As long as we're discussing Chertoff ... here's a blast from the past

[AlGore-08.com]

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00010

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 1st Session
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Michael Chertoff, of New Jersey, To Be Secretary of Homeland Security )
Vote Number: 10 Vote Date: February 15, 2005, 04:00 PM

Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Nomination Confirmed
Nomination Number: PN122
Nomination Description: Michael Chertoff, of New Jersey, to be Secretary of Homeland Security
Vote Counts:
YEAs 98
NAYs 0
Not Voting 2

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Not Voting
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Not Voting
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea


Two of the Senators who voted to confirm Chertoff and are currently running for President made statements about their vote at the time of the vote:

http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=145183&keyword=chertof&phrase=&contain=

Speaker: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY)
Title: Statement of Senator Clinton on Her Vote on the Nomination of Michael Chertoff to be Secretary of Homeland Security
Date: 2005-02-15
Location: Washington, DC
Speech

Statement of Senator Clinton on Her Vote on the Nomination of Michael Chertoff 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 than that of the Secretary of Homeland Security. 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 we will do so only by maintaining and strengthening our civil society and our commitment to being a force for decency and respect for law in the world. After rigorous review of Judge Chertoff's testimony and my personal discussion with him, I have come to the conclusion 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.

Judge Chertoff's stated commitment to threat-and vulnerability-based funding and his repeated expressions of support for policies that are essential to the security of New Yorkers are decisive factors in my decision to vote for his confirmation. And we will need Judge Chertoff's support more than ever as Congress deals with the President's FY 2006 budget. I have repeatedly called upon the Administration to implement threat-based homeland security funding so that resources go to the states and areas where they are needed most. On the first day of this Congress, I introduced the Domestic Defense Fund Act of 2005 providing $7 billion annually to local communities, states and first responders to be allocated using threat, risk, and vulnerability-based criteria. While Judge Chertoff has expressed support for threat- and vulnerability-based funding, we will need his help convincing the Bush Administration to follow through on his support.

The FY 2006 budget also seeks to cut or eliminate a number of essential first responder programs and proposes no funding for the SAFER Act. There was no funding for the COPS hiring program, the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program, or the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program -- named after a NYPD officer killed in the line of duty -- that has provided states and local governments with funds to reduce crime and increase public safety. This is a shameful reduction, especially as our fire fighters, police, emergency service workers and other first responders continue to be on the front lines of our nation's homeland defense. The President' s budget also failed to provide funding for the 2,000 new border patrol agents, many of whom will be dedicated specifically to our Northern Border. Judge Chertoff must be willing to fight hard for full funding of these and other programs essential to the keeping our communities safe from crime while also buttressing our homeland defense.

Finally, I was pleased to learn that Judge Chertoff testified that his personal experiences have given him a thorough appreciation and respect for state and local perspectives. I agree wholeheartedly that we need to work in partnership with state and local governments. When it comes to securing the homeland, states and local communities must be full partners.

I remain deeply concerned about the misguided and potentially unconstitutional policies that have been drafted by the Justice Department and implemented by the Administration in its prosecution of the war on terror and in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I am grateful that the Senate devoted time to a thorough discussion of these important issues. However, these concerns have nothing to do with Judge Chertoff's personal abilities and commitment to public service, and Judge Chertoff has expressed his personal disagreement with many of these policies. Ultimately, his roots in the New Jersey-New York region, his personal experiences, and his expressions of commitment to the rule of law and programs and policies that will help protect New York and our nation have secured my vote in favor of confirmation. I call upon Judge Chertoff to work with Congress to ensure that the Administration is vigilant in its efforts to protect our liberty and keep our nation secure.

Finally, I encourage Judge Chertoff to meet with New York's 9/11 families as soon as possible after he is confirmed. These men, women and children, who have lost so much, are in need of continuing help and also are a source of great expertise and wisdom. They are the true champions for securing our homeland, and I think the Department could gain a lot by listening to them.


http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=143568&keyword=chertoff&phrase=&contain=

Speaker: Senator Christopher J. Dodd (CT)
Title: Nomination of Michael Chertoff
Date: 2005-02-15
Location: Washington, DC
Speech

NOMINATION OF MICHAEL CHERTOFF

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to discuss briefly the nomination of Judge Michael Chertoff, of New Jersey, to be Secretary of Homeland Security. I thank our colleagues on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, especially Chairwoman Susan Collins and my dear friend and colleague from Connecticut, Joseph Lieberman, for their close consideration of this nomination. The task of reviewing the nominee for Secretary of Homeland Security is a difficult one, and the committee did a fine job.

