Jon Corzine

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CORZINE. The $140 billion the Senator from Connecticut spoke about with regard to salaries on the chart the Senator previously showed, there is a multiplier effect. It is almost three times that value to the economy. The Senator had the chart which showed the full implications. It is remarkable what is given up when our Nation loses these jobs overseas. It is not just those salaries. When you take the full implication, because you also have to look at the tax revenues that come back into the coffers of State, local, and Federal governments, these numbers could be even larger. This is just showing the impact of what the multiplier effect is for the economy. These numbers are huge. So the undermining of the well-being of our economy by this outsourcing element is just way more profound than I think is being discussed and is an extraordinary misrepresentation and a mistake for the administration to believe that this is something we ought to be embracing and encouraging. There is another element that needs to be thought about. Every time those outsourcing jobs cost an American job, then that individual has to compete for another job. Right now, for all but the top 20 percent of our economy, we are seeing declining real wages. The fact is, people are competing for lesser quality jobs that pay less than the jobs that are leaving. I think we have seen estimates that it is about 20 percent less that an individual makes in the next job they take after they have been laid off. It is profoundly wrong for the administration to embrace such a dangerous idea both for the economic power and also the real hurt that I think it brings to the individual loss.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Mikulski, Senator Kennedy, Senator Clinton, and Senator Boxer, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, my amendment is very simple. In fact, I will read it: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting the right of an officer or employee of any Federal, State or local law enforcement agency to recover damages authorized under Federal or State law. This is a police officer who was shot, injured, and is no longer able to work in New Jersey. Fifty-two were killed in 2002 by guns in the hands of criminals, sold negligently--people should have the ability to go to court and get redress. These are not junk lawsuits, not frivolous lawsuits. Law enforcement officers ought to have the ability to protect their rights in court. They should have their day in court. That is what this amendment does, and the narrow definitions that are allowed for in the underlying bill will keep Officers McGuire and Lemongello out of court.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, the issue before the Senate is pretty clear. This is a simple principle: Will we protect law enforcement officers such as Officer Lemongello from losing their rights under this bill or won't we? The fact is, the narrow drawing of these exemptions is going to take cases like I identified in my opening remarks--such as buying guns in West Virginia from a negligent dealer, who admitted, themselves, on the same day they had a problem; and it went into the courts--and we are going to take away their rights to sue. This will not fit under those legal constraints. The amendment is clear and straightforward. It says that nothing in this legislation will limit the legal rights of law enforcement personnel. All my amendment does is open that up. There are no conditions. There are no caveats. It is clear. It is simple. My amendment does not add any new rights. It just guarantees that officers will not lose any. I am emotional about these individuals who put their lives on the line all the time. I accept that others feel the same way. But we should not be taking away the rights of these individuals to get into a court and not only pursue the person who perpetrated the crime, but if someone has facilitated that crime, because they have been negligent, that ought to be also someone who is subject to the law. I think we are doing just the opposite. The Frist-Craig amendment is completely meaningless in this context because it is exactly the same language that is already in the bill. It is transparent and does not change a thing. This officer will not be able to get into a court of law. This officer will lose his right to sue. That is not right. It is not right for the other 52 American police officers who lost their lives in 2002 or 2003, and the many, many who have been injured. I don't understand why we don't want to give them the rights they deserve under our Constitution. This is not about whether you have a right to bear arms. This is not about the second amendment. This is about having the right, when there is negligence and criminal behavior, to go into a court of law and protect yourself. We are doing it for law enforcement--for law enforcement--not just generally. These are not frivolous suits. These are people who know the law. They are not bringing up frivolous suits, and I do not think I am hearing that. So if we are not going to have frivolous lawsuits, which is the argument we are trying to make, we need this legislation. Why are we taking away the right to sue from law enforcement across this country? I ask my colleagues to stand with me. I think we are undermining the safety and the security and the principles and the rights of law enforcement. I think the Senate ought to be standing with law enforcement to make sure they are protected. If we vote no against my amendment, we are doing the opposite. I hope we will stand strong and stand firmly with law enforcement because that is what we need to do if we say we appreciate what they are doing for our families and our communities. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CORZINE. I yield to my colleague from New Jersey.

Mr. CORZINE. How much time is remaining?

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the underlying legislation before the Senate which waives liability for gun dealers and manufacturers. In my view, this legislation strips away the legal rights of victims of gun violence and shields wrongdoers from accountability. It provides special exemptions for the narrowest of special interests, and it would make our country less safe. The bill uses a variety of complicated legal concepts, narrowly drawn exemptions, to shield irresponsible gun dealers and manufacturers from accountability. When we get beyond the legalese and Washington speak, the bottom line is the bill will limit the legal rights of gun violence victims. I think that is wrong. In my view, no victim of gun violence should be denied their day in court. Each should be allowed an opportunity--a chance--to make their case. That is why I believe this whole bill is a mistake. That said, I am a realist. I recognize the majority of my colleagues, based on the cosponsorship, disagree. On Tuesday, this legislation will likely be approved. That is why my amendment is so important and needs to be dealt with. My hope is we can at least reach an agreement that even if we are going to strip away the rights for most Americans, we will not take away the rights from the men and women who serve as our Nation's law enforcement officers, the protectors of the peace, the people who serve on our streets, in our neighborhoods, our first responders. I know all my colleagues appreciate the tremendous service and risk our law enforcement on our streets provides to our communities, so I hope they will share my interest in protecting their rights. The importance of protecting the rights of our police officers was brought home to me and, I am sure, Senator Lautenberg through a case of two police officers in the State of New Jersey: New Jersey Police Detective David Lemongello and Officer Ken McGuire. In 2001, they were seriously injured when a career criminal shot them while they were working undercover. This criminal was prohibited from purchasing a firearm but he obtained his gun illegally from a trafficker. As it turns out, the trafficker also was prohibited from buying weapons and had used a so-called straw purchaser to make multiple gun purchases from a store in West Virginia. The cash sale for thousands of dollars was so obviously suspicious that the dealer apparently felt guilty. On the very same day, but after he took the money and after the guns walked out the door, the dealer called into the ATF and identified him. But that was after the guns were gone. Unfortunately, at the time of the sale the dealer apparently thought it was