[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 16 (Tuesday, February 15, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1369-S1387]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF MICHAEL CHERTOFF TO BE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the following
nomination, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Michael
Chertoff, of New Jersey, to be Secretary of Homeland Security.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for
yielding me time.
I am in support of the President's nominee, Judge Michael Chertoff.
He seems to have worked for almost every part of the Federal
Government, including this body. I heard the Senator from Maine say
that she had never seen a better witness before her committee.
As Secretary of Homeland Security, Judge Chertoff will play a very
important and visible role in our everyday lives, protecting us from
terrorism, but my purpose today is to highlight another job he has. He
is also the chief immigration officer. As Secretary, he will oversee
the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, the successor to
the INS, which manages immigration in this country. This job of Judge
Chertoff is not primarily about keeping people out of the United
States; it is also about welcoming new Americans into the United
States.
The numbers are down some since 2001, but as many as 1 million
immigrants become new American citizens each year.
I have attended a number of the ceremonies which are held in Federal
courthouses all over America every month to welcome and naturalize
these new citizens. I was in Nashville in December when 50 or 60 people
from all backgrounds were administered the oath of allegiance by Judge
Echols. The oath requires each new American to renounce any old
allegiance and swear a new one to the United States of America.
Each one of these new citizens has waited at least 5 years. They have
learned English. They have learned something about U.S. history. They
have proved they are of good character. Many new citizens have tears in
their eyes as they recite that oath. It is an inspiring scene. Each of
these new citizens brings a new background and cultural tradition to
the rich fabric of American life. That increases our magnificent
diversity, but diversity is not our most important characteristic.
Jerusalem is diverse. The Balkans are diverse. Iraq is diverse. A lot
of the world is diverse. What is unique about the United States of
America is that we take all of that diversity and make ourselves into
one country. We are able to say we are all Americans. We do that
because we unify it with principles and values in which we all believe:
liberty, equality, rule of law. It also helps that we speak a common
language. It is hard to be one people if we cannot talk with one
another. Many of these new citizens and many others living in this
country lack a solid grasp of our common language or a clear
understanding of our history and civic culture. Without proficiency in
English, our common language, and an understanding of our history and
values, immigrants will find it difficult to integrate themselves into
our American society.
So my hope today is that Judge Chertoff does a magnificent job in his
role at preventing terrorism. My hope also is that he does a good job
in keeping out of this country people who are not legally supposed to
be here. But equally important is Secretary Chertoff's role in
welcoming new citizens to this country, helping them learn our history,
our common language--helping all of us remember those principles that
unite us as one country. That is a part of the Department of Homeland
Security. It is of increasing interest to Members of the Senate on both
sides of the aisle, and I look forward to working with Judge Chertoff
in this new role and I support his confirmation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Virginia
is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am privileged to be the new boy on
Senator Collins's committee. My mission is to try to achieve the
smoothest working relationship between the Department of Defense, with
which I have been privileged to work these 27 years in the Senate, and
the distinguished new department and the committee for homeland defense
over which my colleague presides as able chairman together with Senator
Lieberman.
Just a word or two I want to speak on Judge Chertoff. I, frankly, had
not met him prior to the President's very wise selection of this able
individual. I rise today to urge my colleagues to give the strongest
endorsement possible to this nominee.
I started my career as a young lawyer, a prosecutor, but my first job
out of law school was law clerk to a Federal circuit court judge, the
same position that Judge Chertoff holds today. I recall all through law
school and the early part of, I guess about 8 or 10 years that I
practiced law, lawyers always thought: Maybe someday I could be a
judge, a Federal judge. The whole bar looks up to the judicial branch,
as they should. It is the third branch of our magnificent Republic.
When an individual is selected by a President and confirmed in the
Senate, he or she then dons that black robe, and it is a lifetime
appointment.
I was privileged to observe the life of a Federal judge. My judge was
E. Barrett Prettyman, and I had the privilege of standing on this very
floor several years ago and recommending the Federal courthouse here in
Washington be named for Judge Prettyman. I am always grateful to the
Senate for its wisdom in accepting my recommendation. But I remember
that judge so well. He had the strongest influence on my life. I
aspired at one time to be a Federal judge, but I hastily tell my
colleagues I am not sure I ever would have been qualified, for various
reasons.
But when you accept that appointment you take that oath of office for
life. That is why I, and I think most if not every one of my
colleagues, spend so much time working with our Presidents to find the
best qualified people to assume these important jobs in the Federal
judiciary. But it is a lifetime appointment.
When I looked at Judge Chertoff in my office, we compared
experiences. He was a law clerk on the Supreme Court, so he had gone
through some of the similar experiences that I had as a lawyer, and
also I was assistant U.S. attorney as was he. I said: You have to
explain to me why you gave up a lifetime appointment to a position in
which you can control your hours and largely control your vacations and
have a magnificent family life and everything else to take on this
enormous, uncertain challenge.
He looked me in the eye, and he said: In America, you have to step up
and be counted when the President and the citizens of this Nation need
you. I give
[[Page S1370]]
up this position with great reluctance, but I accept the next position
and I will give it everything I have ever been taught in terms of how
to do something for this country.
That deeply touched me, Madam Chairman. I feel very confident that,
with the advice and consent of this august body, we will send forth an
individual eminently qualified to handle this position, and one who
will bring about the necessary security that this country deserves and
needs and expects.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I also rise to speak in support of the
nomination of Michael Chertoff.
Today we vote on one of the most important Cabinet positions in our
Government, and that is Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security. New York, perhaps more than any other State in the Union,
knows the need for a strong defense at home. Therefore, I take this
vote very seriously. I have considered carefully Judge Michael
Chertoff's background. I have considered his experience, and I met with
him personally to express the needs and concerns of the citizens of New
York and my own concerns about what we have and have not been doing
when it comes to homeland security.
After careful review and after hearing his commitment to work with me
and other Members of this body, I intend to vote in favor of Judge
Chertoff's nomination for this vital post. It is clear, crystal clear,
that Judge Chertoff has the intelligence and the skill to run this
behemoth Department. There is no question about that. But what has
really been missing from the Government is an advocate for funds and
focus in homeland security that will protect New York and the rest of
the country. Judge Chertoff assured me he would fight within the
administration for resources that have been missing in homeland
security.
It is no secret that, while we have given all the money it takes to
fight the war on terror overseas, we have shortchanged the domestic war
on terror at home. Program after program, which we all admit is
necessary to defend us at home, is shortchanged when it comes to
funding and focus.
The Department of Homeland Security was run by admirable people, but
their constitution was such that when they went into the Oval Office,
they didn't make much of a fight for the things that were necessary.
I asked Judge Chertoff about that when I met him. I said: I am sure
you are not going to make a public fight, but are you privately, within
the confines of the Oval Office, going to demand the funds that this
Department needs to make us secure? He told me he would.
There is no doubt Judge Chertoff has been blessed with a brilliant
mind, and he has formidable experience as a prosecutor, as Chief of the
Justice Department's Criminal Division, and more recently as an
appellate judge. He now faces the toughest challenge of his thus far
impressive career. He will be called upon to lead and manage a
Department of 170,000 employees, forged out of 22 separate Government
agencies, still not all working together. That is no small task.
Judge Chertoff will have to be smart, tough, dedicated, and savvy--
but a keen mind and a strong work ethic will not be enough. As I have
said, what has been missing from homeland security has been funds and
focus. A color-coded warning system can have all the colors in the
rainbow, but without adequate funding for vital programs and without a
laser-like focus, we are not serving the people well. Judge Chertoff
assured me he would fight hard for the funds and maintain a strong
focus to maintain these programs at the Department if confirmed. If my
reading of his character and personality is correct, he will make those
fights inside the administration that have been lacking thus far.
Judge Chertoff, of course, will also have to commit himself to
working with Members of Congress in a bipartisan way, so together we
can best protect the homeland.
Unfortunately, as I said in the past, sometimes this administration
has acted with too much secrecy and too often it has failed to consult
Congress. Too often it behaved as if it has a monopoly on wisdom. I am
optimistic that Judge Chertoff will, as he has assured me, work with us
in a bipartisan way. I have also talked to him about the need for
changing the funding formula so funds are not distributed simply as if
they were dropped from an airplane, but go to the places of the
greatest need.
I have told him it is unconscionable Wyoming gets more on a per-
capita basis for homeland security than New York. He has told me that
we have a real problem with the funding formula; he knows it has to be
changed and he would work to change it.
I have also raised with Judge Chertoff the serious problems of
staffing we have at the northern border with Canada. New York, of
course, has a 300-mile such border. As of last year, we were short more
than 1,400 Customs and Border Protection officers on that border. Judge
Chertoff promised to make securing the northern border a priority,
should he be confirmed by the Senate.
I also pressed Judge Chertoff on other matters, areas in which the
Government should do more to protect the homeland. I discussed with him
the creation of an assistant secretary for cybersecurity, something I
have raised before, given reports of the mounting attacks on our
computer systems. On these and on other matters, Judge Chertoff has
shown a willingness to deliberate and be openminded and that means a
lot in my book.
In conclusion, the task of the next Secretary will be difficult. The
stakes couldn't be higher. Based on his record of achievement and my
personal meetings with him, I have high hopes for Judge Chertoff. I
hope and pray he lives up to those high hopes. I will vote yes on the
nomination of Michael Chertoff as Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security.
Ms. COLLINS. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the nomination of
Judge Michael Chertoff to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security, DHS.
Since the inception of DHS in 2003, Secretary Tom Ridge has led the
department with strength and grace. His tenure sets a high standard for
future secretaries to meet. I would like to take this opportunity to
thank Secretary Ridge for his hard work and dedication to his country.
As a member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee, I was able to discuss with Judge Chertoff his positions on
issues such as the DHS personnel regulations, civil liberties, and
bioterrorism. Judge Chertoff expressed his commitment to these issues
and promised he would investigate and report back to the committee on a
number of DHS policies of concern to me.
There were five main points that I raised with Judge Chertoff. First,
I asked for his assurance that he will defend the Constitution to
safeguard our civil liberties. The price of security should never erode
our constitutional freedoms, which are essential to the preservation of
this democracy. One specific activity I have concerns about is data
mining, which could involve the collection of personal data that could
violate an individual's privacy rights. Judge Chertoff affirmed his
commitment to liberty and privacy, and I will continue to monitor DHS
closely to ensure that he fulfills that commitment.
We also discussed the just-released personnel regulations covering
the 180,000 men and women who staff DHS. To make these new regulations
work, there must be significant and meaningful outreach to this
dedicated workforce, their unions, and their managers. A well-managed
organization values employee input and understands the important role
employees play in protecting against mismanagement. To undermine
opportunities for employees to voice concerns or even have notice of
departmental changes unnecessarily harms workers.
My third concern is the protection of whistleblower rights in the
department. Whistleblowers alert Congress
[[Page S1371]]
and the public to threats to health, waste of taxpayer money, and other
information vital to running an effective and efficient government. I
asked Judge Chertoff to pledge to protect whistleblowers and foster an
open work environment that promotes the disclosure of Government
mismanagement and Government illegality. In response, he promised ``to
support whistleblowers and to support candid assessments by employees
when there are problems in the department.'' I am pleased he
acknowledges the importance of whistleblowers to a Federal agency and
has vowed to protect their rights. As ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia, and the author of
whistleblower protection legislation, I will be monitoring the
department closely to ensure that Judge Chertoff follows through on
this promise.
The fourth issue on which I asked for Judge Chertoff's commitment was
bioterrorism and, more specifically, agriculture security. Since 2001,
I have urged the administration to develop a coordinated response to
bioterrorism and agroterrorism through legislation, which is critical
to the health and safety of Americans.
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to participate in a gaming exercise
called ``Scarlet Shield'' at the National Defense University that
postulated a bioterrorist attack. This exercise brought home to me the
need to do much more in ensuring an effective, coordinated response.
I will introduce shortly the Homeland Security Food and Agriculture
Act of 2005, which will improve State, local, and tribal governments'
ability to respond to an attack on the food supply and facilitate DHS's
coordination with other Federal agencies with food and agriculture
responsibilities. Judge Chertoff agrees with me that bioterrorism is
one of the greatest threats our Nation currently faces, and as such I
hope I can count on his support for my bill.
The final issue I discussed with the Judge is the security challenges
for my home State of Hawaii, 2,500 miles from the West Coast. Being the
only island State, Hawaii has been blessed with diverse and
breathtaking geography and a unique culture. However, its geographic
location poses challenges to securing the State from asymmetric
threats. For example, when disaster strikes, Hawaii cannot call on
neighboring States for assistance due to distance and time difference.
Our eight inhabited islands must be self sufficient. For that reason, I
have established positive working relationships with Secretary Ridge
and senior policymakers from DHS as well as from PACOM and NORTHCOM to
ensure that when national homeland security policies are being
formulated, the needs of Hawaii are kept under consideration. Judge
Chertoff promised to be mindful of these unique needs and to continue
the positive relationship Hawaii has enjoyed with Secretary Ridge.
I also note I am pleased Judge Chertoff has stressed the importance
of close cooperation with Congress, particularly the Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs Committee, and has promised to provide the
information we need to fulfill our oversight responsibilities.
