversions.

A recent study, conducted by the Maine Department of Transportation, found that the accident rate between 2000 and 2003--per 100 million vehicle miles traveled--was more than four times higher on two-lane roads than on the Maine Turnpike, which had four lanes at the time of the study. A uniform truck weight limit of 100,000 pounds on Maine's interstate highways would reduce highway miles, as well as the travel times necessary to transport freight through Maine, resulting in safety, economic, and environmental benefits.

Moreover, Maine's extensive network and local roads would be better preserved without the wear and tear of heavy truck traffic. Most important, however, a uniform truck weight limit will keep trucks on the interstate where they belong, rather than on roads and highways that pass through Maine's cities, towns, and neighborhoods.

The legislation that Senator Snowe and I are introducing addresses the safety issues we face in Maine because of the disparities in truck weight limits. The legislation directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a commercial truck safety pilot program in Maine. Under the pilot program, the truck weight limit on all Maine highways that are part of the Interstate Highway System would be set at 100,000 pounds for 3 years. During the waiver period, the Secretary would study the impact of the pilot program on safety and would receive the input of a panel on which State officials, and representatives from safety organizations, municipalities, and the commercial trucking industry would serve. The waiver would become permanent if the panel determined that motorists were safer as a result of a uniform truck weight limit on Maine's interstate highway system.

Maine's citizens and motorists are needlessly at risk because too many heavy trucks are forced off the interstate and onto local roads. The legislation Senator Snowe and I are introducing is a commonsense approach to a significant safety problem in my State. I hope my colleagues will support passage of this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to join with my senior colleague from Maine in sponsoring the Commercial Truck Highway Safety Demonstration Program Act, an important bill that addresses a significant safety problem in our State.

Under current law, trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are allowed to travel on Interstate 95 from Maine's border with New Hampshire to Augusta, our capital city. At Augusta, trucks are forced off Interstate 95, which proceeds north to Houlton. Heavy trucks are forced onto smaller, secondary roads that pass through cities, towns and villages.

Trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds are permitted on interstate highways in New Hampshire, Massachusetts and New York as well as the Canadian provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec. The weight limit disparity on various segments of Maine's interstate highway system forces trucks traveling to and from destinations in these States and provinces to use Maine's State and local roads, nearly all of which have two lanes, rather than four. Consequently, many Maine communities along the interstate see substantially more truck traffic than would

otherwise be the case if the weight limit were 100,000 pounds for all of Maine's interstate highways.

The problem Maine faces due to the disparity in truck weight limits affects many communities and is clearly evident in the eastern Maine cities of Bangor and Brewer. In this region, a 2-mile stretch of Interstate 395 connects two major State highways that carry significant truck traffic across Maine. I-395 affords direct and safe access between these major corridors, but because of the existing Federal truck weight limit, many heavy trucks are prohibited from using this multi-lane, limited access highway.

Instead, these trucks, which sometimes carry hazardous materials, are required to maneuver through the downtown portions of Bangor and Brewer on two-lane roadways. Truckers are faced with two options; the first is a 3.5-mile diversion through downtown Bangor that requires several very difficult and dangerous turns. The second route is a 7.5-mile diversion that includes 20 traffic lights and requires travel through portions of downtown Bangor, as well. Congestion is a significant issue and safety is seriously compromised as a result of these required diversions.

A recent study, conducted by the Maine Department of Transportation, found that the accident rate between 2000 and 2003--per 100 million vehicle miles traveled--was more than four times higher on two-lane roads than on the Maine Turnpike, which had four lanes at the time of the study. A uniform truck weight limit of 100,000 pounds on Maine's interstate highways would reduce highway miles, as well as the travel times necessary to transport freight through Maine, resulting in safety, economic, and environmental benefits.

Moreover, Maine's extensive network and local roads would be better preserved without the wear and tear of heavy truck traffic. Most important, however, a uniform truck weight limit will keep trucks on the interstate where they belong, rather than on roads and highways that pass through Maine's cities, towns, and neighborhoods.

The legislation that Senator Snowe and I are introducing addresses the safety issues we face in Maine because of the disparities in truck weight limits. The legislation directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a commercial truck safety pilot program in Maine. Under the pilot program, the truck weight limit on all Maine highways that are part of the Interstate Highway System would be set at 100,000 pounds for 3 years. During the waiver period, the Secretary would study the impact of the pilot program on safety and would receive the input of a panel on which State officials, and representatives from safety organizations, municipalities, and the commercial trucking industry would serve. The waiver would become permanent if the panel determined that motorists were safer as a result of a uniform truck weight limit on Maine's interstate highway system.

Maine's citizens and motorists are needlessly at risk because too many heavy trucks are forced off the interstate and onto local roads. The legislation Senator Snowe and I are introducing is a commonsense approach to a significant safety problem in my State. I hope my colleagues will support passage of this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Russ Feingold, to introduce the ``Purchase Card Waste Elimination Act of 2005,'' to help eliminate wasteful spending that can occur when the Government neglects to pay attention to where it makes its purchases.