more important to make a profit than to protect the lives of innocent victims. Sure enough, Officers Lemongello and McGuire paid a severe price for that pawnshop's negligence. They suffered a serious injury and came very close to losing their lives. Their families suffered from their loss and both of them lost their careers and are no longer able to serve as policemen. I will read a direct statement from one of these officers, Ken McGuire, because I think it expresses better than I can just how outrageous it would be for the Senate to strip them of their rights. This is some of what Officer McGuire said: During a stake-out, Detective Lemongello and I were shot by a felon. I ended up getting into a gunfight with the criminal in a snowy backyard. That has changed my life forever. I was shot through the right femur, and it blew apart my femur and also caused extensive damage to my leg. I was also shot through my stomach, and it hit the mesenteric artery. I lost 17 units of blood that night. . . . Because of the injuries I suffered from that shooting, I will never be a police officer again. That is the same for Officer Lemongello. He goes on to say: I've heard some people say, ``Well, criminals can just get guns,'' as if there is nothing anybody can do to stop them from getting guns. Well, guns don't fall from the sky, or grow from trees, this one didn't either. The man who shot us got the gun because of an irresponsible gun dealer in West Virginia . . . who sold 12 handguns to a straw purchaser who gave them to a gun trafficker. What legitimate reason would two people have to buy 12 handguns? . . . Why wouldn't the gun dealer even ask the purchaser: Why would you need 12 guns? Why? Did I mention the purchasers paid for all of this in cash? If there is any doubt of the destination of these guns, which was northern New Jersey, months earlier I arrested a suspect with the same gun make and model from the same shipment in town. Officer McGuire continues: We have filed a lawsuit in West Virginia to hold the irresponsible dealer accountable. The dealer argued in court that it had no responsibility to use reasonable care in its business, but a judge in West Virginia disagreed. She ruled that we have a legitimate case under West Virginia law, and that a jury should decide whether this dealer acted reasonably. That's all I want today: my day in court, to exercise my right as an American to present my case before a jury of my peers and let them decide, under the law, whether these gun sellers were reasonable or whether they contributed to my shooting. Officer McGuire says: If this bill is passed, Congress will be changing the laws for gun sellers, overruling the West Virginia judge, and taking away our rights. That is shameful. I think it is, too. I call on all Senators to do everything in their power to prevent this bill from becoming law. That was the message from Officer McGuire, but it could have just as easily come from the countless other law enforcement officers who have been injured or killed by guns trafficked by irresponsible gun dealers and manufacturers. I was talking to Senator Durbin about a situation in Chicago. There is case after case. How can any of us look into the eyes of any of these officers, such as Officer McGuire, and tell them we are going to take away their rights? How can we tell David Lemongello he risked his life on behalf of our community, and he almost lost it because of an irresponsible gun dealer, he will be suffering from the attack for the rest of his life but if he wants to go to court, if he wants justice, our answer to him is no? Remember, the question before the Senate is not whether these two police officers, or any police officer, has a good case. It is simply whether they have a right to make their case. It is whether they have a right to try to convince a jury that a gun dealer acted irresponsibly and whether they deserve compensation as a result. I do not call this a frivolous lawsuit. I consider this a right for a law enforcement officer to have a right to make their case in court before a jury. This bill would deny them that day in court. Not only would it strip these two heroes of their legal rights, it would do so retroactively. I know we are going to hear about narrowly defined exceptions that will not allow for it. I do not think law enforcement officers should be limited in their ability to make their case before a jury. As far as I am concerned, it is an affront to these officers and an insult to every police officer who puts his or her life on the line for the community, and it sends precisely the wrong message when we are supposed to be enhancing homeland security and reinforcing the risks that people are taking to protect our families and our communities across this country. My amendment is very simple. In fact, I will read it word for word: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting the right of an officer or an employee of any Federal, State or local law enforcement agency to recover damages authorized under Federal or State law. I suspect we will hear about amendments that draw these narrow lines of exception. Why is it that a law enforcement officer cannot go into a court and get redress if they have been wronged in the illegal sale or the negligent sale of firearms to criminals? I do not get it. That is the entire amendment. That is what we are working on. In essence, this amendment stands for the proposition that we should not strip police officers of their rights. It says that members of law enforcement who are victims of gun violence should have their day in court--no new rights, nothing guaranteed, just their day in court. The advocates of this legislation argue that it is necessary to prevent frivolous litigation. I think they are wrong. But does this Senate really believe that law enforcement officers are flooding the courts with frivolous lawsuits? Is that what our law enforcement officers are doing? Do we really believe that men and women who devote their lives to enforcing our laws are trivializing the judicial process, that Congress needs to take away their rights because they are? I do not believe that and I do not believe anybody in this body does. There is no evidence of it, and even to suggest it seems out of place given the trust that we give to these men and women in our local communities. Our men and women in uniform put their lives on the line for us every day. The least they should be able to expect from us is that we would not strip away their rights when they suffer from gun violence, and that is what I think we are doing. I hope my colleagues will stand with me and the men and women of law enforcement and support this amendment.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be joining my colleague Senator Russell Feingold and 12 others in reintroducing the End Racial Profiling Act. I first want to recognize Senator Russ Feingold who has been a tremendous leader on this issue--during the last two sessions he held the first Senate hearings on racial profiling and he and his staff have worked tirelessly to elevate the importance of this issue as a matter of civil rights. I also want to commend Representative John Conyers, who is introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives today. This is just on example of his indefatigable work to address inequities in our society. I also want to thank Reverend Reginald Jackson, Executive Director of the New Jersey Black Ministers' Council. He and the entire council have worked tirelessly for years to address the issue of racial profiling in New Jersey and have provided immeasurable assistance in crafting this legislation. The practice of racial profiling is the antithesis of America's belief in fairness and equal protection under the law. Stopping people on our highways, our streets, and at our borders because of the color of their skin tears at the very fabric of American society. We are a Nation of laws and everyone should receive equal protection under the law. Our Constitution tolerates nothing less. We should demand nothing less. There is no equal protection--there is no equal justice--if law enforcement agencies engage in policies and practices that are premised on a theory that the way to stop crime is to go after black and brown people on the hunch that they are more likely to be criminals. Let me add, that not only is racial profiling wrong, it is simply not an effective law enforcement tool. There is no evidence that stopping people of color adds up to catching bad guys. In fact, there is statistical evidence which points out that singling