With Judge Chertoff's assurances that he will protect civil liberties
and whistleblower rights, work openly with Congress, and prioritize the
other issues I have detailed today, I will support his nomination to be
the Secretary of Homeland Security. I believe he has the
professionalism and the commitment to serve the department well, and I
hope we, in the Congress, will enjoy a long and productive relationship
with him.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. 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
[[Page S1372]]
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the
Governmental Affairs Committee for that courtesy. This is a task we are
pleased to take on. For me, it is a moment of special significance. We
are proud of the fact that Judge Michael Chertoff, the nominee to be
Secretary of Homeland Security, is from New Jersey. I hope we are going
to see a strong vote for his confirmation.
I thank our chairman and leader in the Governmental Affairs Committee
for her persistence in moving some very important matters through that
committee. She worked very hard at it. First it was the intelligence
reform bill. While I was annoyed that I had to work Saturdays and other
days, the fact is, without the diligence shown by the Senator from
Maine, we would not have gotten it through. We were on the edge of the
precipice when finally it passed, and I was enthusiastic to try to be
of help there. So it is with this issue as well.
This is an important day for America. We all are concerned about the
issue that haunts us constantly. Memories of 9/11 will never leave the
minds of those who were alive or who study American history in the
future. It was a terrible day for America. We live every day with the
remnants of that reminder.
This morning, in the Commerce Committee on which I sit, we had a
discussion on aviation safety and baggage security requirements. I came
down this morning from New Jersey and, because of some security
involvements, was unable to catch two airplanes. But it had to be done.
It was not that I was particularly suspicious looking, but there was a
line to get through, and that is what happens. So we are always
reminded. Go into a building, popular places, and you cannot go into
those places, wherever they are, whether they are concerts or whether
they are educational forums, if it has any volume of attendance, you
will invariably see the security process at play. We are worried about
our families and our society, how we function.
Judge Chertoff has been selected to be the next Secretary for
Homeland Security. It is fair to say that Secretary Ridge did a good
job in trying to amalgamate all these parts into an organization with
180,000 people. It is an enormous task. Fortunately, the foresight to
name someone such as Michael Chertoff to this post did present an
unusual and appropriate candidate. He received undergraduate law
degrees with honor from Harvard University. After law school, he
clerked on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Following that
clerkship, he went on to serve as a clerk for a great New Jerseyan,
Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan.
In 1990, Michael Chertoff, in his meteoric rise to the top because of
his ability, became the U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey.
During that tenure, less than 4 years, he was so aggressive in tackling
organized crime, public corruption, health care, and bank fraud, with
great success in making the perpetrators of these crimes pay the price
and get out of the community orbit so we could approach things
correctly and honestly.
Michael Chertoff also played a critical role in helping the New
Jersey State legislature investigate racial profiling in our State. It
was a blight on our community. Driving while Black should not be a
crime, and we identified that very clearly. As a matter of fact, oddly
enough, the present attorney general of the State of New Jersey, a
fellow named Peter Harvey, distinguished attorney and outstanding
member of the Governor's cabinet, was stopped on one of our highways.
He had pulled into a restaurant parking lot, and a policeman came over
and asked to check his license and to inspect his car for no reason
other than the fact that he was Black. There was no other reason. He
had no suspicion surrounding his presence. Yet our attorney general,
then a lawyer, was stopped because of color. That should not be a
crime. Thanks in part to Judge Chertoff's efforts, the State
legislature passed a bill to ban racial profiling. That prompted me to
introduce the first bill in the U.S. Senate to address this issue. The
results have been excellent.
Judge Chertoff now serves on the prestigious U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit. A good measure of his commitment to public
service, one he has been questioned about publicly in place after
place, including our committee, is the question as to why he would give
up a lifetime tenure on the second highest court in the land to accept
a call to duty. We hope this tenure will be better, but it will have to
be earned every day of his career.
The mission of the Department of Homeland Security is critical to our
country and to my State of New Jersey. On September 11, 2001, 700 of
the almost 3,000 people who perished that day came from the State of
New Jersey. There is hardly anyone in our State who didn't know someone
or some family member of someone who died that day in the World Trade
Center.
I was a commissioner of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
when I was elected to the Senate, and those Trade Center buildings were
kind of a business home for me.
From the location where I live now, I could see the silhouette and
the trade centers always as a landmark. It was a pleasure to get up in
the morning and see the sun coming over the tops of those buildings.
Yes, when we saw what happened that day, smoke rising from the World
Trade Center buildings, as each one collapsed in a crush of flames and
debris, that can never be forgotten. The New York/New Jersey region
bore the brunt of those attacks on that terrible day.
[[Page S1373]]
It continues to be identified, by the way, by the FBI as the most at-
risk area for terrorist attack. The 2 miles that go from Newark Liberty
Airport to the New York/New Jersey harbor are said by the FBI to be the
most inviting targets for terrorists. Judge Chertoff understands this.
When Senator Corzine and I talked with Michael Chertoff, we didn't have
to remind him about what that area looks like, what that stretch of
land is like that could be so inviting to terrorists. I am confident
Judge Chertoff will work to target homeland security grants to areas
where the actual risk and threat of terrorism are the greatest.
This is not just about New York and New Jersey. There are many high-
risk States--some are colored red in the political description that we
use today, and some are blue. Examples: Texas, Florida, California,
Georgia, Illinois, Virginia--the list goes on of States where there are
inviting targets for terrorists. These high-risk States are not getting
enough funding because, under current law, 40 percent of all homeland
security grants--over $1 billion each year--is given to each and every
State regardless of risk and threat. That doesn't make sense.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator has used his 10
minutes.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted 5 more minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I will make clear that it is coming from
the Democrats' time.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. We are glad to take that responsibility. I may ask
for a minute or two more.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 more minutes.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the 9/11 Commission report stated:
Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an
assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. Federal homeland
security assistance should not remain a program for general
revenue sharing.
The 9/11 Commission correctly understood that homeland security is
too important to be caught up in pork-barrel politics. That is why
Senator Corzine and I introduced a bill last week, S. 308, requiring
that all homeland security grants for terrorism prevention and
preparedness be based on relative risks, threats, and vulnerabilities.
I hope my colleagues will see that that is in the national interest and
support that legislation. I know Judge Chertoff understands that
problem. He is a highly intelligent, competent, and dedicated public
servant who has compiled a number of impressive accomplishments in all
three branches of the Federal Government. I ask my colleagues to vote
to confirm him.
I would like to add a word. Right now, we are talking about whether
the minority is obstructing progress on different issues--Social
Security and other legislation that is before us that needs attention.
Here is an example of where we can arrive at a consensus view with
dispatch--get it done. We know Judge Chertoff is an excellent
candidate, but that is not to say there may not be a vote against him.
There were votes against the confirmation of Secretary Condoleezza
Rice. There was a difference of view. It was the same thing with Mr.
Gonzales. But it reflects the fact that the minority is represented.
There were many people from the Democratic side who voted for Secretary
Rice and for Attorney General Gonzales. But why is there a move
underway--I use this opportunity to say this--to undercut the voice of
the minority? It was said by our leader here that 48 million people
voted Democrat in the last Presidential election. Do we want to say
that those voices should not be heard? Never.
Mr. President, I know you and our chairperson, Senator Collins, were
elected with good support from your constituents. Does that free you
from representing the part of the constituency that didn't vote for
you? Not at all. We have to recognize that schemes that would deprive
the minority from registering their point of view are against the
Constitution. It is against the fabric of our democratic society to say
if you didn't vote for us, we are going to nail you; you are not going
to have your view; you are obstructionists. That is not right. Here we
have a chance once again to express some bipartisanship by voting for
an outstanding candidate to be the next Secretary of Homeland Security.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, We are here today discussing the
nomination of Judge Michael Chertoff to be the next Secretary of the
United States Department of Homeland Security.
Let me begin by thanking Secretary Ridge for all he did in leading
the department through its creation and start-up. It was a difficult
job and the Nation owes him a debt of gratitude for tackling this
difficult task.
I opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, in
part, because I was concerned that by combining disparate areas of the
Federal Government we could create more problems than benefits. Several
recent reports from the Government Accountability Office have shown
that this is a valid concern.
The next Secretary of the Homeland Security Department will need to
focus time and energy on ensuring that the various divisions within the
department become integrated. A separate and divided Department of
Homeland Security cannot work to increase our national security. Our
best chance for preventing another terrorist attack relies on a
coordinated and well run agency. If this does not occur, I fear that my
original concern regarding the creation of this entity will be
realized.
Judge Chertoff has an impressive resume and, in fact, has already
been confirmed by the Senate for several positions. His experience
includes serving as a Federal appellate court judge, United States
Attorney, and head of the Criminal Division at the United States
Department of Justice. However, questions have been raised about the
potential involvement of Judge Chertoff in the prison abuse scandals,
an issue that was pivotal in my opposition to Judge Gonzales being
confirmed as the United States Attorney General.
Senators Levin and Lieberman have been working to determine whether
Judge Chertoff had any knowledge about the scandal, and they deserve
our profound thanks. However, as in too many cases, this administration
has made a decision to keep much of the information from the public.
The citizens of the United States deserve honesty and openness from the
government.
The information that has been revealed shows that Judge Chertoff had
no knowledge or involvement in the torture scandal. I must make a
decision based on the record I have in front of me, not on the
possibility of the record I do not know. Reviewing this record leads me
to believe that Judge Chertoff would be capable of performing the
duties of Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and I will
thus support his confirmation to that position.
It is my hope that Judge Chertoff will complete the work that
Secretary Ridge began and create an integrated Department of Homeland
Security. I also hope that Judge Chertoff will be able to lead by
example and create the open environment at the Department of Homeland
Security that my constituents and the citizens of this Nation deserve
and expect.
It will take many hours of hard work and it will not be easy. I wish
him the best of luck in accomplishing the task.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise in strong support of the
nomination of Judge Michael Chertoff to become Secretary of Homeland
Security.
Voting in favor of Judge Chertoff and commending him on his
remarkable accomplishments is beginning to become a habit for us.
At the beginning of President Bush's first term, Judge Chertoff was
nominated to become Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal
Division. To this position, he brought years of experience as a Federal
prosecutor in New York and a highly successful term as the U.S.
attorney for the District of NewJersey.
As a prosecutor, Judge Chertoff handled a wide variety of complex
crimes that included successfully prosecuting a RICO murder case
involving the third-ranking member of the Genovese La Cosa Nostra
Family and others. The principal defendants were convicted of
conspiring to murder John Gotti and murdering a mob associate. They
each received 75 to 80 year prison terms.
He also successfully prosecuted the Mafia Commission Case, which
charged
[[Page S1374]]
the bosses of all five New York La Cosa Nostra Families with operating
a national commission through a pattern of racketeering acts such as
extortion, loan sharking, and the murders of a mafia boss and two
associates.
Upon his confirmation, Mr. Chertoff ran the Criminal Division of the
Department of Justice during the trying days after September 11. As
Senator Collins stated:
since 9/11, Judge Chertoff has established himself as a
leading expert on the legal and national security issues
surrounding the war on terror.
After this period, in which I worked closely with the Criminal
Division of the Justice Department to formulate the PATRIOT ACT, Judge
Chertoff was nominated to the third Circuit and was confirmed by a vote
of 88 to 1.
As we all know, becoming a judge on the 3rd Circuit is a lifetime
appointment and the culminating achievement of many outstanding legal
careers. Few leave the bench before retirement. However, Judge Chertoff
is not a man who will shirk from his duty. His nation called and asked
him to sacrifice. He answered that call and stood up to be counted
during a period of war.
This is true not only for the time that he spent affiliated with the
Justice Department but in his everyday practice. For example, Judge
Chertoff served as special counsel to the New Jersey Senate Judiciary
Committee in its investigation of racial profiling.
Under his counsel, the committee held nine hearings examining racial
profiling allegations, concluding that the former attorney general had
misled the committee and had attempted to cover up the extent of racial
profiling in New Jersey from the U.S. Department of Justice.
After a convicted rapist was mistakenly released from prison, Mr.
Chertoff again served as special counsel for the New Jersey Senate
Judiciary Committee during its hearings into the application of Megan's
Law, which requires State correction officials to notify prosecutors 90
days prior to the release of a sex offender, and the reasons why it was
not being systematically employed by the State.
Mr. Chertoff also represented three indigent defendants on death row
in Arkansas through a program operated by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
The death sentences of all three defendants were overturned on the
appeal that he handled.
I understand that Judge Chertoff received the unanimous approval of
the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, with one
member voting ``present.'' I believe that this is not only a reflection
on the judge's credentials but a realization that securing the homeland
is not a partisan issue, but a commitment by the Government to its
people that we will find the best leaders to defend our Nation. Judge
Chertoff time and time again has set the standard by which others will
have to follow.
Mr. President, it has been my privilege to know Judge Chertoff for a
number of years and I can honestly say that the President has made an
inspired decision in this nomination.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the nomination of
Judge Michael Chertoff to be our Nation's second Homeland Security
Secretary.
Our next Homeland Security chief will face a number of urgent
challenges. I believe the most pressing of those will be better
coordinating our Federal, State and local homeland security personnel.
When I was Colorado's attorney general, I started a new effort to
bring district attorneys, police departments and sheriffs together to
foster interagency cooperation. That was tough, but it allowed us to
coordinate and fund better law enforcement training, and better
prosecute gang violence, fight senior financial fraud, establish school
hotlines and many other vital efforts to fight crime that knows no
jurisdictional boundaries.
The challenge for DHS is, of course, even larger.
Unfortunately, 3 years after 9/11 there is a huge gap between
Washington and our first responders on the ground. In his fiscal year
2006 budget, the President proposed consolidating and reducing funding
for State and local heroes.