Last year, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, now the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, explored the Government's use of purchase cards and we learned about ways to save an estimated $300 million annually through better management of purchase cards. Purchase cards are, in essence, credit cards that agencies give to its employees for the purpose of obtaining goods and services for the Federal Government. In fact, under Federal acquisition law, purchase cards are the Government's preferred method for making what are known as ``micropurchases''--that is items costing $2,500 or less. Although Government employees spend billions of dollars with purchase cards each year, Federal agencies do very little to analyze the items obtained with purchase cards in an attempt to get a better price for the Government.

The American people have the right to expect the Federal Government to spend their tax dollars carefully and wisely. While this is true at all times, it is never more so than today when the Government is running large budget deficits. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has a special role to play in reducing wasteful spending, and I have made this role a priority at the Committee. This legislation is one aspect of our committee's efforts to reduce waste, fraud and abuse in Government spending.

Purchase cards came into Federal Government-wide use in 1989. They allow Government employees to easily and efficiently purchase routine items such as office supplies, computers and copying machines. While they are generally used for small purchases, they accounted for more than $16 billion in Federal spending in 2003. In 1994, they accounted for only $1 billion.

This increase in use is good news because it means that more Government spending is being executed in an expeditious manner that reduces red tape and saves on administrative costs. At the same time, the use of purchase cards should enable us to conduct comprehensive analysis of how this $16 billion is spent and where. This information could be analyzed and used to further reduce the Federal Government's costs. At present, however, this is not being done.

Last year, Senator Feingold, Representative Schakowsky and I released a report by the Government Accountability Office identifying missed opportunities for savings. According to that report the missed savings were due to both a lack of training and a lack of management attention and oversight. According to GAO, too many purchase cardholders failed to obtain readily available discounts on purchase cards buys. Even where the Government and the vendor had negotiated a discounted price for items through the General Services Administration schedules, Federal employees with purchase cards failed to take advantage of the discounted prices and their managers were completely unaware of those lost

opportunities to save. One example of a repeated lost opportunity to save was the Department of the Interior's purchases of printer toner cartridges. One GSA schedule vendor offered the toner for only $24.99. Yet, of the Department's 791 toner cartridge purchases, only two were at or below that price. Some cartridges were purchased for $34.99, which is about 40 percent higher than the GSA schedule price.

In addition to failing to use available schedule prices, GAO found that agencies failed to negotiate lower prices with vendors with whom they frequently used purchase cards. In the private sector, most companies that use the same vendor for a lot of purchases would negotiate some sort of volume discount. But before they would attempt to negotiate savings the company would first need to understand its spending patterns. Because Federal agencies lack a comprehensive understanding of where its employees are using Government purchase cards, Federal agencies are unable to replicate this practice.

At my request, GAO analyzed purchase card use at the six Federal agencies that account for 85 percent of Government purchase card usage. As a result of that analysis, GAO estimated that $300 million per year could be saved if agencies improved their purchase card buying practices.

Under our legislation, the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, would direct agencies to better train their cardholders and more effectively analyze their spending data. It would also direct the GSA to increase its efforts to improve its efforts to secure discounts with vendors and provide agencies with more guidance to reduce wasteful spending.

The American people have the right to expect the Federal Government to spend their tax dollars wisely. I urge our colleagues to cosponsor and support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Russ Feingold, to introduce the ``Purchase Card Waste Elimination Act of 2005,'' to help eliminate wasteful spending that can occur when the Government neglects to pay attention to where it makes its purchases.

Last year, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, now the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, explored the Government's use of purchase cards and we learned about ways to save an estimated $300 million annually through better management of purchase cards. Purchase cards are, in essence, credit cards that agencies give to its employees for the purpose of obtaining goods and services for the Federal Government. In fact, under Federal acquisition law, purchase cards are the Government's preferred method for making what are known as ``micropurchases''--that is items costing $2,500 or less. Although Government employees spend billions of dollars with purchase cards each year, Federal agencies do very little to analyze the items obtained with purchase cards in an attempt to get a better price for the Government.

The American people have the right to expect the Federal Government to spend their tax dollars carefully and wisely. While this is true at all times, it is never more so than today when the Government is running large budget deficits. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has a special role to play in reducing wasteful spending, and I have made this role a priority at the Committee. This legislation is one aspect of our committee's efforts to reduce waste, fraud and abuse in Government spending.

Purchase cards came into Federal Government-wide use in 1989. They allow Government employees to easily and efficiently purchase routine items such as office supplies, computers and copying machines. While they are generally used for small purchases, they accounted for more than $16 billion in Federal spending in 2003. In 1994, they accounted for only $1 billion.