out black motorist or Hispanic motorists for stops and searches doesn't lead to a higher percentage of arrests. Minority motorists are simply no more likely to be breaking the law than white motorists. But unfortunately racial profiling persists. In 2001, minority motorists accounted for 73 percent of those searched on the New Jersey turnpike. But even the State Attorney General admitted that State troopers were twice--I repeat twice--as likely to find drugs or other illegal items when searching vehicles driven by whites. Or take the example of the March 2000 Government Accounting Office report on the U.S. Customs Service. The report found that black, Asian, and Hispanic women were four to nine times more likely than white women to be subjected to X rays after being frisked or patted down. But on the basis of the X ray results, black women were less than half as likely as white women to be found carrying contraband. This is law enforcement by hunch. No warrants. No probable cause. And what is the hunch based on? Race--plain and simple. No where was this more evident, than in my own home State six years ago. Four young men on the New Jersey Turnpike in a minivan--on their way to North Carolina, hoping to go to school on basketball scholarships. Two State troopers pulled them off the road, the frightened driver lost control of the van, two dozens shots rang out. Three of the four kids were shot. I spoke to these kids a while ago. One of the them told me he was asleep when the van was pulled over. He told me, ``What woke me up was a bullet.'' Stories like this should wake us all up. The practice of racial profiling broadly undermines the confidence of the American people in the institutions that we depend on to protect and defend us. Different rules for different people do not work. Now--We know that many law enforcement agencies, including some from my home State, have acknowledged the danger of the practice and have taken steps to combat it. Indeed, I am proud to report that New Jersey has banned racial profiling. I commend them for their efforts. That said, it is clear that this is a national problem that requires a national response applicable to all. That is why Senator Feingold and I and many others introduced the End Racial Profiling Act in 2001 to end this practice. The legislation provided a clear, enforceable ban on racial profiling and established a ``carrot and stick'' approach to encourage law enforcement to take steps to end the practice. The legislation helped bring much-needed attention to this critical issue and was positively received by the civil rights community and many in law enforcement. Soon after introduction, Senator Feingold held very informative hearings on the bill, at which I testified. We heard from several law enforcement leaders, including Oakland Police Chief Ronald Davis and Raymond Kelly, former Commissioner of the U.S. Customs Service and the New York City Police Department, on the pernicious impact of racial profiling on the trust between law enforcement and communities that is essential for successful police work. They testified that racial profiling is contrary to effective law enforcement and indeed takes energy and focus away from finding real criminals. Then, in June 2003, the U.S. Department of Justice issued guidelines to prohibit racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies, following up on President Bush's statement in his February 27, 2001, address to a Joint Session of Congress, that racial profiling is ``wrong and we will end it in America.'' In this guidance, the Department stated: Racial profiling in law enforcement is not merely wrong, but also ineffective. Race-based assumptions in law enforcement perpetuate negative racial stereotypes that are harmful to our rich and diverse democracy, and materially impair our efforts to maintain a fair and just society. These guidelines, as well as current efforts by State and local governments, to eradicate racial profiling and redress the harms it causes, while laudable, have been limited in scope and insufficient to address this national problem. Quite simply, federal legislation is still very much needed. In most respects the legislation we are now introducing today is very similar to the bill that we introduced in 2001. It clearly defines racial profiling and bans it. No routine stops based solely on race, religion, national origin or ethnicity. Religion is a new addition to the category of protected classes, in acknowledgment of some of the new law enforcement tactics developed after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. For example, in the wake of the attacks, Arab-American, Muslim-American, South Asian-American and Sikh-American communities were made the target of generalized suspicion and subjected to searches and seizures based upon their religion and national origin, which has created a fear and mistrust of law enforcement agencies and failed to produce tangible investigative benefit. We will also require the collection of statistics to accurately measure whether progress is being made. By collecting this data, we will get a fair picture of law enforcement at work. And we will provide law enforcement with the information they need to detect problems early on. It is not our intention to micromanage law enforcement. Our bill does not tell law enforcement agencies what data should be collected. Instead, we direct the Attorney General to develop the standards for data collection, and he presumably would work with law enforcement in developing those standards. Our legislation also specifically directs the Attorney General to also establish standards for setting benchmarks against which the collected data should be measured--so that no data is taken out of context, as some in law enforcement rightly fear. If the numbers reveal a portrait of continued racial profiling, then the Justice Department or independent third parties can seek relief in Federal court ordering that remedies be put into effect to end racial profiling. Our bill would also put in place procedures to receive and investigate complaints alleging racial profiling. It will require procedures to discipline law enforcement officers engaging in racial profiling. Finally, we will encourage a climate of cultural change in law enforcement with a carrot and a stick. First, the carrot: We recognize that law enforcement shouldn't be expected to do this alone. So we are saying that if you do the job right--fairly and equitably--you can be eligible to receive a best practices development grant--to help pay for programs dealing with advanced training. To help pay for the computer technology that is necessary to collect the data and statistics we have demanded. We'll help pay for video cameras and recorders for your patrol cars. We'll help pay for establishing or improving systems for handling complaints alleging ethnic or racial profiling. We'll help to establish management systems to ensure that supervisors are held accountable for the conduct of subordinates. But if you don't do the job right, there is the stick. If State and local law enforcement agencies refuse to implement procedures to end and prevent profiling, they will be subject to a loss of Federal law enforcement funds. Let me be clear, this bill is not about blaming law enforcement, and it is not designed to prevent law enforcement from doing its job. In fact, we believe that it will help our officers maintain the public trust they need to do their jobs. If race is a part of a description of a specific suspect involved in an investigation, this law does not prevent that information from being distributed. But stopping people on a random or race-based hunch will be outlawed. Race has been a never-ending battle in this country. It began with our constitution, when the founding fathers argued over the rights of slaves. And then we fought a war over race. We fought a war that ripped our country apart. Our country emerged whole, but discrimination continued for decades-- discrimination sanctioned in part, unfortunately, by our own Supreme Court. But our country's history has always been about change, about growth, about recognizing those things that weaken us from within. A generation ago, we began to fight another war--a war founded in peaceful principles, but a war that killed our heroes, burned our cities, and shook us once again to the very core. But we advanced, with important civil rights initiatives like the Voting Rights Act. Like the public accommodations law. We demanded and gained laws to fight discrimination in employment, in housing, in education. Today, it is time for us to take another step. Racial profiling has bred humiliation, anger, resentment and cynicism throughout this country. It has weakened respect for the law--by everyone, not just those offended. Simply put--it is wrong and we must end it. Today we pledge to do just that--to define it, to ban it, and to enforce that ban.