At a time when our law enforcement agencies are being asked to do
more with less, the President apparently believes they should have even
less. The President's budget for next year eliminates funding for new
hires under the COPS grants, which have helped to put 1,289 additional
officers on the streets in Colorado. The President's budget also calls
for a 24 percent cut in homeland security grants to States and a
complete elimination of grants to rural fire fighters.
At the same time, the Homeland Security grant money that is available
is not flowing effectively to State and local agencies. Police, fire
and emergency medical departments are not getting the help they need.
Worse yet, critical anti-terrorism intelligence is not getting to the
law enforcement personnel on the ground who can act on it.
I met with Mike Chertoff and he promised me that he would work to
better coordinate Federal, State and local agencies. I appreciated his
candor in our meeting, but I am very disappointed to see his
unwillingness to respond to a series of very straightforward questions
posed by Senators Levin and Lieberman.
Here is why this matters: we need a straight-shooting and straight-
talking person in this job. Judge Chertoff will face the awesome task
of wrangling the 180,000 employees and 22 agencies that form the
Department of Homeland Security. Secretary Tom Ridge started the
process of cutting the bureaucratic red tape and integrating the
department. DHS took a number of steps, including establishing an
Operational Integration Staff, but a great deal is still left to do.
Judge Chertoff has experience moving unwieldy bureaucracy in times of
crisis. As Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division of the
Department of Justice from 2001-2003, Chertoff shared information and
coordinated antiterrorism efforts not only across DOJ, but also with
DHS and foreign law enforcement. Chertoff also pushed resources to the
field where they were needed most.
Chertoff was essentially the Nation's attorney as it prosecuted the
war on terrorism. I know a little about this. As Colorado's former top
attorney, I can tell my colleagues that one needs a good lawyer to
fight crime and prevent terror.
Chertoff will also have to balance the need to fight terrorism with
the need to preserve our freedom.
This is a difficult balance to achieve. In the last few years, we
have faced some difficult choices. The administration has detained
terrorism suspects for long periods without access to an attorney. They
have tried to use military tribunals instead of civilian courts. And
worst of all, the administration's uneven record on adherence to the
Geneva Convention and on the use of torture is an affront to our
American ideals.
Chertoff has expressed his belief that torture is wrong. He expressed
his philosophy during his confirmation hearing: ``We cannot live in
liberty without security, but we would not want to live in security
without liberty.''
Judge Chertoff has said all the right things about preserving civil
liberties. But we will face numerous threats to our security over the
next 4 years, and we will be faced with even tougher choices. It is my
sincere hope that Chertoff will do a better job than his predecessors
have done in allowing us to live with both security and liberty.
What strikes me most about Mike Chertoff is his commitment to public
service. Two years ago, Chertoff was confirmed for a lifetime
appointment to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Chertoff could
easily have kept that seat forever, but he stepped down from that
secure job to face another political gauntlet. In short, when duty
called, Judge Chertoff answered.
You could not ask for a tougher job in Washington than Homeland
Security Secretary. I am hopeful Judge Chertoff is the right person for
the job.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
confirmation of Michael Chertoff to be Secretary of Homeland Security.
He is an extraordinary professional and a remarkably talented lawyer.
He is highly intelligent, honorable, and impartial. He is also a
straight shooter, which is exactly what we need right now in this
position. He is also a personal friend.
Mr. Chertoff has impeccable credentials--not the least of which is
being a native New Jerseyan. He attended Harvard College and Harvard
Law School,
[[Page S1375]]
where he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. He then served as a
Supreme Court law clerk. In private practice and public service, he
developed a reputation as a brilliant, tough, fair, and truly world
class litigator, and earned the respect of his peers and adversaries.
Indeed, one New Jersey paper has even suggested he might be New
Jersey's ``Lawyer Laureate.''
In recent years, Judge Chertoff has served as Assistant Attorney
General for the Criminal Division and circuit judge for the Third
Circuit. In each of these capacities and throughout his career, he has
served our Nation exceptionally well. So when Judge Chertoff told me
recently that this position, as Secretary of Homeland Security, is the
most important task he has ever undertaken in his public career, I took
notice. Given his commitment to public service and the distinguished
results of his remarkable career, this statement speaks for itself.
I wish to emphasize one particular aspect of Judge Chertoff's career:
his role in helping the New Jersey State legislature investigate racial
profiling. As special counsel to the State senate Judiciary Committee,
he led the committee probe into how top State officials handled racial
profiling by the State Police. His work was bipartisan, objective,
balanced, and thoroughly professional, and helped expose the fact that
for too long, State authorities were aware that statistics showed
minority motorists were being treated unequally by some law enforcement
officials, and yet ignored the problem. This landmark racial profiling
investigation demonstrated Judge Chertoff's ability to balance the
State's responsibility to provide for the public safety with protecting
our citizens' civil liberties.
Judge Chertoff is uniquely positioned to undertake the enormous
challenges that come with the position of Secretary of Homeland
Security. Particularly important to the citizens of New Jersey is his
understanding of the critical importance of allocating our homeland
security resources to those areas of the country where the risks and
vulnerabilities are greatest.
New Jersey is on the front lines of terrorism. We lost 700 people on
September 11, 2001. Two of the 9/11 terrorists were based in New
Jersey, and the anthrax that hit this institution originated in New
Jersey. The Post Office in Hamilton, NJ, where the anthrax was sent,
has taken years to clean up and will finally reopen next week. The
costs are expected to be $72 million for decontamination and $27
million for the refurbishment of the facility.
Newark Liberty Airport, and Port Newark, and the Ports of
Philadelphia and Camden are critical vulnerabilities. New Jersey is
home to rail lines, bridges, and tunnels to New York City, as well as
chemical plants and nuclear facilities. Atlantic City has the second
highest concentration of casinos in the country, and between tourists
and those who work there, is visited by as many as 300,000 people.
Wall Street and other financial services firms house important front
and back office operations, including clearance and settlement
services, and other operations essential to the functioning of
America's capital markets in Newark, Jersey City, and Hoboken. And,
last summer, Newark was one of three locations including New York City
and Washington, DC--that was put on Orange Alert for a possible
terrorist attack as intelligence suggested that the Prudential building
in downtown Newark could be a target.
Yet despite these growing threats to New Jersey from anthrax to the
Orange Alert, and the ever-expanding costs associated with protecting
the most densely populated State in the country--remarkably homeland
security grants to New Jersey were cut in 2005.
Funding was reduced from $93 million in 2004 to $61 million in 2005.
Newark will see a 17-percent reduction in funds, from $14.9 million to
$12.4 million. And, incredibly, Jersey City's homeland security funds
will drop by 60 percent, from $17 million in 2004 to $6.7 million in
2005.
These cuts leave New Jersey home of countless companies and people
who keep our economic engine moving; home of one of the most active and
exposed ports in the country; home of one of the busiest airports in
America; home of our Nation's new Homeland Security Secretary--36th in
the Nation in per capita homeland security funding.
I was pleased that the President's budget called for an allocation of
homeland security funding based on risk and vulnerability. This
commonsense approach mirrors the recommendations of the 9/11
Commission.
Senator Frank Lautenberg and I have introduced legislation that would
require that homeland security funding be allocated along these lines.
This bill grants the Department of Homeland Security the authority it
needs to keep us safe and will allow Michael Chertoff to be an
outstanding Secretary of Homeland Security.
Judge Chertoff also understands the critical importance of protecting
our chemical facilities. Only a week ago, the former Deputy Homeland
Security Advisor to the President testified to this committee that
industrial chemicals are ``acutely vulnerable and almost uniquely
dangerous,'' presenting a ``mass-casualty terrorist potential rivaled
only by improvised nuclear devices, certain acts of bioterrorism, and
the collapse of large, occupied buildings.'' He added that chemical
plant security ``should be the highest critical infrastructure
protection priority for the Department of Homeland Security in the next
two years.''
There are other critical issues that the nominee will face and that I
am confident he is prepared to take on. Our rail lines are woefully
unprotected and recent accidents have demonstrated the risk that rail
transport of toxic chemicals could be attacked by terrorists. There is
important work remaining at TSA, where airport screening is far from
complete and where too little attention has been paid to ground
transportation.
And the Department of Homeland Security has not yet adequately
confronted the vulnerabilities of our ports. The checklist is long and
the issues complex. And in my view, Judge Chertoff is the best person
to address them.
One of the critical issues to be addressed by the new Secretary of
Homeland Security will be civil liberties. I strongly believe that we
as a nation can be both secure and free. Given Judge Chertoff's work on
racial profiling in New Jersey, I am confident that he will pursue law
enforcement strategies that are both effective and unbiased. His stated
commitment to respecting recent Supreme Court decisions on detainees
assures me that he will always pursue terrorists within the context of
our laws and treaty obligations. And his public as well as private
calls for a new approach to detainees is indicative of a thoughtful and
open-minded professional.
While I fully understand the concerns raised by my colleague from
Michigan, I am disappointed that it delayed this confirmation vote. The
Congress has an obligation to oversee how this administration is
treating detainees, in Guantanamo and around the world. Access to FBI
memoranda on this topic are critical to this oversight. But this
particular document has nothing to do with Judge Chertoff's
qualifications for this critical position. Indeed, I have confidence
that Judge Chertoff--who has called for more open discussion on the
topic of detention--will work closely with Congress so that we can come
to a full understanding of what has happened and where we go from here.
No one knows what the future may bring. The terrorist threat shifts,
and we are constantly learning about new vulnerabilities. At this
critical moment, I believe that Judge Chertoff has the kind of
commitment, intellect, and imagination that we need as someone who is
focused on keeping us safe, as someone who understands that homeland
security means identifying the greatest risks and vulnerabilities and
making them a priority, as someone who recognizes that, in protecting
ourselves, we cannot sacrifice our basic principles and values. Mr.
President, I am confident that Michael Chertoff is that person.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination
of Judge Michael Chertoff to be the new Secretary for the Department of
Homeland Security.
Make no mistake, I believe the challenges facing Judge Chertoff at
the 2-year-old Department are monumental. They include negotiating turf
battles with other powerful Cabinet Secretaries and ensuring that 22
formerly
[[Page S1376]]
disparate Federal agencies, with a combined workforce of 180,000
employees, work together under one central structure. In addition,
Judge Chertoff will be responsible for protecting our Nation's critical
infrastructure and for improving information sharing among law
enforcement agencies--without intruding unnecessarily on individual
privacy rights. It is a daunting assignment, but I believe Judge
Chertoff is up to it.
When Senator Obama and I met with Judge Chertoff last week, we
discussed several issues of concern to us, and Judge Chertoff assured
us that he will address these issues. Among my key concerns are the new
personnel rules for Department of Homeland Security employees. I
believe the new rules are far too restrictive when it comes to
collective bargaining, pay negotiations, and adjudicating grievances.
The situation at DHS has become even more important since the Bush
administration announced its intention to give agencies across the
Federal Government the option of creating similar human resource
policies. Judge Chertoff said he would sit down with the workers who
will be affected by the rules to listen to their concerns and
suggestions. It is important that he do so. As Judge Chertoff told
Senator Obama and me:
It's important to have a happy and satisfied workforce.
This is not going to work if people in the department feel
like they're being wronged.
Another issue Judge Chertoff promised to look into is the effort to
integrate the separate fingerprint data bases maintained by the
Department of Homeland Security and the FBI. Merging these two systems
into a single, integrated system is not simply a good idea, it is a
congressional mandate. Yet, a recent report by the Justice Department's
Inspector General concluded that the efforts to achieve a fully
integrated biometric fingerprint ID system have stalled. As one who has
pushed for such a system, I am deeply troubled by that assessment. More
than three 3 years after 9/11, it is unacceptable that this critical
improvement to our homeland security still had not been accomplished.
Judge Chertoff said the American people ``would go ballistic if we
can't get things to mesh.'' He is right and the American people have
every right to be angry. This must get done. I take Judge Chertoff at
his word when he says he will make development of an integrated
biometric fingerprint ID system a priority.
Judge Chertoff also promised to look into another possible threat to
our homeland security, and that is the apparent ease with which an
ordinary citizen can obtain an airline pilot's uniform. This threat was
documented recently by a Chicago TV reporter. Astonishingly, the
reporter found that he could purchase an authentic pilot's uniform
online--with no identification--and the uniform would be delivered to
his doorstep in 48 hours. How can this happen in a post-9/11 world?
Senator Obama and I have asked the Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee and the Transportation Security
Administration to answer that question. We will be looking for answers.
I look forward to working with Judge Chertoff on several issues of
particular importance to Illinois. Among them is a Microbial Risk
Assessment Center, which has been proposed by the University of Chicago
and would serve as the national clearinghouse to assess risks from
anthrax, smallpox, plague, and other possible bioterror threats.
In addition, the city of Chicago has developed a state-of-the-art
command center where personnel from the city's police, fire, and rescue
departments and representatives of the city's business community work
together in one room to monitor the city and, if necessary, respond
jointly to disasters. I believe this command center could serve as a
national model, and I encourage Judge Chertoff to examine its structure
and successes.