This increase in use is good news because it means that more Government spending is being executed in an expeditious manner that reduces red tape and saves on administrative costs. At the same time, the use of purchase cards should enable us to conduct comprehensive analysis of how this $16 billion is spent and where. This information could be analyzed and used to further reduce the Federal Government's costs. At present, however, this is not being done.

Last year, Senator Feingold, Representative Schakowsky and I released a report by the Government Accountability Office identifying missed opportunities for savings. According to that report the missed savings were due to both a lack of training and a lack of management attention and oversight. According to GAO, too many purchase cardholders failed to obtain readily available discounts on purchase cards buys. Even where the Government and the vendor had negotiated a discounted price for items through the General Services Administration schedules, Federal employees with purchase cards failed to take advantage of the discounted prices and their managers were completely unaware of those lost

opportunities to save. One example of a repeated lost opportunity to save was the Department of the Interior's purchases of printer toner cartridges. One GSA schedule vendor offered the toner for only $24.99. Yet, of the Department's 791 toner cartridge purchases, only two were at or below that price. Some cartridges were purchased for $34.99, which is about 40 percent higher than the GSA schedule price.

In addition to failing to use available schedule prices, GAO found that agencies failed to negotiate lower prices with vendors with whom they frequently used purchase cards. In the private sector, most companies that use the same vendor for a lot of purchases would negotiate some sort of volume discount. But before they would attempt to negotiate savings the company would first need to understand its spending patterns. Because Federal agencies lack a comprehensive understanding of where its employees are using Government purchase cards, Federal agencies are unable to replicate this practice.

At my request, GAO analyzed purchase card use at the six Federal agencies that account for 85 percent of Government purchase card usage. As a result of that analysis, GAO estimated that $300 million per year could be saved if agencies improved their purchase card buying practices.

Under our legislation, the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, would direct agencies to better train their cardholders and more effectively analyze their spending data. It would also direct the GSA to increase its efforts to improve its efforts to secure discounts with vendors and provide agencies with more guidance to reduce wasteful spending.

The American people have the right to expect the Federal Government to spend their tax dollars wisely. I urge our colleagues to cosponsor and support this legislation.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Virginia and, from the minority's time, I will yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New York.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York for his excellent statement.

I see a very valuable member of the committee, the Senator from Hawaii, is here to speak. I am prepared to yield to him 10 minutes from the minority side.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Hawaii for his excellent statement. He is a very valuable member of the committee, and I very much enjoy working with him.

I rise again today in support of the nomination of Judge Michael Chertoff to be the new Secretary of Homeland Security. As the Presiding Officer knows better than most, this is one of the most challenging and critical jobs in the entire Federal Government. Judge Chertoff is clearly the right person to take the helm of this Department, and it is past time to put him in that post.

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs held a nomination hearing for Judge Chertoff on February 2. It was a long and thorough hearing. Judge Chertoff answered every question posed to him fully and candidly. His responses to more than 250 written questions my committee presented to him were just as forthright. His nomination was endorsed by a unanimous vote.

I mention this because there should be no impression among our colleagues that our committee did not do a thorough job in questioning Judge Chertoff. To the contrary, he was subjected to hundreds of questions. He responded to every question posed to him at our committee's lengthy nomination hearing. And every member of the committee, on both sides of the aisle, had ample opportunity to question Judge Chertoff on whatever issues they wished to raise with him.

In fact, I am aware of no opposition to his nomination. Virtually the only issue we have debated during the course of these proceedings is one that I believe has no bearing whatsoever on Judge Chertoff's fitness to serve in this critical capacity. This issue is the demand, by a few of our colleagues, for information regarding the FBI's personnel working at Guantanamo Bay's detention facility and what information they may have had about interrogation techniques used on detainees by Department of Defense personnel.

Let me make clear that all of us have concerns about the proper and humane treatment of our detainees. The distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who also serves on our committee, held a number of hearings to explore the treatment of detainees. It is my understanding that the Senate Intelligence Committee is also embarking on an investigation of the treatment of detainees by CIA personnel. So this is an issue. But the problem is, this is not an issue in which Judge Chertoff has been involved in setting policy. He is being asked for information he simply does not have.

At our committee's nomination hearing, Judge Chertoff was asked about these concerns by my distinguished colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin. Judge Chertoff's answer was unequivocal. Let me read it to you. He said:

I was not aware during my tenure at the Department of

Justice that there were practices at Guantanamo, if there

were practices at Guantanamo, that would be torture or

anything even approaching torture.

He was not aware--not he did not recall not he was not sure; He was not aware. That is unambiguous testimony.

Our responsibility as Senators to advise and consent on executive branch nominees is a solemn one. It is one, as chairman of the committee, I take very seriously. If there were a good reason to delay consideration of a nomination in order to secure important information, then delay would be appropriate; it would be called for. But expecting a nominee to provide information that he has sworn under oath he does not know is not a good reason for delaying his nomination.