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be joining my colleague Senator Russell Feingold and 12 others in reintroducing the End Racial Profiling Act. I first want to recognize Senator Russ Feingold who has been a tremendous leader on this issue--during the last two sessions he held the first Senate hearings on racial profiling and he and his staff have worked tirelessly to elevate the importance of this issue as a matter of civil rights. I also want to commend Representative John Conyers, who is introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives today. This is just on example of his indefatigable work to address inequities in our society. I also want to thank Reverend Reginald Jackson, Executive Director of the New Jersey Black Ministers' Council. He and the entire council have worked tirelessly for years to address the issue of racial profiling in New Jersey and have provided immeasurable assistance in crafting this legislation. The practice of racial profiling is the antithesis of America's belief in fairness and equal protection under the law. Stopping people on our highways, our streets, and at our borders because of the color of their skin tears at the very fabric of American society. We are a Nation of laws and everyone should receive equal protection under the law. Our Constitution tolerates nothing less. We should demand nothing less. There is no equal protection--there is no equal justice--if law enforcement agencies engage in policies and practices that are premised on a theory that the way to stop crime is to go after black and brown people on the hunch that they are more likely to be criminals. Let me add, that not only is racial profiling wrong, it is simply not an effective law enforcement tool. There is no evidence that stopping people of color adds up to catching bad guys. In fact, there is statistical evidence which points out that singling out black motorist or Hispanic motorists for stops and searches doesn't lead to a higher percentage of arrests. Minority motorists are simply no more likely to be breaking the law than white motorists. But unfortunately racial profiling persists. In 2001, minority motorists accounted for 73 percent of those searched on the New Jersey turnpike. But even the State Attorney General admitted that State troopers were twice--I repeat twice--as likely to find drugs or other illegal items when searching vehicles driven by whites. Or take the example of the March 2000 Government Accounting Office report on the U.S. Customs Service. The report found that black, Asian, and Hispanic women were four to nine times more likely than white women to be subjected to X rays after being frisked or patted down. But on the basis of the X ray results, black women were less than half as likely as white women to be found carrying contraband. This is law enforcement by hunch. No warrants. No probable cause. And what is the hunch based on? Race--plain and simple. No where was this more evident, than in my own home State six years ago. Four young men on the New Jersey Turnpike in a minivan--on their way to North Carolina, hoping to go to school on basketball scholarships. Two State troopers pulled them off the road, the frightened driver lost control of the van, two dozens shots rang out. Three of the four kids were shot. I spoke to these kids a while ago. One of the them told me he was asleep when the van was pulled over. He told me, ``What woke me up was a bullet.'' Stories like this should wake us all up. The practice of racial profiling broadly undermines the confidence of the American people in the institutions that we depend on to protect and defend us. Different rules for different people do not work. Now--We know that many law enforcement agencies, including some from my home State, have acknowledged the danger of the practice and have taken steps to combat it. Indeed, I am proud to report that New Jersey has banned racial profiling. I commend them for their efforts. That said, it is clear that this is a national problem that requires a national response applicable to all. That is why Senator Feingold and I and many others introduced the End Racial Profiling Act in 2001 to end this practice. The legislation provided a clear, enforceable ban on racial profiling and established a ``carrot and stick'' approach to encourage law enforcement to take steps to end the practice. The legislation helped bring much-needed attention to this critical issue and was positively received by the civil rights community and many in law enforcement. Soon after introduction, Senator Feingold held very informative hearings on the bill, at which I testified. We heard from several law enforcement leaders, including Oakland Police Chief Ronald Davis and Raymond Kelly, former Commissioner of the U.S. Customs Service and the New York City Police Department, on the pernicious impact of racial profiling on the trust between law enforcement and communities that is essential for successful police work. They testified that racial profiling is contrary to effective law enforcement and indeed takes energy and focus away from finding real criminals. Then, in June 2003, the U.S. Department of Justice issued guidelines to prohibit racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies, following up on President Bush's statement in his February 27, 2001, address to a Joint Session of Congress, that racial profiling is ``wrong and we will end it in America.'' In this guidance, the Department stated: Racial profiling in law enforcement is not merely wrong, but also ineffective. Race-based assumptions in law enforcement perpetuate negative racial stereotypes that are harmful to our rich and diverse democracy, and materially impair our efforts to maintain a fair and just society. These guidelines, as well as current efforts by State and local governments, to eradicate racial profiling and redress the harms it causes, while laudable, have been limited in scope and insufficient to address this national problem. Quite simply, federal legislation is still very much needed. In most respects the legislation we are now introducing today is very similar to the bill that we introduced in 2001. It clearly defines racial profiling and bans it. No routine stops based solely on race, religion, national origin or ethnicity. Religion is a new addition to the category of protected classes, in acknowledgment of some of the new law enforcement tactics developed after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. For example, in the wake of the attacks, Arab-American, Muslim-American, South Asian-American and Sikh-American communities were made the target of generalized suspicion and subjected to searches and seizures based upon their religion and national origin, which has created a fear and mistrust of law enforcement agencies and failed to produce tangible investigative benefit. We will also require the collection of statistics to accurately measure whether progress is being made. By collecting this data, we will get a fair picture of law enforcement at work. And we will provide law enforcement with the information they need to detect problems early on. It is not our intention to micromanage law enforcement. Our bill does not tell law enforcement agencies what data should be collected. Instead, we direct the Attorney General to develop the standards for data collection, and he presumably would work with law enforcement in developing those standards. Our legislation also specifically directs the Attorney General to also establish standards for setting benchmarks against which the collected data should be measured--so that no data is taken out of context, as some in law enforcement rightly fear. If the numbers reveal a portrait of continued racial profiling, then the Justice Department or independent third parties can seek relief in Federal court ordering that remedies be put into effect to end racial profiling. Our bill would also put in place procedures to receive and investigate complaints alleging racial profiling. It will require procedures to discipline law enforcement officers engaging in racial profiling. Finally, we will encourage a climate of cultural change in law enforcement with a carrot and a stick. First, the carrot: We recognize that law enforcement shouldn't be expected to do this alone. So we are saying that if you do the job right--fairly and equitably--you can be eligible to receive a best practices development grant--to help pay for programs dealing with advanced training. To help pay for the computer technology that is necessary to collect the data and statistics we have demanded. We'll help pay for video cameras and recorders for your patrol cars. We'll help pay for establishing or improving systems for handling complaints alleging ethnic or racial profiling. We'll help to establish management systems to ensure that supervisors are held accountable for the conduct of subordinates. But if you don't do the job right, there is the stick. If State and local law enforcement agencies refuse to implement procedures to end and prevent profiling, they will be subject to a loss of Federal law enforcement funds. Let me be clear, this bill is not about blaming law enforcement, and it is not designed to prevent law enforcement from doing its job. In fact, we believe that it will help our officers maintain the public trust they need to do their jobs. If race is a part of a description of a specific suspect involved in an investigation, this law does not prevent that information from being distributed. But stopping people on a random or race-based hunch will be outlawed. Race has been a never-ending battle in this country. It began with our constitution, when the founding fathers argued over the rights of slaves. And then we fought a war over race. We fought a war that ripped our country apart. Our country emerged whole, but discrimination continued for decades-- discrimination sanctioned in part, unfortunately, by our own Supreme Court. But our country's history has always been about change, about growth, about recognizing those things that weaken us from within. A generation ago, we began to fight another war--a war founded in peaceful principles, but a war that killed our heroes, burned our cities, and shook us once again to the very core. But we advanced, with important civil rights initiatives like the Voting Rights Act. Like the public accommodations law. We demanded and gained laws to fight discrimination in employment, in housing, in education. Today, it is time for us to take another step. Racial profiling has bred humiliation, anger, resentment and cynicism throughout this country. It has weakened respect for the law--by everyone, not just those offended. Simply put--it is wrong and we must end it. Today we pledge to do just that--to define it, to ban it, and to enforce that ban.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues from New Jersey, Senator Frank Lautenberg, and Congressmen Frank Pallone and Rob Andrews, who are introducing comparable legislation in the House of Representatives today, to introduce a bill to protect from privatization the Medicare program that more than 1 million New Jersey seniors rely on. As a result of a provision in the new Medicare law, more than 1 million Medicare beneficiaries nationwide, including 186,000 New Jersey Medicare beneficiaries who live in Camden, Salem, Burlington and Gloucester counties, will be subject to a risky Medicare privatization scheme beginning in 2010. This scheme, which is called premium support, will give seniors a set Medicare premium payment--similar to a voucher--that would be based on a combination of the prices that private plans in their area charge and the cost of Medicare fee-for- service in their area. Seniors choosing to enroll in a plan that costs more than the amount of that voucher would have to pay the difference. While it may seem like an easy and straightforward choice to seniors who currently enjoy and thrive on traditional Medicare to choose to remain in the fee-for-service program, under this privatization scheme, those seniors who make that choice will end up paying significantly higher premiums than their counterparts in private plans. Because the private plans will be able to cherry pick the healthiest seniors to enroll in their plans and will receive huge subsidies from the federal government, they will be able to provide lower cost health care than the traditional Medicare program. That means that sicker, older beneficiaries will remain in the traditional Medicare, thereby increasing costs in that program, while younger, healthier beneficiaries will choose to enroll in private plans where they will pay lower premiums. That's right, Under this privatization scheme, seniors who choose to remain in the Medicare program they know and trust will pay more-- significantly more than they pay now--for their coverage. Not only will these seniors pay significantly higher premiums than they do now for fee-for-service Medicare, and much more than they would if they enrolled in a private plan, but also depending on where a senior lives they will pay a different price for the same Medicare coverage that a senior in a neighboring community might pay. So, for the first time in history, seniors in some areas will pay higher premiums for their Medicare coverage than seniors in other areas. How much more will seniors who want to stay in the traditional Medicare program pay? According to documents released by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Office of the Actuary on August 9, 2003, seniors living in Gloucester and Hudson counties in New Jersey could pay as much as $1,700 more than they pay now for traditional Medicare. Yet, seniors in these counties could, depending on the plan they select, join an HMO for a premium that is $2,000 less. Why is that? This is because private plans will select healthier seniors will offer fewer choices than traditional Medicare and, at the same time will receive grossly inflated payments from the government. In fact, the new Medicare law overpays private plans by $1,920 per beneficiary--at a total cost of $14 billion to taxpayers--so that these plans may compete with Medicare. This sounds like socialized privatization to me. Indeed, in the last 6 months I have struggled to understand the logic behind paying private plans more than we pay Medicare. The only logical reason I've come up with is that this is the perfect plan to make the Medicare program fail--to give my Republican colleagues the read meat they need to raid and privatize Medicare. This is not competition. It is a plan to force seniors into private plans and out of the Medicare program they trust. There is no real choice here. Very few seniors will have the luxury of choosing to pay $2,000 more a year for traditional Medicare. Most seniors will be forced into managed care plans. Seniors in my State want no part of this privatization scheme. Baby boomers in my State want no part of this. New Jerseyans want to know that the Medicare program, as we know it, will be there for them when they need it. My legislation provides that assurance. Under my bill, no New Jersey county and no New Jersey senior will be subject to this disastrous privatization scheme. In closing, I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and the many other bills that Democratic members are introducing today to exempt their States from this program and to protect and preserve the Medicare program for our seniors today and our seniors tomorrow.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues from New Jersey, Senator Frank Lautenberg, and Congressmen Frank Pallone and Rob Andrews, who are introducing comparable legislation in the House of Representatives today, to introduce a bill to protect from privatization the Medicare program that more than 1 million New Jersey seniors rely on. As a result of a provision in the new Medicare law, more than 1 million Medicare beneficiaries nationwide, including 186,000 New Jersey Medicare beneficiaries who live in Camden, Salem, Burlington and Gloucester counties, will be subject to a risky Medicare privatization scheme beginning in 2010. This scheme, which is called premium support, will give seniors a set Medicare premium payment--similar to a voucher--that would be based on a combination of the prices that private plans in their area charge and the cost of Medicare fee-for- service in their area. Seniors choosing to enroll in a plan that costs more than the amount of that voucher would have to pay the difference. While it may seem like an easy and straightforward choice to seniors who currently enjoy and thrive on traditional Medicare to choose to remain in the fee-for-service program, under this privatization scheme, those seniors who make that choice will end up paying significantly higher