My decision to support Judge Chertoff is the result of serious
deliberation. While I am impressed by his record and his openness, I
also have some concerns about the role Judge Chertoff played in
developing certain administration policies while he served as the head
of the Justice Department's Criminal Division. In that capacity, Judge
Chertoff helped to craft high-profile initiatives that explicitly
targeted Arabs and Muslims and resulted in the detention of thousands
of people. In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Justice
Department rounded up at least 1,200 immigrants, the vast majority of
whom were Arab or Muslim. The Justice Department's Inspector General
found that none of these detainees--not one--was charged with a
terrorist-related offense, and that the decision to detain them was
``extremely attenuated'' from the 9/11 investigation. The Inspector
General also found that detainees were subjected to harsh conditions of
confinement and that some were subjected to ``a pattern of physical and
verbal abuse.''
Judge Chertoff also was tangentially involved in the Justice
Department's efforts to legalize abusive interrogation tactics. He
reviewed the infamous Justice Department ``torture memo'' and provided
advice on complying with the antitorture statute, but he told me that
he did not provide advice on the legality of any specific interrogation
methods.
The Justice Department's ``torture memo'' narrowly and, I believe,
incorrectly redefined torture as limited only to abuse that causes pain
equivalent to organ failure or death, and concluded that the
antitorture statute does not apply to interrogations conducted under
the President's so-called Commander in Chief authority.
This tortured effort to justify torture helped to create a permissive
environment that made it more likely that abuses of detainees would
take place and made it possible for the horrors we have since learned
about at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. What
happened in these places, I believe, has damaged our image and called
into question our moral authority in some places and it has increased--
not diminished--the dangers our troops and our citizens face in this
age of terrorism.
Unlike many other administration officials, however, Judge Chertoff
has acknowledged that the Government made mistakes in the aftermath of
9/11. He told me that he opposes ethnic and religious profiling and he
is committed to treating all immigrants fairly and to complying with
all laws regarding the humane treatment of detainees.
I take him at his word. I will expect Judge Chertoff, as Secretary of
Homeland Security, to balance America's need for security and our
respect for civil rights and our heritage as a nation of immigrants.
There are practical reasons, in addition to the legal reasons, for
seeking such balance. Detaining large numbers of Arab and Muslim
immigrants involves a massive investment of law enforcement resources
with little no return, and it creates fear and resentment of law
enforcement in exactly the immigrant communities whose cooperation we
need to defeat terrorism.
Finally, Judge Chertoff assured me that he will maintain open lines
of communication with Congress so that Congress can fulfill its
constitutional requirement to oversee whether, and how well, the
Department is implementing the laws this body passes.
For all of these reasons and because of his record of public service
and his candor during this confirmation process, I will support Judge
Chertoff's nomination to be America's next Secretary of Homeland
Security. I look forward to working with him to make America safer in
ways that are consistent with our national values and heritage, and I
wish Judge Chertoff the best of luck as he begins his important new
assignment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this Senator from New Mexico has known
Mr. Chertoff for a long time. I have been familiar with him
professionally, primarily when he was legal counsel for a committee on
which I served. In that capacity, I got to know his professional
qualities, his intellect, his care in interpreting both the law and
facts, and I am absolutely positive that he is going to make a superb
head for this very complicated Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Chertoff is a lawyer by trade and a judge by promotion within the
profession of advocacy. Now, regardless of the profession or
experiences of the person nominated to this position, there might have
been some who asked: Why not some other particular area of
[[Page S1377]]
expertise? That could be asked in this case. But I am quite sure that
when one looks at the myriad of problems addressed by and the kind of
intellect, commitment, and most of all, integrity that Judge Chertoff
has, it is clear that he is going to do a superb job on behalf of our
country and the safety of our homeland.
My compliments to the President for sending this nomination to the
committee, headed by Senator Collins, that reported him out quickly,
and to the Senate for overwhelmingly voting for him today. I salute
Judge Chertoff and wish him the best. I hope he is able to handle this
job with the same kind of excellence that he has handled all the other
jobs we have given him.
He has plenty of help, which he will need. This is not a job he can
do alone. It is a very big agency, and I hope everybody who works there
will be part of his team as he works to make Homeland Security operate
in a way that is efficient and good for our country and for our people.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, when the time comes I intend to vote in
favor of Judge Chertoff's nomination to be Secretary of Homeland
Security. There is no position in government of greater importance to
the security of our country and of my home State of New York. And so I
am glad that the Senate has agreed to devote some time to a discussion
of the important issues that the next Secretary of Homeland Security
will face.
Let me say at the outset that I have some serious concerns about this
nomination. These concerns have nothing to do with Judge Chertoff's
personal abilities: his professional and intellectual qualifications
are beyond question, as is his commitment to public service. Rather, my
concerns are based on the misguided and constitutionally infirm
policies that have been drafted by the Department of Justice and
implemented by the Administration in its prosecution of the war on
terror and in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Judge Chertoff was
a senior DOJ official at the time that these policies were created.
Because he is being nominated to a position for which respect for
Constitutional and treaty obligations is especially important, his role
in the formation of these policies is therefore worthy of careful
scrutiny.
My primary concern relates to those policies that have undercut and
placed our men and women in uniform in greater danger and diminished
our standing in the international community. I feel a particular
personal obligation as a member of the Armed Services Committee to do
my utmost to ensure that our government does not do anything that
unnecessarily puts our troops in harm's way, that diminishes our
standing among our allies, or that blurs the values that distinguish us
from our depraved and nihilistic enemies.
The August 1, 2002 memo from the Department of Justice's Office of
Legal Counsel, with its absurdly narrow definition of torture, is the
most shocking and well-known example of the administration's attempt to
radically weaken this country's commitment to treat all prisoners and
detainees humanely and in accordance with international agreements.
Another oft-cited example is Attorney General Gonzales' January 2002
advice to President Bush that the ``war on terrorism'' offers a ``new
paradigm [that] renders obsolete'' the Geneva Convention's protections.
I am satisfied by Judge Chertoff's testimony that, as Assistant
Attorney General for the Criminal Division, he did not provide legal
advice that strayed below the standard that is expected from senior
members of the Justice Department. He testified that executive branch
officials sought his views on the practical application of laws
prohibiting torture and on specific techniques. And he testified that
torture is illegal and wrong and that he does not believe that the
definition of torture in the August 1, 2002 OLC memo is broad enough.
He testified that he told executive branch officials to ``be sure that
you have good faith and you've operated diligently to make sure what
you are considering doing is well within the law.'' Regarding specific
techniques, Judge Chertoff testified that, ``I was not prepared to say
to people, to approve things in advance, or to give people speculative
opinions that they might later take as some kind of a license to do
something.''
These responses suggest that Judge Chertoff appreciates the
importance of upholding America's long tradition of treating prisoners
humanely, and of respecting international agreements that protect our
men and women in uniform as well as our standing in the international
community. While I would have preferred that Judge Chertoff had argued
his point to the administration more forcefully, I am satisfied that he
did not actively promote these wrongheaded, immoral, and
counterproductive policies.
Another important concern arises from the Justice Department's
treatment of more than 750 aliens detained immediately following the
attacks of September 11. The department's own inspector general
released a report in 2003 that acknowledged the ``difficult
circumstances'' in which the department found itself, but concluded
there were ``significant problems in the way that the September 11
detainees were treated.'' Among those problems were significant delays
in the FBI's clearance process, hindrances in access to legal counsel,
and verbal and physical abuse of detainees. The report specifically
finds that the Justice Department, including Judge Chertoff, was aware
of the FBI's clearance problems at the time. In fact, Judge Chertoff
testified that he inquired with the FBI about the clearance delays, but
the FBI's resources were ``stretched.'' The inspector general found
that the Justice Department should have done more once it learned of
the detainee-related problems.
When asked about this report at his confirmation hearing, Judge
Chertoff acknowledged that there were ``imperfections'' in the
executive branch's response. He testified that he was unaware at the
time of the hindrances in detainees' access to counsel, that he was
unaware of the verbal and physical abuse, and that such mistreatment is
inappropriate and should not have happened. He also stated the
importance of learning from experience.
I am disappointed that Judge Chertoff did not express greater regret
for the department's role in the mistreatment of detainees, and that he
did not testify in detail as to the status of the implementation of the
inspector general's recommended 21 reforms. Nonetheless, his responses
to this line of questioning are not, in my view, sufficient to oppose
his nomination. I hope that Judge Chertoff will bring to bear the
lessons we have learned from this experience and work to ensure
appropriate reforms are successfully carried out.
After careful consideration, I am satisfied by Judge Chertoff's
answers to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee regarding his conduct at the Justice Department. Despite the
egregious missteps the department made during his tenure, I do not
believe that his performance there disqualifies him from serving as the
next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. And in view of
his testimony and of his exceptional record during his short time on
the Federal bench, I believe that Judge Chertoff understands that the
next Secretary of Homeland Security must be both unflagging in his
efforts to protect us from terrorist attack and steadfast in his
respect for our Constitutional order.
I also believe that Judge Chertoff has a good understanding of the
issues and challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security.
Perhaps the biggest challenge awaiting him is the taming of the
enormous bureaucratic tangle that is the current department. If
confirmed, Judge Chertoff will become the head of a department that was
created via the integration of 22 separate agencies and 180,000
employees. These agencies and employees engage in a wide range of
activities related to securing the homeland, and they need a steady and
firm hand on the tiller. They also need a creative leader who can cut
through bureaucratic entanglement and get things done. As Secretary,
Judge Chertoff's central task will be setting priorities and getting a
vast bureaucracy to work efficiently and in a unified fashion.
I am hopeful Judge Chertoff's well-documented intellectual abilities
and his long experience as a public servant will serve him well as he
moves from the role of Federal judge to the head of such a large and
demanding Department. He pledged at his confirmation
[[Page S1378]]
hearing to work ``tirelessly'' to safeguard the nation. I hope he
follows through on that pledge in a variety of areas of critical
importance. He will need to devote substantial energy and political
capital if he is to help this still nascent Department develop to its
full potential and render all Americans as safe and as secure in their
liberties as possible.
I am encouraged that Judge Chertoff and I agree on a number of
specific challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security. One of
these issues--Federal funding formulas for state and local
preparedness--is essential to protecting the homeland. I have
repeatedly called upon the administration and my colleagues to
implement threat-based homeland security funding, so that homeland
security resources go to the states and areas where they are needed
most. I have introduced legislation in this regard and even developed a
specific homeland security formula for administration officials to
consider.
The latest iteration of that proposal is contained in my Domestic
Defense Fund Act of 2005, which I introduced on the first legislative
day of this Congress. Modeled on the Community Development Block Grant
program, the Domestic Defense Fund of 2005 provides $7 billion in
annual funding to local communities, States, and first responders. The
act requires that all of that funding be allocated using threat, risk,
and vulnerability-based criteria that homeland security experts--
including the Homeland Security Independent Task Force of the Council
on Foreign Relations, chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren
Rudman, and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the
United States--have long recommended.
I was heartened to hear Judge Chertoff testify at his confirmation
hearing, that ``I think we have to have a formula for funding and a
formula for lending assistance to State and local governments across
the board that takes account of the reality of vulnerabilities and
risks and making sure that we're making a fair allocation.'' Judge
Chertoff also stated this view when I met with him. His unequivocal
support for threat- and vulnerability-based funding is important for
New York, and for the nation.
Another issue on which Judge Chertoff and I agree is the need for
greater sharing of terrorist-related information between and among
Federal, State, and local government agencies. In the immediate
aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I worked with a number of my
colleagues in the Senate on a bi-partisan basis in focusing on this
need. As I noted in my remarks on the passage of the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the sharing of critical
intelligence information is vitally important if we are to win the War
against terrorism. We need to ensure that our front line solders in the
war against terrorism here at home--our local communities and our first
responders--are as informed as possible about any possible threat so
that they can do the best job possible to protect all Americans. It is
vital for New York City and other local communities across New York
State and the Nation to receive accurate and timely information from
the department when a potential threat emerges. It is equally important
that local communities on the front lines serve as valuable sources of
information for the Federal Government.
I was pleased to learn that Judge Chertoff testified at his
confirmation hearing that his personal experiences as an Assistant
United States Attorney, a United States Attorney and as head of the
Criminal Division on September 11, give him a thorough appreciation and
respect for State and local perspectives. In his testimony, he
described ``negotiating cooperation with our state and local government
officials'' as one of ``the central elements of the war against
terrorism. . . .'' He repeatedly referred to the need to work in
partnership with State and local government.
I could not agree more. The Federal Government cannot, and should
not, go it alone when it comes to securing the homeland. States and
local communities must be full partners. Much more needs to be done,
but Judge Chertoff's testimony demonstrates that he understands the
importance of this area as a key to homeland security.
I also find it encouraging that Judge Chertoff testified that he is
``acutely aware'' of the importance of allocating resources to secure
our ports. Needless to say, having a secretary of homeland security who
understands the importance of the Port of New York and New Jersey is
likely to be a good thing for New Yorkers, and for the entire country.
There has been little evidence to date that administration is
interested in using a threat-based formula for allocating resources.
Indeed, in Fiscal Year 2004, when the Administration had the
opportunity to employ such a formula in allocating funds under the
State Homeland Security Grant Program, SHGP, and the Law Enforcement
Terrorism Prevention, LETP, grant program, it affirmatively chose not
to do so, despite pleas from me and many members of Congress on both
sides of the aisle. Again in Fiscal Year 2005, there was no significant
effort on the part of the administration to use a threat-based formula.
I wrote President Bush imploring him to work with the House and
Senate leadership on the issue of homeland security funding, but
language was inserted in the Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security
Appropriations Act to require that SHGP and LETP funds be allocated in
that fiscal year as the administration chose to allocate funds in
Fiscal Year 2004, which, unfortunately, was on the basis of population
alone. Every homeland security expert I know has said that this makes
no sense. If the terrorists are looking at things such as the presence
and vulnerability of critical infrastructures as well as population and
population densities, so should we.