The questions about Judge Chertoff's knowledge of the treatment of detainees have been asked and answered, repeatedly. They have been asked in prehearing questions. They have been asked at the hearing. And they have been asked posthearing.

Judge Michael Chertoff is eminently qualified for this important position. In his distinguished career, he has established a strong reputation as a tough prosecutor. But he has established a reputation as a fierce defender of civil liberties. His position on the balance between these two critical roles was made clear in his testimony before the committee. He said:

I believe that we cannot live in liberty without security,

but we would not want to live in security without liberty.

I cannot think of a more eloquent statement by a nominee, showing us--demonstrating beyond a doubt--he clearly understands that as he increases security for our Nation, he must be ever mindful of privacy rights, of civil liberties, of the very freedoms that define us as Americans, and that we cherish. Indeed, we would be handing the terrorists a victory if we so

compromised our freedoms in the name of security. Judge Chertoff understands that tension, that balance, the need for constant evaluation.

Judge Chertoff has also demonstrated a great ability to work with law enforcement agencies at all levels of Government. He has a keen understanding of the broad range of homeland security vulnerabilities faced by States and communities throughout the country.

When I have talked to law enforcement officials from Maine to California about Judge Chertoff, they have unanimously and enthusiastically embraced his nomination. They know he will listen to State and local law enforcement, and that he views them as partners in our fight to tighten and improve our homeland security.

I point out that Judge Chertoff was confirmed three times previously by this body. He was confirmed overwhelmingly by both sides of the aisle 2 years ago for one of the highest courts in the land. And now, having attained a lifelong appointment at the pinnacle of his legal profession, he nevertheless is giving that up. He is giving up a lifetime appointment on one of the most prestigious courts in the country to step forward to serve our Nation in one of the most difficult jobs imaginable, one of the most thankless jobs in the Federal Government.

I remind my colleagues of what he told our committee when I asked him why he was willing to give up that judgeship, why he was willing to make that sacrifice. He said--and his words are eloquent--

September 11th and the challenge it posed was, at least to

my lights, the greatest challenge of my generation, and it

was one that touched me both personally and in my work at the

Department of Justice.

The call to serve in helping to protect America was the one

call I could not decline.

We are fortunate to have an individual of Michael Chertoff's quality, with his commitment to public service, who is willing to answer the call of his country. I hope he will be unanimously confirmed later this afternoon.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes and that this speech not interrupt the debate on the Chertoff nomination.

Mr. President, I will withhold that request so that the Senator from New Jersey, who has just come to the Chamber, may speak on the nomination. I yield him 10 minutes from the minority side.

Mr. President, I will make clear that it is coming from the Democrats' time.

Mr. President, earlier today, the senior Senator from Massachusetts spoke on this nomination. I have enormous respect and affection for my colleague from New England, but on this occasion I believe his comments were well off the mark. Here are some of the words my colleague spoke:

Our problems with the administration on this nomination

pale in comparison with the failure of the Senate Republican

majority to carry out its own constitutional responsibilities

on this nomination. Instead of insisting on adequate answers

to questions raised by the documents, they have acquiesced in

the Government's coverup and abdicated their own independent

constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent.

I sincerely believe that were I fortunate enough to have the senior Senator from Massachusetts serve on the committee the Presiding Officer and I serve on, he would never have said those words or reached such a harsh judgment.

He went on in his statement to call these proceedings ``a blatantly defective consent.'' Again, I so wish that the senior Senator from Massachusetts had had the opportunity to participate in our committee's process. He would have found that our committee has the most thorough process for considering nominations of any committee in the entire Senate. I believe our committee is the only one, for example, that has the staff on both sides of the aisle interview the nominee. We posed to Judge Chertoff 250 written questions, both before the hearing and after the hearing. We had a lengthy hearing in which members on both sides of the aisle were free to ask the toughest questions possible to the nominee.

There was no limit on the questions that could be submitted for the record, and the nominee sat for hours patiently, fully, and candidly answering the questions posed to him by the members of the committee. So I believe that the judgment of the Senator from Massachusetts does not reflect the process we undertook for this nominee. I truly wish he could have seen the process because I think he would have reached a different conclusion. And I say that with a great deal of personal affection for my friend from Massachusetts.

The fact is, first, that Judge Chertoff has undergone intense scrutiny by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. I cannot imagine how anyone could conclude, given the number and the scope of questions posed to the judge, that this was somehow ``defective consent.''

Second, on the issue of the e-mails and the nominee's knowledge of questionable interrogation techniques used by certain DOD personnel at Guantanamo, Judge Chertoff's testimony could not have been clearer. He told the committee under oath that he was ``not aware'' of any practices at Guantanamo that ``even approach[ed] torture.'' He said he had ``no knowledge'' of any interrogation techniques other than those that he described as ``plain vanilla.'' These are straightforward, plain words--``I was not aware''; ``I had no knowledge.'' They are not susceptible to multiple interpretations. They are not ambiguous. They do not suggest the need to refresh the nominee's recollection. They do not invite speculation as to what the nominee meant. And there is only one reason why some of our colleagues would feel the need to ask other people about what they said to Judge Chertoff, and that is, if we did not believe him.