premiums than their counterparts in private plans. Because the private plans will be able to cherry pick the healthiest seniors to enroll in their plans and will receive huge subsidies from the federal government, they will be able to provide lower cost health care than the traditional Medicare program. That means that sicker, older beneficiaries will remain in the traditional Medicare, thereby increasing costs in that program, while younger, healthier beneficiaries will choose to enroll in private plans where they will pay lower premiums. That's right, Under this privatization scheme, seniors who choose to remain in the Medicare program they know and trust will pay more-- significantly more than they pay now--for their coverage. Not only will these seniors pay significantly higher premiums than they do now for fee-for-service Medicare, and much more than they would if they enrolled in a private plan, but also depending on where a senior lives they will pay a different price for the same Medicare coverage that a senior in a neighboring community might pay. So, for the first time in history, seniors in some areas will pay higher premiums for their Medicare coverage than seniors in other areas. How much more will seniors who want to stay in the traditional Medicare program pay? According to documents released by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Office of the Actuary on August 9, 2003, seniors living in Gloucester and Hudson counties in New Jersey could pay as much as $1,700 more than they pay now for traditional Medicare. Yet, seniors in these counties could, depending on the plan they select, join an HMO for a premium that is $2,000 less. Why is that? This is because private plans will select healthier seniors will offer fewer choices than traditional Medicare and, at the same time will receive grossly inflated payments from the government. In fact, the new Medicare law overpays private plans by $1,920 per beneficiary--at a total cost of $14 billion to taxpayers--so that these plans may compete with Medicare. This sounds like socialized privatization to me. Indeed, in the last 6 months I have struggled to understand the logic behind paying private plans more than we pay Medicare. The only logical reason I've come up with is that this is the perfect plan to make the Medicare program fail--to give my Republican colleagues the read meat they need to raid and privatize Medicare. This is not competition. It is a plan to force seniors into private plans and out of the Medicare program they trust. There is no real choice here. Very few seniors will have the luxury of choosing to pay $2,000 more a year for traditional Medicare. Most seniors will be forced into managed care plans. Seniors in my State want no part of this privatization scheme. Baby boomers in my State want no part of this. New Jerseyans want to know that the Medicare program, as we know it, will be there for them when they need it. My legislation provides that assurance. Under my bill, no New Jersey county and no New Jersey senior will be subject to this disastrous privatization scheme. In closing, I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and the many other bills that Democratic members are introducing today to exempt their States from this program and to protect and preserve the Medicare program for our seniors today and our seniors tomorrow.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, my distracted driving amendment addresses one of the most serious highway safety problems in our Nation: distracted and fatigued driving. When drivers talk on their cell phones, change radio stations, eat, or otherwise fail to devote their full attention to driving, they pose a threat not only to themselves, but to others. Drivers who are drowsy or tired pose a similar threat. I am particularly concerned about the use of hand-held cell phones while driving, which the California Highway Patrol recently reported was the number one cause of distracted driver accidents in their State. According to a study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, ``the use of cell phones by drivers may result in approximately 2,600 deaths, 330,000 moderate to critical injuries and 1.5 million instances of property damage in America per year.'' Other studies have reached similar conclusions. One, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997, concluded that the ``use of cellular telephones in motor vehicles is associated with a quadrupling of the risks of a collision during the brief period of a call.'' That study went on to say ``this relative risk is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit.'' States, counties and municipalities around the country have considered legislation affecting the use of hand-held cell phones while driving. New York enacted a ban against the use of hand-held cell phones while driving in 2001. A number of municipalities in my own State of New Jersey have also chosen to enforce bans within their borders, including Marlboro, Carteret and Nutley. New Jersey itself has enacted a law that imposes additional penalties on those driving infractions where cell-phone use has been determined to be a factor. This patchwork of laws, however, does not take the place of a consistent, Nation-wide ban. That is why I introduced the Mobile Telephone Driving Safety Act last year. That bill would provide incentives for States to adopt bans on hand-held cell phones, and I hope that we can build more support for this legislation in the future. However, this amendment proposes a more modest first step that I have worked out with the managers of the bill from the Commerce Committee, Senators McCain and Hollings. The main provision in the amendment would provide Federal funds for States to implement programs designed to address distracted and fatigued driving, by making such programs an eligible use of funds under the Section 402 highway safety program. These programs might include public education campaigns, additional training for law enforcement, and implementation of laws that specifically address fatigued or distracted driving. The amendment also calls for several demonstration projects to specifically test ways of combating distracted driving. And it directs States to work with local law enforcement officials to find ways to collect more accurate data about how the use of electronic devices in vehicles affects traffic safety. In sum, this amendment helps address some of the most important highway safety issues we confront. And it does so without requiring any new funds, or putting any additional burdens on the States. I want to thank Senators McCain and Hollings for their cooperation on this matter, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I have submitted an amendment which addresses the serious national problem of drunk driving by helping to ensure that when drunken drivers are arrested, they can't simply get back into their car and put the lives of others in jeopardy. The amendment is based on legislation known as ``John's Law'' that I have introduced in the Senate and that has already been enacted at the State level in New Jersey. On July 22, 2000, Navy Ensign John Elliott was driving home from the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis for his mother's birthday when his car was struck by another car. Both Ensign Elliott and the driver of that car were killed. The driver of the car that caused the collision had a blood alcohol level that exceeded twice the legal limit. What makes this tragedy especially distressing is that this same driver had been arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, DUI, just 3 hours before the crash. After being processed for that offense, he had been released into the custody of a friend who drove him back to his car and allowed him to get behind the wheel, with tragic results. We need to ensure that drunken drivers do not get back behind the wheel before they sober up. With this amendment, States would be allowed to use some of their drunk driver prevention grant money from the Federal Government to impound the vehicles of drunk drivers for no less than 12 hours. This would help ensure that a drunk driver cannot get back behind the wheel until he is sober. And that would make our roads safer, and prevent the loss of many innocent lives. I hope my colleagues will support this commonsense measure. And I want to express my appreciation to Senators McCain and Hollings for their cooperation on this matter.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Oklahoma will allow for 20 minutes speaking as in morning business.

Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I, too, respect very much the challenges the chairman of the committee and the ranking member have been able to work through. I look forward to a good, healthy debate about some of the specifics. I think we are on the right track.

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. First of all, I compliment him. I am quite supportive of the Senate Intelligence Committee doing a total rundown on both the collection and the analysis that led both to the Iraq situation and some of the failures he mentioned with regard to Iran and Libya and different points of view. God knows the Pakistani dissemination of technology we have read about in the newspapers in recent months is a pretty horrific proliferation issue about which I think all of us should be concerned. But there is this fundamental issue of whether intelligence has been misused and whether we are getting the checks and balances in looking at the collected and analyzed information. Are we looking at the full range of possibilities? I ask my colleague from Missouri, am I correct that the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said that studying the use of the intelligence information was really not part of the efforts the Senate Intelligence Committee would take on in this process? I think the record would be specific. But is that the case or not?

Mr. CORZINE. Will the Senator from Missouri be willing to take a question with regard to the Senate Intelligence effort?

Mr. CORZINE. It seems to me it is absolutely essential we understand how the President of the United States can put those 16 words--which were in absolute conflict with the information that generally was available in the Intelligence Committee, if I read that properly--into the State of the Union Message of 2003 with regard to aluminum tubes and with regard to uranium and then later the whole discussion, particularly Secretary Powell's presentation to the U.N. of the use of aluminum tubes. This was also in very strong contradiction to much of the information that is now available. We could go on, with unmanned aerial vehicles and a whole series of other issues. So somehow or another there were disputes about the response that one should make with regard to collection and analysis of data. And that gets at the fundamental question of how did we use or misuse the intelligence that was presented. To not come up with an answer that is credible to the American people, credible to policymakers in this body, and credible to our allies and the world community is a failure of leadership on our part. It becomes absolutely essential that any independent commission needs to deal with the use, not just the collection and analysis. Is that how the Senator from Illinois feels?

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an issue about which I have spoken a number of times and which I passionately believe needs to be addressed--frankly, it is one that is well past the maturation stage where it should have been addressed--and that is an independent look at our intelligence operations, particularly as they relate to the pre- Iraqi invasion and how conclusions were drawn, so that can speak to the American people about the facts we had. It is an issue which I think is essential to the national security of the American people. If we don't learn from our mistakes, we are bound to make those mistakes again. It is high time we have gotten around to it. In the past few days, the administration and the world have come to understand and acknowledge on a broad basis the colossal intelligence failures that led us to war, a war that may have led to good ends, but the Nation clearly didn't come to those conclusions on the basis of the information we now seem to be discovering. There is a question about means to an end that I think is pretty simple in the kinds of discussions I think all of us have in the families and in the communities in which we live. I don't think we want to get into a position where means justify ends when they don't relate to them. I just point that out as some of this discussion has evolved. On January 8, Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the lack of connection between Iraq and al-Qaida, stating; I've not seen a smoking gun, concrete evidence about that connection. We were told something different. Then the President, in his latest State of the Union Address, referred only to weapons of mass destruction and related program activities, whatever that is--a far cry from the active nuclear program and stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons warned of in his last State of the Union Message in 2003. It was last week's testimony from David Kay, the man responsible for the weapons search in Iraq, that finally brought this matter to maturity and captured the attention of the Nation, the administration, and the world, and that has really changed the whole context of this debate and discussion. Dr. Kay, a man who told us last fall that Iraq's nuclear programs were only at the most rudimentary level, told the Senate Armed Services Committee there was no evidence of stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. David Kay has made an important recommendation--one that I think has been obvious for a number of months--that an independent inquiry be established so that the American people, so that the allies of the United States and those who would work with us, so that all of us who are involved in policymaking know we have the facts that allow us to make good decisions so that we are not committing the lives of our men and women in our military to efforts that are based on false premises, whether those are intentional or unintentional. We need to have the right answers, and that recommendation apparently has now led--some might say forced--the President to announce he will name a panel to look at the intelligence issues related to Iraq. I welcome the President's reversal on this critical need, and I suspect we will see a reversal of support for that concept among my colleagues, about which there have been some healthy debates in the last months. This is about the Nation's national security, make no mistake. We need to understand on a collection basis, on an analysis basis, and, yes, on a use basis, just exactly how we got to the kinds of conclusions we did. The means need to be understood so that we can connect them with the end, so that we don't make the same mistakes again and again. I have serious concerns, however, at least from early reports about what the details of the President's plan for this commission will be, that the response is inadequate--I think seriously inadequate. This needs to be an independent commission. How do we get to an independent commission? How do we make certain that the judgments we get are not designed or at least limited to only a mission defined by those we are actually looking at? And second, will that commission be allowed to explore the use of intelligence, or the misuse, if you will? I haven't seen the details. I don't think any of us have. We are reading press reports. But if they are true, it would give the appearance that we don't want to have a commission that is going to deal with the fundamental crux of a lot of these questions. Quite obviously, if we don't deal with the crux of the questions, then are we going to get results that create credibility with the American people, with this body, with the world, on whom we need to count to do things as we go forward? Are we going to get to those kinds of conclusions? If that is not the case, then I don't think we are headed in the right direction. I am very afraid we are moving into something that may satisfy a call for a commission to investigate our intelligence, but not yet at the fundamental problems that led us to this particular decision in Iraq, but also can be and may have well been replicated in other areas. I actually think the President is right to talk about it in a broader context. It is just an issue of, sequentially, which one do we look at first. Even by the inspection on the ground, we are told that 15 percent of the issues haven't been examined on the ground in Iraq. We need to deal with where our men and women are being killed now, as opposed to putting off and putting together all of these various issues. We have what some people might say is a tactical issue with respect to Iraq and a strategic problem with our intelligence operations in a more general context. Fine, we should look at a broader scope of issues to get to the restructuring of our intelligence operations, but we need to deal with the reality of, how did our intelligence serve us so poorly, how were