This year, the administration is again talking a good game on
homeland security grant formulas. The Fiscal Year 2006 budget request
calls for more than $1 billion in grants to States for the purpose of
enhancing capabilities to prevent, deter, respond to and recover from
acts of terrorism, to be allocated by the Secretary of Homeland
Security ``based on risks, threats, vulnerabilities, and unmet
essential capabilities,'' with a 0.25 percent State minimum. In
addition, more than $1 billion would go for grants to urban areas, for
the same purpose, and on the same basis--minus, of course, a State
minimum.
This is a step in the right direction, but we need to allocate much
more funding for this purpose. Whether through direct funding--which I
continue to believe is the best way to disburse homeland security
funding to many communities--or funding that is sent to the states and
passed through to local communities, the Federal Government should be
disbursing the homeland security state and local funds to communities
according to a threat- and vulnerability-based formula.
In addition, my Domestic Defense Fund Act makes it explicit that the
funding provided for in my proposed legislation will not supplant or be
in lieu of funding for traditional first responders programs, such as
the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, program and the
Assistance to Fire Fighters, FIRE, Act program. These Federal programs
have proven successful in helping first responders perform traditional
functions, such as fighting crime and responding to fires.
Unfortunately, the Fiscal Year 2006 budget request seeks to cut or
eliminate a number of these essential first responder programs. Under
the President's proposed budget, funding for the COPS program is
reduced from $379 million to $118 million nationally, which comes on
top of previous years' cuts for the COPS program, which once received
more than $1.5 billion in funding. And absolutely no funding is
proposed for the COPS Universal Hiring Program, the COPS MORE program,
COPS in Schools program, or the COPS Interoperable Communications
Technology Program.
The Fiscal Year 2006 budget request also proposes no funding for the
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program, named after a
New York City police officer killed in the line of duty, and the Local
Law Enforcement Block Grant program. These programs in the past have
provided states and local governments with Federal funds to support
efforts to reduce crime and increase public safety, such
[[Page S1379]]
as enhancing security measures around schools, establishing or
supporting drug courts, and preventing violent and/or drug-related
crime.
I find that shameful, especially as our fire fighters, police
officers, emergency service workers and other first responders continue
to be on the front lines of our nation's homeland defense. It is
imperative that Judge Chertoff, if confirmed, stand by his philosophy
of risk-based allocation and appreciation for the role of state and
local partners when he prepares his department's budget in coming
years.
In fact, the outcome of a number of homeland security imperatives
will depend to a significant extent on Judge Chertoff's willingness to
fight hard during the budget process. A good example of this is the
addition of new border patrol agents mandated in the recently enacted
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. If the goals
of this legislation are realized, the security of the northern border
would be improved, a result I have worked for since 2001. Among many
provisions, the act calls for an increase of at least 10,000 border
patrol agents from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2010, many of whom will be
dedicated specifically to our northern border. And yet the FY06 budget
request did not come close to seeking the 2,000 new border patrol
agents authorized for this year. Judge Chertoff must be willing to
fight hard for full funding of this and other programs essential to the
department's mission.
I appreciate that Judge Chertoff understands the critical importance
of securing chemical facilities. There are hundreds of chemical plants
in the United States where a terrorist attack could threaten more than
100,000 Americans with exposure to toxic chemicals. This is a homeland
security vulnerability that has been recognized by many, yet we still
have no mandatory Federal standards for chemical plants, and the
Department of Homeland Security lacks authority to put such standards
in place. Until Congress provides the department with such authority,
Americans will continue to rely on voluntary security measures at
chemical plants, which have been repeatedly shown to be lax.
I believe that the best solution to this problem would be to enact
the Chemical Security Act that I have sponsored with Senator Corzine.
However, in order to pass this or other chemical plant security
legislation, we will need stronger support from the administration and
from the Secretary of Homeland Security than we have had in the past.
That is why I was encouraged by Judge Chertoff's testimony that he is
aware of the significant risk of that sector based on his personal
experience. He also testified that ``the Federal Government needs to be
able to use a whole range of tools to bring the industry up to an
appropriate standard'' and that ``the President has indicated that he
supports, if necessary, the use of authorities to require chemical
companies to come up to certain standards, with appropriate penalties
if they don't do so.''
Thus, on balance, my personal exchange with Judge Chertoff--and the
testimony he gave during his confirmation hearing--speak of his
commitment to threat- and vulnerability-based funding, his keen
awareness of other vital homeland security issues for New Yorkers, and
his intent to work tirelessly. He is from New Jersey and knows the
homeland security needs of the region from personal experience.
Ultimately, his roots in the region, his personal experiences, and his
expressions of commitment to policies that are essential to the
security of New Yorkers, are decisive factors in my decision to vote to
confirm.
One of the lessons we have learned since September 11 is that
constant vigilance is required of the Congress; oversight and
accountability must be our watch words. Oversight requires us to demand
that the rule of law be respected by the executive branch, and that we
do not countenance the flouting of the law or of treaties. It requires
us to hold the executive branch truly accountable for its actions. If
we have learned anything since that September day in 2001, particularly
with respect to this administration, it is the timeless truth that
``eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.''
It has been said before, but it bears repeating--our Nation faces a
new kind of challenge to our way of life. I have no doubt we will
overcome this challenge, but it will only be overcome through
maintaining and strengthening our civil society and our commitment to
being a force for decency and respect for law in the world.
Judge Chertoff testified that, as Secretary, he will ``be mindful of
the need to reconcile the imperatives of security with the preservation
of liberty and privacy.'' I agree that one of the central dilemmas of
our time is balancing security with liberty and privacy. As the 9/11
Commission said, ``Our history has shown us that insecurity threatens
liberty. Yet, if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that
we are struggling to defend.'' I believe that Judge Chertoff is
professionally qualified to be Secretary of Homeland Security, and that
he understands and respects the values that the Secretary works to
defend. Therefore, I will be voting in favor of his confirmation.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank Judge Michael Chertoff for having
the courage to take on the challenging tasks of leading the Department
of Homeland Security. He is an ideal nominee for this position, and I
look forward to working with him and other department officials to
ensure that we have the best possible border and port security, cyber
security, and efficient distribution of DHS resources and personnel.
There are several issues that we need to address in the short term,
particularly in the areas of state homeland security grants and cyber
security.
For the last 4 years, the Department of Homeland Security has
provided billions of dollars throughout the country to prevent, prepare
for, and respond to acts of terrorism. There are several effective
first responder grant programs that have raised our nation's overall
level of preparedness and ability to react to all manner of disasters.
However, many of the funds distributed to states and local
Governments have been allocated by formulas that fail to take into
consideration actual needs or are not based on real risks of terrorism.
It is time that Congress re-examine the methods of distributing these
critical preparedness funds. In order to adequately secure the nation
against terrorist attacks, the Federal Government must strategically
distribute grants to states and local governments in an efficient
manner and to the places where they will be most effective. Congress
must take the lead in reforming the system for distributing these funds
based on actual threats and vulnerabilities and enable Federal agencies
to target critical gaps in state and local terrorism prevention and
preparedness capabilities.
We know that terrorists seek to strike the U.S. where it will do the
most damage, either in terms of American lives or our country's economy
and vital assets. Of course, we should make sure that our population
centers are protected, but that does not mean that funds should only go
to urban areas. When it comes to protecting our economy and vulnerable
critical infrastructure, we need to be mindful of protecting all the
vital components of these systems. Taking the U.S. food supply as an
example, this would mean securing both up and down stream components,
from agriculture and food production systems to the ports that ship
products in and out of the country.
By targeting terrorism preparedness funds to the communities and
components of the economy that are most at risk, the whole country
benefits.
And looking beyond traditional terrorism preparedness, in this age of
the Internet and globally interconnected computer systems, securing the
Nation's borders no longer includes just land, air and sea, but also
cyberspace. As a result, it is critical that the federal government
provide strong leadership in cyber security by securing its computer
systems and adequately safeguarding key components in our national
infrastructure--including the systems the country relies upon that link
water, utility, communications, transportation and financial networks.
I am encouraged that Judge Chertoff, has committed to closely
examining the agency's role in cyber security to ensure it is doing
everything possible in this critical mission. Toward that goal, we
should elevate the issue of cyber security within the agency and create
the position of Assistant Secretary of Cyber Security.
[[Page S1380]]
We made important strides toward making America safer with the
recently enacted Intelligence Reform Bill, but we cannot claim to have
finished the job of improving our intelligence capability and homeland
security until we deal comprehensively with the need for enhanced cyber
security. An organized cyber attack would disrupt national security,
halt the production and distribution of needed goods and services, and
threaten the very fabric of our Nation's economy.
Unfortunately, cyber security is an area that tends to be overlooked
in the discussion of homeland security. First responders to a cyber
security attack on America have far different needs and functions than
traditional first responders. They require a clear and visible
leadership within DHS to organize and maintain our security. Given the
dynamic and ever-expanding threats in the area of cyber security, an
Assistant Secretary of Cyber Security will provide DHS with an enhanced
ability to interact, influence, and coordinate targeted cyber security
missions across all areas of our infrastructure.
The effort to secure our nation will not be complete until all
aspects of vulnerability to terrorists are recognized. This is true for
all our national borders; on land, air, sea, and cyber space.
Recognizing that threat is an important step, but we must now make
every effort to prevent the threat from becoming a crippling reality.
I am proud to vote for Judge Chertoff. He has well-deserved
bipartisan support, and I am confident he will be able to do the job.
As Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division of the U.S.
Department of Justice, he worked tirelessly following the September
11th attacks, prosecuting those whose specific goal was to kill
innocent citizens in New York, Virginia and elsewhere in this country.
I look forward to working alongside him on these critical issues, and I
am sure he will bring courage and commitment to the serious tasks at
hand.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the Constitution provides the Senate
with a responsibility to evaluate Presidential nominations. This is a
responsibility that I take very seriously because the Senate's role
ensures strong leadership at the very highest levels of the Federal
Government.
Today, the Senate considers the nomination of Judge Michael Chertoff
to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Leading the
Department of Homeland Security is not an easy job, and requires an
individual with tireless dedication, unending perseverance, and strong
leadership.
The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,
led by Chairman Collins and ranking member Lieberman, conducted a
thorough examination of Judge Chertoffs record, and I support the
committee's recommendation to endorse his nomination.
The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is tasked with a
serious responsibility--leading our country's unified effort to secure
America and protect the homeland from terrorist attacks. To take this
job, Judge Chertoff has walked away from a lifetime appointment to
third circuit, a position for which I supported him. I commend him for
embracing this new responsibility and answering the call of the
President and of all American citizens.
In the wake of the attacks on September 11, our Nation was confronted
with a challenge to revamp our homeland security posture and adopt a
strategic plan to defend America from global threat of terrorism. Many
of our efforts to strengthen homeland security have been successful,
and were long overdue. But there are critical networks and
infrastructure that need additional attention to reduce their
vulnerability to terrorist attacks, such as: our food supply,
telecommunications and financial networks, rail transportation
infrastructure, and chemical facilities.
In Washington State, we have looked to the Department of Homeland
Security to assist us in preparing our first responders and providing
them with the financial, training, and information resources they need
to meet new security requirements. I would urge Judge Chertoff to
continue to work closely with local first responders from my state who
are on the front lines of ensuring that Washington's ports, borders,
and critical infrastructure are secure.
I am confident that Judge Chertoff will be confirmed today. I am
eager to begin working with him to continue to improve the security of
Washington State and all of America's homeland.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will complete the
consideration of the nomination of Michael Chertoff to head the
Department of Homeland Security.
Judge Chertoff currently serves as a Federal judge on the Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit. This is a lifetime appointment that he
has held for a relatively short time and that he will be abandoning to
return to executive branch service. I helped expedite and voted in
favor of Judge Chertoff when his nomination to the third circuit came
to the Senate in 2003.
Before that he was the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the
Criminal Division at the Department of Justice. I helped expedite and
voted in favor of that nomination in 2001.
I have worked with Mike Chertoff and appreciate his background as a
prosecutor. He is very capable. He works hard. What one sees when you
consider his career is that much of the time he acts as a consummate
professional in our best tradition. Although there have been times when
he has shown partisanship in an apparent effort to ``earn his spurs''
with those on the extreme right, it is my hope and expectation that he
will bring his better angels with him as he embarks on his new role as
Secretary of the Office of Homeland Security. That is not a position
that needs or deserves even a hint of partisanship. Indeed, one of the
moments that marred Secretary Ridge's tenure was when he stepped out of
character to make a blatantly partisan pitch during the run-up to the
recent presidential election.
I was astonished when President Bush announced that he had chosen
Bernie Kerik to replace Secretary Ridge. When newspapers and news
magazines began looking at that nomination, it became apparent that the
vetting of that nomination was shoddy and that Mr. Kerik was an
unacceptable choice on a number of grounds. That misadventure cost us
time and led to Judge Chertoff's nomination being made later than it
should have been by the administration.
The Senate has expedited consideration of this nomination. In what I
hope is a sign of better days to come and of increased responsiveness,
I note that this nominee has responded in kind by seeking to answer in
one day's time a letter I sent to him. I appreciate that kind of
responsiveness.