This is a distinguished public servant, a sitting Federal judge who is testifying before our committee under oath. There is no reason to doubt his testimony. His testimony was clear, it was forthright, it was candid. It is demeaning to suggest that somehow we need to probe this further because we do not believe this distinguished public official.

I asked this question yesterday, but I am going to repeat it again: Since when have we become so cynical about good people who are willing to step forward, sacrifice, and serve our country? How could our colleagues from Michigan and Massachusetts come to this floor, praise Judge Chertoff, pledge to vote to confirm him, and then condemn the nomination process when we have concluded that the judge gave us truthful, straightforward answers, and we have no reason to doubt the answers he gave us? He was not evasive. He was straightforward. It does not make sense to criticize the process because the committee refuses to engage in an exercise that, at its core, is built upon the premise that Judge Chertoff is somehow being less than truthful with the committee. I reject that premise. There is no basis for it.

Let me close these remarks by saying a word about the Senate's constitutional role of advise and consent because I think a lot that has been said about this role misses an essential point.

We, the Senate, advise and consent. It is the President who appoints. We do not appoint. Sometimes I think some of my colleagues believe the Senate should do all of the appointing for the President, but that is not how the system works. That is not how our Constitution works. Indeed, as Professor Laurence Tribe has noted--and he is a liberal law scholar, not a conservative one--the appointments clause ``seeks to preserve an executive check upon legislative authority in the interest of avoiding an undue concentration of power in Congress''--in Congress--``in executing our responsibilities.''

We should do well to remember that it is the President who is appointing these positions. It is our job to advise and consent. We have performed that job well in this case. We subjected this nominee to extraordinary scrutiny, despite the fact that he has already been confirmed by this body three previous times. Nevertheless, as is appropriate, we went through a full confirmation process with a review of his biographical questionnaire, his finances, with a full FBI check, with an extensive public hearing that stretched several

hours, and with 250 written questions, primarily from Democratic members, submitted to him for response. What more can we ask? What more can we ask of a nominee who is simply stepping forward to answer the call to serve his country? And what more can we ask of a Senate committee in carrying out this solemn duty with which we are vested?

As much as I have respect and affection for my colleague, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, I cannot let his comments pass. That is why I felt compelled to explain to all of my colleagues what the process was and that the Senator's description simply does not reflect what was done. I am certain--absolutely certain--that had he been a member of the committee, had he joined with us in the nomination hearing, he would have reached an entirely different conclusion about the integrity and thoroughness of the process.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I do anticipate that further of my colleagues will be coming to the floor. I will yield to them when that happens.

(The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 380 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the quorum call I am about to invoke be charged equally to both sides.

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

Mr. President, pursuant to the requirements of rule XXVI, section 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the rules of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs for the 109th Congress adopted by the committee on February 10, 2005.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Judge Michael Chertoff to be the next Secretary of Homeland Security.

Based on my personal interview with him and his sworn testimony last week before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, I am convinced that he has the character and the qualifications to excel in what is one of the most challenging and demanding positions in all of Government.

Let me begin my remarks today by first expressing my gratitude to the person whom Judge Chertoff seeks to replace. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks of September 11, Tom Ridge answered the call of service to his country. At a time when homeland security was little more than a concept, Tom Ridge stepped forward to begin the monumental task of making it a reality. He is a pioneer and a patriot. On behalf of all Americans, I thank Secretary Ridge and I wish him great success in his future endeavors.

Judge Chertoff now steps forward to answer this call. The strengths and experience he brings are impressive. He has devoted a significant part of his life to public service as a Federal prosecutor in New Jersey, as head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, and now as a Federal judge. As the overwhelming vote for his judicial confirmation 2 years ago demonstrated, as well as the unanimous vote by the Homeland Security Committee, he is well respected on both sides of the aisle. Since 9/11, Judge Chertoff has established himself as the leading expert on the legal and national security issues surrounding the war on terrorism.

The debate on this nomination will take place in the context of where the Department of Homeland Security currently stands and where we want it to go.

For the context to be complete, however, it is important we also consider the environment into which the Department was born. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks on our country on September 11, America was a nation determined to defeat terrorism, but we were still feeling our way toward an effective response.