the conclusions so far off the mark? Was there a problem with collection? Was there a problem with analysis? Or was there a problem in selectivity and use of the intelligence provided? As I said, it was last summer when I first offered legislation to establish an independent commission. I think we ought to get to a truly bipartisan, independent commission, one that is not unlike what we see with the 9/11 Commission, headed by the former Governor of New Jersey, a Republican, who is doing, in my view, an incredible service to our Nation. It is a diligent, independent, bipartisan approach to find out the facts that led to that tragedy with which all of us live each and every day, whether it is in your local hometown, like it is the case in mine, or whether it is in the broader context of the Nation. Given the fact that we have had Presidential claims that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium in Africa, which could not be justified or substantiated by intelligence, is enough to ask the question whether intelligence was properly used. It clearly was not, because the President himself has denied that that should have been in the State of the Union. So how did that intelligence get misused? How did that come about? Similarly, with regard to the aluminum tube issue, on which a whole host of folks have spoken out both publicly, and I have read some things privately, that call into question whether that was ever a viable concept for intelligence to be used as one of the justifications for entering into this conflict. How can that happen? We need to have certainty and independence in judging how we got to the collection, the analysis, and the use of the intelligence. I think that is important if we are going to go forward with certainty and credibility with regard to our efforts in using our intelligence for proper and effective policy formulation in the years ahead. We need it so we can speak to the world with credibility, and it will not take place, in my view, if we do not have that independent commission. So I want to reemphasize the point that use of the information is also very important. We have seen time after time, and opinion after opinion, of a number of people, outside of the David Kay remarks, that much of the use has actually been disputed within the intelligence community. I cite in particular an officer from the State Department, Gregg Thielmann--and I will try to get his particular title--who has made the assertion that we are basically operating under faith-based interpretations of a lot of information. He goes back and cites the Nigeria uranium and the use of aluminum tubes, disputes about stockpiles that were reported, and many elements of different perspectives with regard to the intelligence that was available to policymakers. How did we get such a one-sided view? I think some people would argue it might be misuse. Some may argue it is selectivity. I think we need an independent commission so we can get to the bottom of these. I think we need to understand how the administration could make public statements that contradicted some of the analysis or failed to incorporate the balance that was actually involved in the communities' reports. Why did these reports Congress mandated under the very resolution that granted the President the authority to go to war include some of those unsubstantiated claims I talked about? Were members of the intelligence community pressured to produce analyses that conformed to the administration policies? They even set up an extra body within the Defense Department to derive points of view that would be used in the Defense Department independent of traditional agencies that are involved in the intelligence. Did the administration officials seek to bypass that normal process by cherry-picking? I think all of these questions are real and they are ones that need to be independently analyzed. There are plenty of outside experts. I think a lot of people have heard about the Carnegie Endowment study that reported last week, and I quote: Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missile programs. They may not have all of the information. That is why we need a commission to straighten this out and to give us all confidence that we can go forward. I spoke about Mr. Thielmann, who was the former director of the Office of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs in the State Department. He is incredibly offended by the difference between the information he saw and presented to the Secretary of State, as the one who is responsible for collating that, and what he has seen stated in the public. So how did those kinds of differences come to pass? Why are we dealing with such discrepancies? The commission I proposed would be established by law independent of any executive orders to change its mission, change its role, change its scope. Its members would be selected by the leadership of both parties, balanced, kind of like the 9/11 Commission which I think people would argue as being very independent and is on the right track; receive an independent budget so there would not be issues about how thoroughly they might be able to pursue particular avenues of research; and would be directed to examine every aspect of this critical problem; obviously all elements of the collection, all elements of the analysis, and all elements of use from top to bottom, from our intelligence operatives to the White House. By the way, in my view, Congress looks to provide the checks and balances that are expected through our constitutional offices. I think this commission should be thorough and we need an end result that gives us all confidence that when we make decisions that send 120,000, 130,000 or 150,000 of our men and women into battle that they are fighting a war based on information that was intended to give pure advice as best understood. I do not think the looking back--20/20 hindsight is always better, but looking back, one has to question whether the claims that Saddam Hussein posed a dire and immediate threat to the United States were real. It is important that we have a full examination, particularly when there were other alternatives that would not have necessarily cost American lives, such as continued pursuit of U.N. inspections which were claimed to have been ineffective, further diplomacy pointless, when in fact apparently all of those efforts at U.N. inspections and other things had actually been successful. There has been a huge failure, one that is very real in the lives of the families who have given up their sons and daughters, and I think one that morally requires we have an independent, bipartisan commission that gets to answers independently of any of us who have been involved in the decisionmaking, because if we do not have that I think we are going to always have questions of credibility as we go forward. So I hope we can work together. I certainly intend to offer either on a stand-alone basis or in an amendment format an additional opportunity to support a truly independent and bipartisan commission that can get to the bottom of something I think is fundamental to the national security of this Nation, and make sure all of our sons and daughters are fighting wars and protecting America with the kind of information that is there for the best interests of us executing our policies, not for the best execution of our political desires. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORZINE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CORZINE

Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I repeat, the policies of this bill on overtime, media concentration, and certainly gun safety records are just incredibly out of connection with the reality of the world in which we live today. Work should be valued, open debate should be valued, and the safety of our citizens, our homeland security, should be valued. Again, I compliment the leadership on its work on this appropriations bill. I just do not understand why we have had to mix it up and put it into a bowl of seriously flawed policies. There is a whole series of other policies, including vouchers in the school system, that have occurred without real debate--and I could go on--but overtime in this country is a value of work. Media concentration was designed so that America could have a free press and a free debate. We ought to be making sure we protect these fundamental rights. It ought to be done in a democratic way. I hope my colleagues will stand with us on principle on the Omnibus appropriations bill to fix it and come back to the fundamental underlying appropriations process.

Mr. CORZINE. Will the Senator from Alaska yield for a unanimous consent request?