I have reviewed the credentials of Judge Chertoff. They are impressive. In a legal career spanning over a quarter of a century, Judge Chertoff has shown a respectable dedication to public service. In my view, he has also demonstrated an ability effectively to manage a variety of security issues. For these reasons, I believe that Judge Chertoff is qualified and capable to serve as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I plan on voting for his nomination.

The job for which Judge Chertoff is being nominated is a challenging one. In this post 9/11 era, the Secretary of Homeland Security bears the primary responsibility of ensuring the safety of all Americans from threats that range from terrorist attacks to natural phenomena. In order to meet this responsibility, the Secretary must oversee 22 separate agencies and 180,000 employees, all of whom carry out critical daily duties that include safeguarding our borders, securing our domestic infrastructure, and providing emergency disaster assistance. We all know that success in carrying out these duties will rest on the ability of the Secretary to coordinate and manage the resources at his disposal. They are huge.

If confirmed, Judge Chertoff will unfortunately find that the current resources at his disposal are inadequate to ensure the operation of an effective Department of Homeland Security. I strongly agree with several of my colleagues on the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee who argue that more must be done to improve the Department's ability to identify security threats and to respond to these threats in an effective and appropriate manner.

I agree that the Department of Homeland Security must be given adequate resources to address the plethora of security vulnerabilities that continue to plague our borders, airports, seaports, transportation systems, utility networks, and financial networks. I also agree that more work must be done to develop and implement a Government-wide strategy on homeland security activities, and to devise specific plans of action for specific threats. Furthermore, I strongly concur that more resources must be provided to our first responders--the millions of brave men and women who make up our front lines of defense at home.

For any homeland security response to be fully effective and successful, our firefighters, law enforcement personnel, and emergency response teams require the most updated equipment and training to function. Regrettably, the administration's fiscal year 2006 budget deeply cuts these and other initiatives related to homeland security.

All of these challenges that I mention demand immediate and long-term investments. While I applaud the work that has already been done to enhance our domestic security since 9/11, I remain, as many of my colleagues do, deeply disturbed by the administration's continued disinclination to invest adequately in these activities. As more gaps in our security are uncovered and exploited, and as more work is being done to enhance our capabilities in identifying closing these gaps, the Bush administration's policy has been to provide less resources, including unthinkable cuts of $615 million to State homeland security initiatives and our first responders. How can we fully expect to be safe as a nation if the very people who are committed to our safety are deprived of the vital resources that ensure our safety?

In his testimony before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Judge Chertoff indicated his determination to `` ..... improve our technology, strengthen our management practices, secure our borders and transportation systems, and most important, focus each and every day on keeping America safe from attacks.''

I am encouraged by these remarks, and I hope Judge Chertoff's determination can allow him to meet the challenges, but he faces some awesome ones within the administration, if, in fact, these budget cut proposals are enacted into law.

I am also encouraged by the remarks he made regarding the rights to due process that all Americans enjoy. In his testimony to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Judge Chertoff said:

I believe that we cannot live in liberty without security, but we would not want to live in security without liberty.

I believe this position is noteworthy, especially in light of the report issued by the Department of Justice inspector general in 2003 that criticized the prolonged detention of hundreds of people--primarily immigrants--of suspected ties to terrorism that were later deemed groundless. Judge Chertoff admitted that mistakes were made in the detention and treatment of these individuals--an admission rarely heard from this administration--and vowed to prevent them from happening again.

The question for our country is not whether Judge Chertoff is the right man for the job--I believe he is--but whether Judge Chertoff will be given an impossible job by the President who nominated him. We surely cannot meet the needs of our homeland security apparatus on a tin-cup budget, just as we cannot meet the needs of our military, our schools, and our health care facilities.