We knew from the start that protecting America from terrorism could not come at the cost of the freedoms that define us as Americans. In those perilous, uncertain days, however, the proper balance between the two seemed somewhat different than it does now in the relative comfort of today. Judge Chertoff recognizes the need for a constant reevaluation to maintain the proper balance between liberty and security. This is how he put it in a speech he gave at Rutgers Law School in 2003:

Measures that are easily accepted in the sudden response to

overwhelming crisis demand somewhat greater testing in the

light of experience. In the heat of the battle, the

decisionmaker has to rely on foresight because he has no

hindsight. We should not, therefore, judge him in hindsight.

But at the same time, when hindsight does become available,

we would be foolish if we did not take advantage of the

lessons for the future.

As to the nature of that balance, here is what Judge Chertoff said in response to a question I posed to him during his confirmation hearing:

I believe that we cannot live in liberty without security,

but we would not want to live in security without liberty.

Judge Chertoff does not just talk the talk of civil liberties; he has walked the walk. As both of my distinguished colleagues from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg and Senator Corzine, pointed out when introducing this nominee to the committee, Michael Chertoff, as counsel to that State's legislature, played a key role in investigating allegations of racial profiling in traffic stops and in crafting legislation to address this important civil liberties issue.

Nowhere is the tension between security and civil liberties more evident than in the matter of interrogating those detained in the war on terrorism. In his responses to our committee's written questions, Judge Chertoff made it absolutely clear that he believes torture is wrong, no matter where it occurs. His commitment to upholding the due process rights of those detained for immigration violations was unambiguous.

His commitment to civil liberties is clear. At the same time, there is no doubt that he is a tough-minded enforcer of the law. As a Federal prosecutor, he built his strong reputation for aggressively fighting organized crime, corruption, and fraud in both the public and private sectors. His success in those fights was helped greatly by his willingness to work closely with agencies that are now part of the Department of Homeland Security, such as Customs and the Secret Service, as well as with first responders such as State and local police.

In fact, on a recent trip to the Los Angeles area to study the security of our ports, I asked a wide variety of law enforcement officials what they thought of the nomination of Judge Chertoff. To a person, they enthusiastically endorsed his nomination. They felt his law enforcement background was precisely what the Department needs at this stage of this development.

I also point out, as head of the criminal division at the Department of Justice in the aftermath of September 11, Michael Chertoff underwent a true trial by fire, managing a critical organization during a time of great stress. He knows what is needed to fight the war on terrorism, the importance of strategic planning, and the need to constantly improve information sharing and cooperation among agencies at all levels of Government. Our Nation will benefit greatly from these attributes and from the experiences he has had.

The broad philosophy Judge Chertoff brings to this position is impressive, but so is his understanding of the myriad nuts-and-bolts issues that comprise Homeland Security. I was so impressed, when I questioned him in the first

interview in my office, with his extraordinary knowledge of all facets of the Department and its programs and policies. Coming from a State that is a major transportation center, Judge Chertoff knows the dangers we face from land, air, and sea, and the specific dangers each mode of transportation presents. But as he made clear to my committee, he also knows if we devote an inordinate share of scarce resources to one transportation mode, it will only increase our vulnerabilities elsewhere.

I note that is one of the challenges this Congress is going to face in allocating Homeland Security grant moneys. If we focus too much of the funding on large cities, inevitably it will be our smaller towns and communities that are exploited by terrorists. We should always remember that while their targets may be our large population centers, the terrorists who trained prior to the September 11 attacks did so in small communities throughout our country. Indeed, two of the terrorists on that terrible day started their journey of death and destruction from Portland, ME. Those are some of the challenges Judge Chertoff will face.

What most impressed me was Judge Chertoff's answer to my question of why, having just attained a lifetime position at the pinnacle of his profession less than 2 years ago, a position as a judge on one of the most prestigious courts in our country, he would sacrifice all that he had gained to take on such a difficult job. I was so impressed with his response because it shows the measure of this man, his willingness to sacrifice for his country and his commitment to putting the needs of our Nation first before his own personal needs. Here is his answer:

September 11 and the challenge it posed was, at least by my

lights, the greatest challenge of my generation and it was

one that touched me both personally and in my work at the

Department of Justice. The call to serve in helping to

protect America was the one call I could not decline.

What inspiring words: The call to serve in helping to protect America was the one call I could not decline. Judge Chertoff stepped forward to answer the call of his country to serve in this difficult and demanding post and to give up a lifetime appointment on the Federal bench.

It is often pointed out that the job we are here to fill is so extraordinarily difficult because the stakes and the expectations are so high. We do not expect the Secretary of Transportation to eliminate all highway fatalities. We do not expect the Secretary of Labor to make layoffs obsolete. But the Secretary of Homeland Security is allowed no margin of error.

In his statement to my committee, Judge Chertoff said he cannot promise such perfection. Indeed, no one can. But he did promise to work tirelessly and to do everything within the law to keep our Nation safe. That promise, combined with his character, qualifications, and extraordinary experience, makes it a privilege for me to enthusiastically present his nomination to my colleagues in the Senate.