In light of his effort, I will excuse his missing the point in
failing to respond directly to my first question. I raised with the
nominee an aspect of his conversations with representatives of the
intelligence community while he was serving as a principal law enforcer
charged with prosecutions under the anti-torture law. My question to
Judge Chertoff was an opportunity for him to reflect on the
inappropriateness of the chief prosecutor advising lawyers for possible
investigatory targets regarding how he would apply the law and what
might provide a safe harbor when it came to torture.
I commend Senator Levin for trying to get to the substance of those
conversations during confirmation hearings. Sadly but all too
characteristically, the Bush administration has refused to provide him
or the Senate with the relevant materials in this regard. I am,
likewise, concerned that Mr. Chertoff was not more assertive during
discussions with the Office of Legal Counsel as it headed down the
wrong road in trying artificially to narrow the definition of torture
to provide latitude that contributed to widespread international
scandals in our wrongful treatment of prisoners. I wish someone within
the Bush administration at the time had stood up for the rule of law
and had succeeded in derailing the search directed by Judge Gonzales to
create loopholes in our law.
I appreciate that Judge Chertoff has committed to implementing the
recommendations of the inspector general with respect to preserving the
civil rights of those detained by the Government in his answer to my
second question. That inquiry derived from his testimony to the
Judiciary Committee in November 2001.
Finally, I asked a series of questions about the so-called ``wall''
between law
[[Page S1381]]
enforcement investigations and intelligence. The 9/11 Commission report
went a long way toward dismantling the myth that former Attorney
General Ashcroft had tried to perpetuate. I recall when even President
Bush upbraided Attorney General Ashcroft following his assault upon
Commissioner Gorelick at the 9/11 Commission hearings.
I pointed out that during the Clinton administration almost one year
before September 11, 2001, the Department of Justice Office of Legal
Counsel had issued an official memorandum noting the Government's
position on ``Sharing Title III Electronic Surveillance Material with
the Intelligence Community,'' which concluded that law enforcement
officials may share surveillance information with the intelligence
community to obtain assistance in preventing, investigating or
prosecuting a crime, or where the information was of overriding
importance to national security or foreign relations.
As Judge Chertoff recalls, it was Attorney General Ashcroft who
adopted measures on January 21, 2000, and it was the memorandum issued
by Deputy Attorney General Thompson on August 6, 2001, that governed
information sharing in the days leading to the disaster that was
September 11. Indeed, Judge Chertoff notes: ``When it was deemed to be
appropriate, additional procedures were put in place in specific cases,
or in sets of related cases.'' He proceeds to concede that without any
change in the law, in the time between September 11 and enactment of
the USA PATRIOT Act: ``With court approval, some of these procedures
were modified between 9/11 and October 26, 2001, the effective date of
the USA PATRIOT Act.''
The 9/11 Commission established during its investigation that in the
days and months before September 11, 2001, information sharing
requirements and procedures were misunderstood and misapplied at the
Department of Justice. I appreciated Judge Chertoff's offering a
glimpse into the inner workings of the Ashcroft Justice Department in
the days that led up to 9/11 when he noted that there was a ``vigorous
internal debate about the appropriate procedures for sharing
information collected in foreign intelligence and counterterrorism
investigations with criminal agents and prosecutors.'' That ``internal
debate'' was unresolved on September 11, 2001, when terrorists struck
in New York and at the Pentagon and were thwarted in the sky over
Pennsylvania.
When the Justice Department came forward to work with the Senate in
the weeks following the attacks, I worked with Mr. Chertoff to ensure
that law enforcement and intelligence efforts were better coordinated,
and I urged him, the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI to
change the culture that had led to destructive and dysfunctional
hoarding of essential security information.
I ask unanimous consent that copies of my letter to Judge Chertoff
and his response be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, February 7, 2005.
Hon. Michael Chertoff,
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Martin
Luther King, Jr. Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse,
Walnut Street, Newark, NJ.
Dear Judge Chertoff: Congratulations on your nomination to
head the Department of Homeland Security. While I am somewhat
surprised to be considering your nomination to an Executive
Branch position so soon after your confirmation to the
Federal bench, I respect your commitment to public service.
The work of the Department of Homeland Security is crucial to
the safety and security of the American people, and there are
lingering problems in integrating all of the elements of the
department and in making them as effective as we need them to
be. Managing DHS is one of the toughest assignments in
Washington, and I admire and appreciate your willingness to
take it. I feel confident that the vetting problems we saw
with respect to the Kerik nomination will not plague yours.
It is regrettable that the Judiciary Committee has not held
a hearing and was not even allowed to participate in a
hearing on your nomination. Much of the work of the
Department of Homeland Security remains of importance and
interest to the Judiciary Committee and within its
jurisdiction and expertise.
In connection with our committee's oversight
responsibilities as the Senate prepares to debate and vote on
your nomination, I would ask you to respond regarding three
principal matters.
First, at your confirmation hearing last week, you
acknowledged that while serving as head of the Criminal
Division, you consulted with lawyers for the intelligence
community regarding specific interrogation techniques. I ask
that you reflect upon your conduct in which you were
apparently discussing the possible application of the
criminal anti-torture statute with representatives of
agencies whose personnel might be involved in conduct that
you might later be called upon to evaluate for prosecution.
In hindsight, should you not have refused to engage in those
discussions, or referred the agencies to a non-prosecutorial
office of the government such as the Office of Legal Counsel?
Second, in your testimony before the Senate Judiciary
Committee in November 2001, you stated that the Department of
Justice, in its investigation into the September 11 attacks,
acted in complete accordance with all statutory and
constitutional requirements in place before or after the
attack. With what has come to light since then about the
treatment of detainees, including the Inspector General's
highly critical June 2003 report on that topic, what would
you now say about government practices in the months
following the 9/11 attacks and how they went wrong? Is it not
also true, as indicated in the 9/11 Commission report that
information sharing legal requirements and procedures were
misunderstood and misapplied before September 11, 2001?
Before September 11, 2001, what did you do to improve
information sharing between the law enforcement and
intelligence communities?
Third, what were the policies and practices of the
Department of Justice with respect to information sharing
between law enforcement and intelligence functions during the
period that you headed the Criminal Division? In particular,
what were those policies and practices before September 11,
2001, and how if at all did they change between September 11,
2001, and October 26, 2001, when the USA PATRIOT Act was
signed into law? Is it not true that in 2000 the Department's
Office of Legal Counsel issued an official memorandum on
``Sharing Title III Electronic Surveillance Material with the
Intelligence Community,'' which concluded that law
enforcement officials may share surveillance information with
the intelligence community to obtain assistance in
preventing, investigating or prosecuting a crime, or where
the information was of overriding importance to national
security or foreign relations?
I look forward to your prompt response.
Sincerely,
Patrick Leahy,
Ranking Democratic Member.
____
Post-Hearing Questions for the Record Submitted by Senator Patrick
Leahy for the Nomination Hearing of Judge Michael Chertoff To Be
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
Question: First, at your confirmation hearing last week,
you acknowledged that while serving as head of the Criminal
Division, you consulted with lawyers for the intelligence
community regarding specific interrogation techniques.
I ask that you reflect upon your conduct in which you were
apparently discussing the possible application of the
criminal anti-torture statute with representatives of
agencies whose personnel might be involved in conduct that
you might later be called upon to evaluate for prosecution.
In hindsight, should you not have refused to engage in those
discussions, or referred the agencies to a non-prosecutorial
office of the government such as the Office of Legal Counsel?
Answer: As I stated at my confirmation hearing, I was asked
to provide my views to other attorneys on how the anti-
torture statute would be applied by a prosecutor. My position
in response was not to give advance, speculative advice about
what could be done; rather, it was to make sure that the
lawyers understood that what is likely to be critical to a
prosecutor evaluating a potential charge is the honest, good-
faith assessment by any interrogators of the effects of what
they are doing and how those effects measure against the
statute.
I believe it would have been a dereliction of my duty to
refuse to assist the Office of Legal Counsel and lawyers from
other government agencies. The Office of Legal Counsel, a
component separate and distinct from the Criminal Division,
was the primary Department of Justice Component responsible
for the guidance on the meaning of the anti-torture statute.
I understand that, depending on the legal question under
analysis, OLC or lawyers from other government agencies on
occasion solicit the views of components of the Department
that have expertise in the matter under consideration. I
believe it was appropriate for the Criminal Division to offer
general guidance on application of the law.
Question: Second, in your testimony before the Senate
Judiciary Committee in November 2001, you stated that the
Department of Justice, in its investigation into the
September 11 attacks, acted in complete accordance with all
statutory and constitutional requirements in place before or
after the attack.
With what has come to light since then about the treatment
of detainees, including the Inspector General's highly
critical June
[[Page S1382]]
2003 report on that topic, what would you now say about
government practices in the months following the 9/11 attacks
and how they went wrong?
Answer: As explained in the OIG report, I believed that if
individuals linked through investigation to the hijackers or
terrorism were chargeable with violations of our criminal
laws or immigration laws, as enacted by Congress, the
government should seek detention in accordance with the
applicable law while were investigating to determine if the
charged individuals posed an actual threat. In these
discussions, I repeatedly emphasized that this policy applied
only to those properly chargeable with breaking the law and
that detention should be sought consistent with relevant law
and regulations.
My understanding is that those detained in the course of
the 9/11 investigation were detained with an individualized
predicate, meaning, a criminal charge, an immigration
violation, or a judicially-issued material witness warrant.
There was a legal basis for each detention. The top priority
of the Justice Department was preventing another terrorist
attack against the American people, and the lawful detention
of individuals who were known to have violated immigration
laws--like the September 11 attackers themselves--was a
reasonable policy.
I acknowledge that the policy could have been implemented
better and it will be in the future. I believe that the
Government faced an unparalleled challenge on September 11:
How to prevent devastating terrorist attacks that might arise
at any moment from al-Qaeda ``sleepers'' who had been
specifically programmed to disguise themselves, blend into
ordinary life, and to exploit existing networks for obtaining
phony documents and other means of support. That challenge
was compounded by the fact that the September 11 attacks
physically crippled the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office in New
York (which were the repositories of much of the Department's
antiterrorism expertise at the time) and impaired
communication between New York and Washington for a period of
time. Furthermore, because the 9/11 conspirators operated in
cities and towns across the country, the 9/11 investigation
necessitated following and analyzing many thousands of leads
generated by numerous FBI field offices, some of which had
little previous experience in conducting terrorism
investigations. Looking for a terrorist under these
circumstances was akin to looking for a needle in a
nationwide haystack, but with the needle masquerading as a
stalk of hay.
The OIG report identifies concerns that FBI investigative
delays or lack of precision in turn led to delays in
processing of immigration detainees. In the aftermath of the
surprise attack on September 11, the FBI labored under
physical and resource constraints in the face of an urgent
investigative demand of unprecedented scope. Now, additional
resources, training enhancements and reorganizations within
the Department and the FBI, as well as the Intelligence
Reform Bill--are designed to--and should continue to--
increase FBI expertise and capability and streamline
coordination, so that in any future nationwide terrorism
investigation delays and imprecision will be minimized.
Furthermore, I believe that the FBI and DHS should and will
continue to build upon their experience to develop and firmly
establish appropriate protocols for classifying subjects of
terrorism investigations at the appropriate level of concern,
setting up appropriate deadlines for notification that a
particular detainee is or is no longer a terrorism risk;
sharing information between law enforcement and immigration
agencies; and finalizing a crisis management plan that
clearly delineates each agencies procedures and
responsibilities in the event of a national emergency. These
enhancements would further reduce the potential for
impinging on civil liberties.
Finally, so far as the OIG report identified acts of
misconduct by guards at detention facilities these were, of
course, wrong, and steps should be taken to assure no such
behavior occurs in the future. I believe that DHS and DOJ
have implemented some of these proposals and, if confirmed, I
will work to further increase their successful
implementation.
Question: Is it not also true, as indicated in the 9/11
Commission report that information sharing legal requirements
and procedures were misunderstood and misapplied before
September 11, 2001? Before September 11, 2001, what did you
do to improve information sharing between the law enforcement
and intelligence communities?
Answer: I began at the Criminal Division on approximately
June 1, 2001. My activities date from that point.
Prior to 9/11, the Department--including the Criminal
Division under my leadership--was engaged in a vigorous
internal debate about the appropriate procedures for sharing
information collected in foreign counterintelligence and
counterterrorism investigations with criminal agents and
prosecutors, and the proper role for prosecutors in such
investigations. I understand that the procedures in effect on
9/11 were those that had been adopted by the Attorney General
on July 19, 1995 (including an annex concerning the Southern
District of New York), the interim measures approved by the
Attorney General on January 21, 2000, and the memorandum
issued by the Deputy Attorney General on August 6, 2001.
Question: Third, what were the policies and practices of
the Department of Justice with respect to information sharing
between law enforcement and intelligence functions during the
period that you headed the Criminal Division? In particular,
what were those policies and practices before September 11,
2001, and how if at all did they change between September 11,
2001, and October 26, 2001, when the USA PATRIOT Act was
signed into law? Is it not true that in 2000 the Department's
Office of Legal Counsel issued an official memorandum on
``Sharing Title III Electronic Surveillance Material with the
Intelligence Community,'' which concluded that law
enforcement officials may share surveillance information with
the intelligence community to obtain assistance in
preventing, investigating or prosecuting a crime, or where
the information was of overriding importance to national
security or foreign relations?