I find it troubling that--at the same time as it cuts support for police, firefighters, schoolchildren, and hospitals--this administration continues to view as sacrosanct the massive tax cuts worth $1.6 trillion that benefit only some of the most wealthy individuals in our Nation. Clearly, the President is not willing to ask any of these people--although I think many of them would be more than willing--to make the sacrifice for the well-being of our Nation. Yet, at the same time, the President is willing to tell firefighters, law enforcement personnel, and emergency response teams--people who risk their lives every day for our Nation--that not only are they going to get fewer resources each year, but they are required to do more with less. This severely skewed set of priorities is simply stunning. While it may be difficult for many of us to see this mismatch clearly today, I believe future historians who write about this period will harshly judge it as such.

If confirmed, Judge Chertoff faces formidable and daunting challenges--challenges that must be overcome if we are to ensure the safety of this country and well-being of all Americans. I speak on behalf of all of my colleagues when I wish him the best in this very difficult endeavor he is willing to undertake.

I am also here to discuss another issue raised by our colleague, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan. The issue concerns the repeated failure of this administration to provide the Senate with information necessary to carry out its constitutional responsibilities of giving advice and consent and conducting oversight of the executive branch.

In a letter written by the Department of Justice to Senators Lieberman and Levin on February 7--just over a week ago--the Department of Justice claimed that an unredacted document related to the Chertoff nomination would not be provided to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee because `` ..... it contains information covered by the Privacy Act ..... as well as deliberative process material.'' The assertion by the Department of Justice that their inability to comply rests on the Privacy Act is absurd and wholly unacceptable.

As Senator Levin has stated--and I strongly agree with him in this--the Privacy Act protects private individuals from having personal information released without their consent. In this case, the Department of Justice is using the Privacy Act to conceal the names of public officials who have engaged in Government activities at taxpayers' expense. That is precisely the kind of case in which Congress ought to have full knowledge of Government personnel and their activities in order to exercise its advice and consent responsibility fully.

To deny the Senate information about what public officials are doing at taxpayers' expense is essentially to deny the American people their right to know what their Government is or is not doing in the name of its citizens. To deny the American people their right to know of their Government's actions is an abuse of not only the Privacy Act, it is an abuse of power, in my view.

This may seem like a small matter to some, just one document. However, it should be noted that Senator Levin has precisely and carefully raised an issue that would be deeply disturbing to anyone who is committed to openness and accountability in our Government. I suggest to my colleagues that we are going to be seeing this issue arise over and over again if we as a body--all of us here--do not challenge it. I do not care what party is in the White House. If any administration starts making the case in the Executive Branch that the Privacy Act applies to Government personnel and Government documents that Congress may need to fulfill its Constitutional obligations, then a dangerous precedent will be set--one that I think we will deeply regret.

This matter reflects an already persistent, almost obsessive preoccupation by the current administration with secrecy, thereby avoiding accountability to Congress and, of course, to the citizens we seek to represent.

The examples of this preoccupation are almost too many to recite. One example that comes to mind is when Members of Congress and environmental organizations were unable to ascertain who--just the names--participated in the Vice President's energy task force, the group which laid the blueprints for the administration's current energy policy.

Another example is the refusal of the recent nominee, now current Attorney General, to provide information to the Judiciary Committee pertaining to the development of his legal rationale for permitting torture. Of particular note in this case, when asked to provide information, the Attorney General said:

I do not know what notes, memoranda, e-mails, or other documents others may have about these meetings, nor have I conducted a search.

The unwillingness even to search for information requested by Congress epitomizes a certain official arrogance that sets a dangerous precedent because, when carried to its conclusion, it impairs and even impedes most congressional oversight. Government employees are named in countless documents that Congress needs in order to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities and to shine the light where appropriate for the people of this country on the actions of our Government.

In closing, I do not believe Judge Chertoff is an architect of the policy to deny the public their right to know what their Government is doing. That point needs to be made crystal clear. If I thought that were the case, I would not support this nominee. I think Judge Chertoff has made clear how he views these matters. But Senator Levin has raised a very important issue that transcends this nomination and reaches every agency and office in this government. It is the issue of preserving the openness, transparency, and accountability of our democratic government. I thank Senator Levin who, once again, during his service here, has proved how valuable attention to detail is. I commend my colleague for raising it.

I thank the indulgence of the Chair. I yield the floor.

[LearnedHand]

1. GOOD RESEARCH!!!!!

Thanks for posting this. I hope it gets lots of airplay and the senators have their noses rubbed in it! (k&r)

[rodeodance]

2. Sen Clinton has major concerns (NY-ground zero Senator)--about funding

for terror threats.