That background is also why I personally am very disappointed the Senate did not act last week to confirm this nominee. It has now been 13 days since Tom Ridge vacated the Office of Secretary of Homeland Security. It is an urgent task for the Senate to act to confirm his replacement as soon as possible. I am disappointed a small minority on the other side of the aisle has sought to delay this nomination, first by objecting to a prompt markup by the committee and now by asking for extended debate. I am pleased my colleagues recognized the need to move fairly quickly and agreed to a vote on this nominee last week. However, given the extraordinary qualifications of this nominee, his willingness to serve the country, the extraordinary demands of this job, and the urgent need for there to be a new Secretary in place as soon as possible, I simply do not understand the decision by a few of my colleagues--and only a few of my colleagues--on the other side of the aisle to hold up this nominee.

I hope we can conclude the debate expeditiously. It is so important we confirm Judge Chertoff so he can begin the very hard work of taking over this Department and pursuing policies to help keep us safe and make us more secure.

I ask unanimous consent that the time during quorum calls be equally charged.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank and commend the Senator from Florida for his ongoing concern and interest in the operations of FEMA. At the Senator's request, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has initiated an investigation into the FEMA expenditures in his State as well as some other States where similar issues have arisen. We are working very closely with the Inspector General in conducting that investigation. I appreciate the Senator's interest in requesting the committee to conduct this investigation.

I note that the Senator's more recent concerns, in his discussions with Judge Chertoff, are yet another reason why it is so critical we get Judge Chertoff confirmed and in place. The Department of Homeland Security faces a myriad of management challenges, and we need a strong Secretary on the job as soon as possible. The hearing the committee held was almost 2 weeks ago. I think it is very unfortunate that we did not move ahead and confirm the nominee last week.

I think the Senator from Florida has given yet another example of some of the challenges Judge Chertoff will face. So I appreciate the comments of the Senator, my colleague from Florida. We look forward to continuing to work with him on this investigation and to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of FEMA.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I start my remarks by putting this debate in context. Senator Levin, with whom I proudly serve not only on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee but also on the Senate Armed Services Committee, catalogued some of the interrogation techniques used by certain DOD personnel that for many months have disturbed all of us. They have led us to hold hearings in the Armed Services Committee and they have led the Intelligence Committee to embark upon an investigation of the interrogation techniques used by certain CIA employees. But today's debate is about Michael Chertoff. It is about whether Michael Chertoff, who has repeatedly assured us by direct testimony under oath and in written responses to questions that he has had nothing to do with the interrogation policy, should be confirmed to be Secretary of Homeland Security.

I want to make that very clear. The debate today is not about the interrogation policies, the techniques that led to abuses that disturb and concern us all. The debate today is about the fitness, the qualifications, and the character of Judge Michael Chertoff for this very important position.

I turn to some of the testimony that Judge Chertoff gave in response to questions from Senator Levin and other members of the committee. I note that his testimony before the committee was sworn testimony. He was under oath, as are all of the nominees who come before our committee. As this chart shows, Judge Chertoff testified as follows:

I was not aware during my tenure at the Department of

Justice . . . if there were practices in Guantanamo that

would be torture or anything even approaching torture.

In response to another question, he said:

I don't recall having any discussion about techniques that

the Defense Department was using in Guantanamo other than

simply the question of whether interrogations or questioning

down there was effective or not. I was never informed or had

no knowledge at the time . . . about any use of techniques in

Guantanamo that were anything other than what I would

describe as kind of plain vanilla.

Again, in response to a posthearing question submitted for the record by Senator Levin:

[T]he tenor of the discussion was what information was

being furnished by detainees and whether detainees should be

encouraged to talk by providing offers of favorable treatment

in return for information. I recall no discussion of

mistreatment of detainees.

Mr. President, I quote from those responses because they are unambiguous. In addition, in the prehearing questions, Judge Chertoff stated unequivocally his opposition to torture, no matter where it might occur.

Senator Levin has expressed his concern that the Department of Justice has refused to release information redacted from an e-mail discussing the interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay. I do not believe the information Senator Levin seeks is relevant to the important issue at hand, the nomination of Judge Michael Chertoff to be the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Nonetheless, let's review what we know about this e-mail. The first question that my colleagues might well ask about this e-mail is: Did Michael Chertoff write the e-mail? The answer to that question is no.

Then my colleagues might say: Was the e-mail addressed to him? Again, I inform my colleagues that it was not. The answer is no.

My colleagues might ask: Was he a recipient of this e-mail? Was he cc'd on it, or bcc'd on the e-mail? Again, the answer is no.

Well then, you might ask: Was Michael Chertoff named in the e-mail? Again, the answer is no.

In fact, you may ask: Had Michael Chertoff even seen the e-mail prior to the day of his nomination hearing? Again, the answer is no.