Answer: As discussed above, prior to 9/11, the Department--
including the Criminal Division under my leadership--was
engaged in a vigorous internal debate about the appropriate
procedures for sharing information collected in foreign
counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigations with
criminal agents and prosecutors, and the proper role for
prosecutors in such investigations. The procedures in effect
on 9/11 were those that had been adopted by the Attorney
General on July 19, 1995 (including an annex concerning the
Southern District of New York), the interim measures approved
by the Attorney General on January 21, 2000, and the
memorandum issued by the Deputy Attorney General on August 6,
2001. Where it was deemed to be appropriate, additional
procedures were put in place in specific cases, or in sets of
related cases. With court approval, some of these procedures
were modified between 9/11 and October 26, 2001, the
effective date of the USA PATRIOT Act. On March 6, 2002, the
Attorney General adopted new information sharing procedures
that replaced all of the above-referenced procedures. The
March 6th procedures, however, did not take full effect until
the Foreign Intelligence Court of Review issued a ruling
regarding these matters on November 18, 2002.
Mr. LEAHY. Heading the Department of Homeland Security is a position
that may be one of the more difficult assignments in Washington and in
Government. The work of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, is
crucial to the safety and security of the American people. There remain
many problems in integrating the elements of the Department and in
making them as effective as we need them to be. I remain concerned with
a number of issues in need of greater attention at DHS and much more
significant support from the highest levels of the Bush administration.
Working with Secretary Chertoff, maybe we will be able to get that
attention and support.
The Bush administration has failed to provide the necessary
assistance for first responders throughout our Nation. As the costs
borne by law enforcement agencies across the country continue to rise,
we need to increase the partnership help offered to our nation's first
responders. Instead, in the President's new budget, he has proposed
cutting overall funding for first responders by $670 million. These
cuts target vital emergency services affecting every State, regardless
of size or population. The President also proposed cutting the all-
State minimum for first-responder grants from 0.75 percent to 0.25
percent. That new formula would result in the loss of funds to police,
firefighters and emergency rescue squads in dozens of states from coast
to coast. In Vermont, this would mean a loss of at least $10 million
dollars in fiscal year 2006--grant funds that are used to provide
security services along thousands of miles of our border with three
states. Vermont's border with Canada spans approximately 95 miles, but
the Swanton Border Patrol is charged with protecting 24,000 square
miles, which includes not only the entire State of Vermont, but also
numerous counties in New York and New Hampshire. Within this area, the
Swanton Border Patrol is required to patrol more than 261 miles of
International Boundary.
Our approach to port security is also insufficient. More than 90
percent of the world's trade is moved in cargo containers. The
Government Accountability Office has found that the information that
the Bureau of Customs and Border Patrol uses to determine which cargo
should be searched is ``one of the least reliable or useful for
targeting purposes.'' In addition, our government has been slow to
install radiation detection portals at our ports, leaving us vulnerable
to the smuggling of a nuclear or radiological weapon.
Mass Transit Measures Idle. Our mass transit systems are similarly at
risk. While we spent about $4.5 billion on aviation security last year,
we devoted only $65 million to rail security, even though five times as
many people take trains as planes every day. The
[[Page S1383]]
Madrid bombing vividly demonstrated the potential vulnerability of mass
transit, and I am concerned that the administration is not responding
effectively enough to this threat. This needs to be a higher priority
than the administration has made it. The TSA has been slow in
developing security procedures at port and rail facilities around the
country, and our transit and freight transportation systems remain at
risk. The recent DHS budget submission cuts funding for the following
essential security programs: port security grants, port security
incident response, intercity bus grants, container threat assessments,
nuclear detection and monitoring, hazmat truck tracking and training,
and rail security inspectors.
Air Security Concerns Linger. Despite the dedicated resources to
aviation security, problems remain. There have been several
reorganizations of the TSA's airport screeners program, but reports
from the GAO and the DHS Office of Inspector General suggest that the
screening programs for baggage and passengers at our nation's airports
are not as effective as they should be. We need to ensure that the
$4,734,784,000 budget request for aviation security this year is spent
wisely and properly.
Secretary Chertoff, if he is confirmed, will oversee both the
enforcement of our immigration laws and the granting of immigration
benefits. We face a number of important choices on immigration in the
coming years, and I hope that he will play a constructive role.
I urge him to support the bipartisan efforts in Congress to improve
the H-2B visa program, so we can meet the needs of small employers
around our nation who depend on seasonal immigrant labor to stay in
business. I hope he will support the bipartisan ``AgJOBS'' bill, which
provides relief both to the agriculture industry and to the immigrant
farm workers who make up a majority of the farm workforce in our
nation. And as the Congress debates fundamental immigration reform, I
hope that Judge Chertoff will work to help ensure that any reform
efforts recognize and embrace the tremendous contributions of
immigrants to our economy and our culture.
I would like to note the release last week of a report by the U.S.
Commission on International Religious Freedom, a bipartisan commission
created by Congress that we asked to study the expedited removal system
and its effect on asylum seekers. In his response to me last week,
Judge Chertoff showed a commendable concern for the civil rights of
those who were detained due to alleged immigration violations during
the 9/11 investigation. His concern should be even more pronounced
here, where the Commission found that DHS detains people who seek
refuge in the United States--and are not even accused of committing any
criminal or civil violation--under conditions that ``are entirely
inappropriate for asylum seekers fleeing persecution.''
If we are to recapture America's rightful place as a haven for the
oppressed, the tragic situation of asylum seekers must be rectified.
The Commission offered a number of recommendations that can be
implemented through administrative action, such as establishing an
office within DHS to oversee the treatment of refugees and asylum
seekers and issuing formal regulations governing when asylum seekers
should be released from detention. I urge Judge Chertoff to begin the
process of making these changes immediately.
As secretary, Judge Chertoff will also supervise a number of
outstanding Federal employees who are Vermonters and work for various
components of the Department, particularly in DHS' immigration
agencies. I believe he will be pleased with their efforts and their
expertise.
Secretary Ridge and I have disagreed strongly about DHS' efforts to
privatize Immigration Information Officer, IIO, and other positions at
the agency, and Congress has barred that privatization for the current
fiscal year. Among other duties, IIOs perform background checks on
applicants for immigration benefits, a function that should be
performed by government employees. I urge Secretary Chertoff to
consider the repeated votes of both the House and Senate to maintain
these positions as government employees and to make no effort to
revisit the unwise and unpopular efforts of his predecessor.
I will support this nomination. Secretary Chertoff will face great
challenges ahead. I hope that he will work with me and others, on both
sides of the aisle, in finding the best solutions in meeting them.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination
of Michael Chertoff to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security, DHS. Chairman Stevens and I had the opportunity to meet with
Judge Chertoff, and I was encouraged by his desire to work with
Congress to address the nation's homeland security needs. I believe
that his stated goal of resolving the internal disputes that have
plagued DHS since its founding and his commitment to reduce the
vulnerability of all our transportation systems to terrorist attack
will serve him well in this new capacity.
Though I support Judge Chertoff's nomination, I want to take this
opportunity to express some of my thoughts and concerns about the
current state of DHS and the Transportation Security Administration in
particular.
In the days following September 11, we all recognized the many
serious flaws in our homeland security efforts. We were exposed to new
and unexpected threats in ways we had never before thought possible. We
committed to do everything in our power to ensure that a tragedy like
September 11 would never happen again. We took bold, speedy, and
necessary action. We made transportation security a national security
function by enacting the Aviation Transportation Security Act and the
Maritime Transportation Security Act, both considered landmark
legislation.
Although a number of high profile actions have been taken to
strengthen aviation security, I fear that the same zealous effort to
adequately strengthen security across all modes of transportation has
stalled. In the more than three years since September 11, very little
has been done to aggressively promote security of our ports, our
passenger and freight rail system, motor carriers, pipelines, and
hazardous materials, despite very specific congressional direction.
Meanwhile, the threats to our transportation security are as serious
as they have always been. From the train bombing in Madrid to the
maritime attack off the coast of Yemen, the threats have not waned in
the slightest.
But, based on the President's Budget, there are apparently some in
the Administration who seem to believe that our work is done. The
President's Budget recommends shifting critical work away from the
Transportation Security Administration, TSA, to other organizations
within DHS that have neither the expertise nor the necessary authority
to be effective. In my view, further decentralizing the
responsibilities of TSA will destroy the remaining, limited
accountability that TSA provides for transportation security.
I recognize that consolidating 22 Federal agencies into one
department presents significant management challenges and that growing
pains are to be expected as different agencies come together. However,
growing pains are not a license to continue the stovepipe behavior that
existed prior to September 11. When Congress created the Department of
Homeland Security and, more specifically, the Transportation Security
Administration, it made clear that ``business as usual'' was not
acceptable. The Department and TSA need to reread the underlying
statutes and start functioning as Congress directed. It is my hope that
Judge Chertoff will be a leader who understands that necessity.
Let me speak for a few minutes about the particulars of TSA and the
President's budget. In truth, the difficult work of securing all of our
major modes of transportation, including ports, shipping, railroads,
intercity buses, motor carriers, and pipelines is just beginning, and
the nation must have a robust agency within the Department dedicated to
that task.
Security funding for all modes of transportation beyond aviation has
been desperately lacking. The 9/11 Commission found, ``over 90 percent
of the nation's $5.3 billion annual investment in the TSA goes to
aviation . . . [and] . . . current efforts do not yet reflect a
forward-looking strategic plan.''
[[Page S1384]]
According to Senate Banking Committee estimates, the Federal
Government has spent $9.16 per airline passenger each year on enhanced
security measures, while spending less than a penny annually per person
on security measures for other modes of transportation.
Port security and safe maritime transportation is of particular
interest to me. They are absolutely essential for my state of Hawaii,
its economic health, and the life and livelihood of its citizens.
Chairman Stevens' state of Alaska is similarly situated, and I know
port security is of great importance to him as well.
Apparently, though, we need to remind the Administration--and perhaps
the nominee--that 95 percent of the Nation's cargo comes through the
ports. The security initiatives at most ports have been, to this point,
woefully underfunded, and most are ill prepared for an attack.
Unfortunately, our maritime system is only as strong as its weakest
link. If there is an incident at any one port, the whole system will
screech to a halt, as we scramble to ensure security at other ports. If
we had to shut down our entire port system, the economic damage would
be widespread, catastrophic and possibly irreversible.
Judge Chertoff has many tools at his disposal to protect our maritime
and shipping interests, both through the TSA and the U.S. Coast Guard.
Our national shore line extends for thousands of miles, with key cities
and facilities located all along the coasts. Whether it is monitoring,
credentialing, or inspecting cargo, there is no doubt, port security is
a daunting and difficult task.
If Judge Chertoff has difficulty understanding the importance of
improved port security, there are 14 members of our committee with
major ports in their State, and I am sure each would be more than
willing to help provide greater clarity.
Even though we all recognize the overwhelming task of port security,
the President's Budget does not do enough. It is true that the Coast
Guard increases 7.5 percent over the previous fiscal year, which seems
laudable. However, when you look at the numbers, it becomes clear that
the administration's request--for the third year in a row--does not
recognize that in addition to the Coast Guard's ever-increasing port
securities duties, it must still continue critical functions like
search and rescue efforts and enforcement of coastal and fisheries
laws. There is no question that we must provide for increased security,
but there is also no question that other critical missions also impact
the free flow of maritime commerce.
In addition to not providing enough funding for Coast Guard
activities, the President's budget also proposes to develop a Targeted
Infrastructure Protection Program, TIPP, within the Office of State and
Local Government Coordination and Preparedness to administer $600
million in integrated grants for the protection of transit, railroads,
ports, highways and energy facilities.
This odd realignment of the grant process adds layers of bureaucracy,
further diminishes accountability and distribution of these critical
funds, and it is directly contrary to the law Congress enacted just 6
months ago. It also shields the fact that the administration is using
the same limited pot of money, extending it to a wider range of
grantees, and making them compete against one another when each of
their projects merit grant funding.
The administration also proposes establishing a new Office of
Screening Coordination and Operations, SCO, within the Border and
Transportation Security, BTS, Directorate. This new entity would
purportedly coordinate procedures to identify and interdict people,
cargo and other entities that pose a threat to homeland security.
This short-sighted proposal calls for cutting over 70 percent of
TSA's funding for rail, trucking, pipeline, and hazmat security-related
initiatives. The ``streamlining of duplicative programs and
activities'' effectively eliminates TSA's role in allocating
transportation security grants, maritime research and development
grants, and cedes its regulatory authority to develop the
Transportation Worker Identity Credential, TWIC, program. In short,
this budget ignores congressional direction, transfers these functions
back to agencies that operate in a stovepipe manner and do not have
regulatory authority for credentialing, and decimates TSA's Office of
Maritime and Land.
Regarding rail security, the administration's budget fails to propose
any dedicated funding or specific programs to address rail security,
and given their proposal to eliminate support for Amtrak, it is clear
that the administration is not interested in rail service let alone
rail security. The recent rail accident in South Carolina and the
resulting chlorine gas spill remind us that our rail system presents
unique vulnerabilities that, if exploited, could cause irreparable
economic and physical damage to communities across the country.
TSA has undertaken several small-scale, ad hoc, efforts to strengthen
rail security, from rail passenger screening pilot tests to rail
corridor threat assessments in specific corridors. But the
administration's lack of support for dedicated funding or programs--
beyond what the Congress has forced upon the agency through the
appropriations process--reflects the low priority that TSA leadership
and the administration place on this important work. They behave as if
September 11 never happened.