Is it surprising that Judge Chertoff testified that he had never seen the e-mail prior to the day of the hearing? Again, the answer is no, it is not surprising at all because the e-mail was drafted a year after Judge Chertoff had left the Department.

The real question, then, is what an unredacted copy of this e-mail could possibly add to our evaluation of Judge Chertoff's qualifications for the job of Secretary of Homeland Security? Senator Levin has said that since this e-mail refers to some discussions that may have taken place while Judge Chertoff was at the Department of Justice--even though the e-mail was written more than a year after he left the Department of Justice--Senator Levin says that if we got the names of the Criminal Division staff who met with the FBI regarding the interrogation techniques, we could attempt to question the officials mentioned in the e-mails in order to, and I am quoting Senator Levin, ``refresh Judge Chertoff's recollection of these matters.''

First, I must say that the contention that we would need to know the names and then go back and question Judge Chertoff in order to refresh his recollection is, in my judgment, demeaning to Judge Chertoff. He was straightforward in his testimony. He answered all the questions that were posed to him, both before the hearing, at the extensive hearing, and after the hearing. He was unequivocal in his testimony on this issue. As I have shown you with the previous posters, he said:

I was not aware during my tenure at the Department of

Justice if there were practices at Guantanamo that would be

torture or anything even approaching torture.

Second, the suggestion that we should question DOJ officials about Judge Chertoff's sworn testimony is one that I reject outright because what we are saying is that it assumes Judge Chertoff was not being candid with the committee. There is no evidence of that. There is no indication at all that he was not completely truthful and forthright with the committee.

Judge Chertoff has already testified under oath. I see no reason why we should not take his testimony, his sworn testimony, at face value. This is particularly true when there is nothing in the e-mail that suggests his testimony was not accurate. We have no reason to believe it was not accurate. I would have to ask, have we become so cynical about the good people who are making extraordinary sacrifices to serve their country? If this is what the confirmation process is becoming all about, then I fear that very good people are going to say, No. They are going to say, It is not worth having my honesty questioned when all I am trying to do is to serve my country.

I remind my colleagues that Judge Chertoff is giving up a lifetime appointment on one of the most prestigious courts in our country in order to answer the call to serve in one of the most difficult, the most thankless jobs in the Federal Government. It troubles me deeply that we have delayed his nomination, that there are some who are saying, No, I want to check on this testimony more, when there is no evidence to suggest that is warranted.

We need a strong leader in place at the Department of Homeland Security. It has been 13 days since Secretary Ridge has vacated that position. We know the Department has problems--that there are management problems, there are policy challenges. We need to get the Secretary in place as soon as possible. He needs to be able to get his team in place to tackle the serious security issues and management challenges facing the Department.

I think our country is very fortunate to have someone with the background, the experience, the intellect, the qualifications, and the integrity of Judge Chertoff who is willing to serve. I think

we should have confirmed him last week, and I think we need to get him in place without further delay.

My good friend from Michigan is one of the best debaters in the Chamber. He is a thoughtful Member. I suspect he may at one time in his career have been an extraordinary trial lawyer.

However, we are not putting Judge Chertoff on trial. This is a confirmation hearing. This debate is not about the names of certain employees within the Justice Department. It is about whether we feel the need to challenge the sworn testimony of a distinguished public servant. Judge Chertoff has already told us, under oath, that he was not aware of any practices at Guantanamo that ``even approach torture.''

So what does my good friend from Michigan want to ask these Justice Department officials? The answer is, whether they talked to Michael Chertoff about interrogation techniques, the precise question that Judge Chertoff has already answered in the negative. There is no basis to doubt Judge Chertoff's sworn testimony before the committee. He has answered all of the questions over and over again. The only reason to get the names of these Justice Department employees is to challenge the veracity of his answers. There is no basis for that. There is nothing in his background, in his testimony, in his answers to us that should lead us to question him further about this unless there is new evidence that appears that suggests he was less than truthful with the committee. There is no such evidence. This issue is not related to his fitness to serve in this very important position.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico wishes to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business on an issue unrelated to this nomination. I ask unanimous consent that he be so recognized but that the time he consumes be taken from the minority side on this debate.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend and the ranking Democratic member on the committee for his statement. He has applied his usual good judgment in coming to the conclusion that Judge Chertoff deserves

his support and in urging our colleagues to vote for him when the vote finally occurs tomorrow.

The Senator from Alabama is seeking to speak on the nomination. I yield 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alabama for his excellent statement. I appreciate the perspective he brings. Given his own experience as a U.S. Attorney, he has a special appreciation for that part of Judge Chertoff's career, and his endorsement will carry a lot of weight with our colleagues.

How much time is remaining for the debate today?

Mr. President, I inquire of the Presiding Officer, the 76 minutes is for today's debate, as opposed to tomorrow's; correct?

Mr. President, I know of no further requests for time on our side this evening so I am prepared to yield back, and I do, the 76 minutes.

I thank the Chair.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.