The budget proposal for aviation security appears on paper to
increase by $156 million, but this funding depends on $1.5 billion in
new revenues raised through increased security fees on airline
passengers.
We can debate how much we need for security, but it does not make any
sense to place the burden for new DHS revenue on an airline industry
that is bordering on total bankruptcy, when at the same time the
administration is demanding that its unaffordable tax cuts be made
permanent.
The airlines have argued convincingly that they cannot pass along
increased security fees to the passengers in their highly competitive
industry. Few of the carriers have managed even modest periods of
profitability since September 11. I must remind people in this town,
who often have a short and selective memory, that by a vote of 100 to 0
in the Senate and 410 to 9 in the House, this Congress chose to make
transportation security a national security function. Funding homeland
security is a Federal responsibility.
Given the many misplaced priorities that I see in the President's
Budget proposal, it is clear that the Congress needs to help refocus
the Department.
Let me state here before my colleagues and for the record, the Senate
Commerce Committee will not stall in its efforts to continue developing
comprehensive, bipartisan legislation to strengthen port, rail, and
intercity bus security, regardless of the Bush administration's
repeated refusal to support or properly address these critical
initiatives. Our national transportation system remains an inviting
target for terrorists. The system is vulnerable, and an attack could
cause widespread, catastrophic economic damage. In fact, in his most
recent video tape, Osama bin Laden stated plainly that bankrupting the
United States was a primary, al-Qaida goal, and given al-Qaida's
previous attacks, it is clear that transportation systems are high on
their target list.
So I come to the floor today to inform my colleagues and the
administration that, I, along with many of my fellow Commerce Committee
members, will be introducing a transportation security reauthorization
proposal, which will provide further direction to the Department's
cargo security functions, strengthen aviation, maritime, rail,
hazardous materials, and pipeline security efforts, and improve
interagency cooperation.
The proposal will incorporate several Commerce Committee-reported and
Senate-passed bills from the prior Congress and will also put forth new
ideas to enhance transportation security across all modes of
transportation.
For port security, we will seek to improve interagency cooperation by
further developing joint operation command centers. Additionally, our
bill will clarify the roles and responsibilities for cargo security
programs, while establishing criteria for contingency response plans.
Our legislation will further encourage the development of effective
technologies that detect terrorist threats by setting a minimum level
of R&D funding related to maritime and land security.
[[Page S1385]]
To address aviation, we will take several steps to strengthen the
existing, professional, screening workforce through improved training
of personnel and by directing a more appropriate use of TSA's
resources. Additionally, we will seek to streamline and improve
collection of airline and passenger security fees to promote a more
efficient and healthy aviation industry.
For rail security, we will incorporate an updated version of the Rail
Security Act of 2004, which the Senate passed by unanimous consent last
year, and we will feature new efforts to ensure the security of
hazardous materials that are shipped by rail.
To address the security needs of our other surface transportation
modes, the proposal will include funding to improve intercity bus
security, strengthened hazardous material transportation security
efforts, new security guidelines for truck rental and leasing
operations, and the development of pipeline security incident recovery
plans.
I look forward to working with Judge Chertoff, the TSA, and the
administration on this effort, and I remain hopeful that his new
leadership at DHS will inspire the requisite commitment and dedication
necessary to meet the security challenges ahead. The work will not be
easy. While most of us recognize the improvements that have been made
in airline security over the last few years, others are pushing to roll
back the progress that we have made.
Despite that progress, there are some that continue to urge TSA to
return to the days of private security screening companies, like
Argenbright Security and its underpaid, poorly trained workforce. These
efforts are not just shortsighted, they disregard a national imperative
to treat transportation security as a national security function, and
they should be quickly dismissed by the administration. I call on Judge
Chertoff to clarify DHS's position on this matter quickly, so the
country can continue to have faith in the security efforts we have come
to expect when flying.
Similarly, TSA needs more resources and attention paid to port, rail,
motor carrier, hazardous materials, and pipeline security matters, not
less, and I am hopeful that Judge Chertoff will make strengthening all
areas of transportation security one of his top missions.
We must take this opportunity to continue moving in the right
direction and avoid taking steps backward. I support the nomination of
Michael Chertoff as Secretary of Homeland Security and look forward to
working with him to ensure that the American people can depend on a
national transportation system that is as safe and secure as possible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. COLLINS. 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
[[Page S1386]]
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.'')
Ms. COLLINS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, how much time is left on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 22 minutes 30 seconds.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I, first, want to express my appreciation to
someone I believe a star of the Senate and that is Carl Levin. Carl
Levin is such a good example to every Senator. When you work on
something with Carl Levin, you can rest assured that he has read every
word of it. He is someone who I am sure, before he came to the Senate,
was an outstanding lawyer. I am so impressed with his ability to do
legal analysis, and I am so impressed with his understanding of
government generally.
What we have here is something that is very typical for Senator
Levin. The nomination of Michael Chertoff to be Secretary of Homeland
Security is very important. This new Cabinet level office that has been
created is so important. I think it has become one of the most
important posts that the President has. We know how important the
Secretary of Defense is, we know how important the Secretary of State
is, but this is so important.
Judge Chertoff will be called upon to manage some 180,000 employees,
22 different agencies, all important to protect this Nation in one way
or the other. He will be called upon to bolster the efforts of our
State and local law enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency
response personnel, and in the process of managing these 180,000
employees, he doesn't have enough people. Many of these 22 different
agencies he is responsible to manage are understaffed. So he will have
a tremendous burden.
The people who work in these agencies are public servants first in
any designation you want to make. They are the frontline protection for
communities across the Nation.
Over the course of the last year, I have held in Nevada what I call
Frontline Focus roundtables. I am meeting with firefighters, sheriffs,
and emergency response personnel. It has been tremendously enlightening
to me to talk to them about the problems that we have, from the
communication and resource challenges facing urban centers such as Las
Vegas and Reno, but also rural communities all over the State of
Nevada. They have special needs, special demands.
Of course, I mentioned already Las Vegas with its booming tourist
industry. About 20 people an hour are moving into Las Vegas. It is
growing and the growth has not stopped. So Nevada's homeland security
needs run the gamut. Our State and local officials will need the
support and help of Judge Chertoff and the Department of Homeland
Security in the work they do. His job is a tough and challenging job,
and that is an understatement.
I have confidence in Judge Chertoff. I am confident he will meet
these challenges. It was less than 2 years ago that we approved him by
an overwhelming vote of 88 to 1 to a lifetime appointment on the Court
of Appeals of the Third Circuit. But he was willing to give up this
lifetime appointment for a job that will last probably 4 years.
Since his confirmation, the administration has been mired in
controversy over its handling of prisoners and detainees. The
administration policies have come under great scrutiny and we need to
learn, during the course of this confirmation hearing, and we tried to
do that, what role he may have played in crafting these policies.
Judge Chertoff has testified before the Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee that he was not directly involved in the
administration's decision to gut the Geneva Conventions and set out on
a new and dangerous path with regard to interrogations. We have to take
Judge Chertoff at his word, because the document proof has either been
denied to Senators or otherwise has been so heavily redacted that it
raises questions about the role of the Criminal Division overseen by
Judge Chertoff.
The debate over his nomination, as my colleague, Senator Levin, has
brought to the attention of the American people, as he discussed this
yesterday on the floor, is a debate over the right of the Senate and
the American people to have information about the way our Government
does business.
The information sought in the context of his nomination by Senator
Levin would help us understand how the administration arrived at those
policy decisions and would help prevent similar mistakes in the future.
No one would disagree--I shouldn't say that. Very few people would
disagree that the policies undertaken in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan,
and Iraq dealing with interrogation which led to these brutal acts, the
acts of torture, were wrong. These policies were used to justify forced
nakedness. Keep in mind we live in a different environment than the
people of Iraq. The shaving of the beards was demeaning to these men,
but it was done many times. They were placed in stressed positions.
They were intimidated with dogs, and on and on. We learned of these
torture policies and their impact not from this administration, as is
our right, but through leaks and lawsuits. Leaks and lawsuits,
unfortunately, is the way we have to learn much of what is going on
today.
The shocking abuses--and there is no other way you can describe it--
at Abu Ghraib were revealed when the photographs were released to the
news media. I can remember going upstairs to S. 407 with other Senators
and looking at the brutality and the pornographic nature of those
pictures. Even for someone who has seen other acts of torture and
terror in the work that we do, it was overwhelming. I had no idea that
is what I would see that day. I waited not too long before I left. I
saw enough in about 15 minutes, but I saw a lot.
Major General Taguba's report investigating the abuse at Abu Ghraib
was discovered after it, too, was leaked to the press. Judge Gonzales's
January 25th, 2002, memo advising the President that the Geneva
Conventions were ``quaint and obsolete'' was not known until it was
leaked to the press 2 years later. The Senate only learned of the
August 1, 2002, Bybee torture memo when it was leaked to the press in
June of that year.
I ask my colleagues, if this information had not come to light, would
the administration disavow these practices? I regret that in the
context of this nomination the administration will again deny the
Senate and the American people a full understanding of how we embarked
on a policy which has imperiled our soldiers and our Nation.
In Judge Chertoff's case, we know during his tenure that torture
policies authorized by Justice and given effect by the Department of
Defense were hotly debated by DOD, Justice Department, and FBI
officials. We know this only because a private group filed a freedom of
information request for such information. The request produced a series
of redacted FBI emails
[[Page S1387]]
that gave voice to the dissenters this administration has tried to
muzzle. The redactions prevent us from fully understanding that debate
and how Criminal Division lawyers under Judge Chertoff's supervision
dealt with the FBI concerns that the torture policies were not only
immoral but ineffectual. It prevents us from truly understanding Judge
Chertoff's role and whether attorneys under his supervision raised the
issue with him directly. He said he does not remember. I accept the
judge's statement in that regard. But that does not take away from the
necessity of being able to have this information.
In response to Senator Levin's request for an unredacted version of
the FBI emails, the administration issued its broadest assault against
the Senate's duty to evaluate a nominee to get oversight of this
administration. The administration claimed it would not turn over the
unredacted emails because to do so would violate the Privacy Act, even
though, through Senate security, any classified information would be
protected. The Privacy Act is designed to prevent the Government from
disclosing personal information about private individuals who have not
consented to disclosure. It is not a tool to conceal identities of
public officials engaged in this Nation's business.
As my colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, has so forcefully
stated, the administration's penchant for secrecy threatens each and
every Senator's ability to do the people's business and undermines our
role in providing advice and consent to the President's nominees and
undermines our role in conducting oversight into this administration.
In the end, what is most troubling is that the administration's culture
of secrecy may breed further abuses, abuses we know of today, not
because of but in spite of the administration's effort.
We must overcome these roadblocks put up by the administration
because the job of protecting the homeland is too important. Judge
Chertoff will have enormous challenges if he assumes his new position,
which I am confident he will. Border security, immigration, port
security, airport screening, protecting America's critical
infrastructure, and so much more will now fall under his purview. He
has pledged to work with the Congress in crafting the Department's
policies. As much as possible, this must be a nonpartisan exercise.
Working together, we can and we must put our country in the strongest
possible position to defend itself for the many threats we face.
In short, what I am criticizing and complaining about, we have some
emails from the FBI to the Justice Department, saying, in effect, how
we conduct our interrogations is appropriate. What the Department of
Defense is doing with their brutality and their torture is wrong. I am
convinced that is true; the FBI was right. I hope somehow we will be
able to get the names of these individuals and pursue it more carefully
and also find out what the real words were; I am confident it was
torture. One thing we know clearly from these memos is that the FBI
says using our methods, the normal methods of interrogation, we are
getting more information from the enemy than you are while using your
acts of violence.
I close by saying, again, I want this record spread with the fact
that Senator Levin has done a good thing for this country. He has done
good work again in allowing us to look at an issue that should be a
simple issue that has been made complicated by this administration by
virtue of their hiding what it should not.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the quorum call I
am about to invoke be charged equally to both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in a few moments we will be voting on the
nomination of Judge Michael Chertoff to lead the Department of Homeland
Security. I applaud President Bush for his outstanding choice, and I am
confident that Judge Chertoff will receive overwhelming support from
both sides of the aisle, making this his fourth confirmation by this
body, the Senate.
Judge Chertoff has a long and distinguished career in public service
and law enforcement.
The Harvard Law magna cum laude first made his name in the mid-1980s
putting away five of the biggest Mafia bosses in New York.
His success brought him the job of U.S. attorney in New Jersey where
he oversaw high-profile and politically sensitive prosecutions.
In 2001, Judge Chertoff was chosen by President Bush to lead the
Justice Department's Criminal Division. It was there that Judge
Chertoff would show his full mettle. For the 20 hours following the
attacks on 9/11, Judge Chertoff was central in directing our response.
His team in the Criminal Division traced the 9/11 killers back to al-
Qaida. And for the next 2 years, Judge Chertoff helped craft our
antiterrorism policy.
His experience working directly with law enforcement, his expertise
in homeland and national security, and his proven ability to lead in
times of national crisis make him overwhelmingly qualified to direct
our homeland security.
Judge Chertoff has said he will be proud to stand again with the men
and women who form our front line against terror. I know I speak for
many when I say we are proud to have a man of his caliber and talent
serving and protecting the American people.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of Michael Chertoff, of New Jersey, to be Secretary of Homeland
Security? On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and
the clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 10 Ex.]
YEAS--98
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Baucus
Specter
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President will be immediately notified of
the Senate's action.
____________________