Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favour of the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act, which I am introducing with my colleague and friend on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Susan Collins.

Last year, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on this legislation, but time ran out before we were able to move the measure to the Senate floor.

I also want to thank my former cosponsor, Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, with whom I and more than 20 other Senators introduced identical legislation in the 110th Congress. We expect about 20 cosponsors again this year, and I want to express my appreciation to them for helping us get an early enough start in the 111th Congress so that we can pass the bill, hopefully, this year.

This legislation makes eminent sense for two reasons: It will help the Federal Government attract the best and the brightest and it is the fair and right thing to do from a human rights perspective.

Let me explain. The Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act would provide the same employee benefit programs to same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees that are now provided to the opposite-sex spouses of Federal employees. In other words, same-sex domestic partners--living in a committed relationship and unrelated by blood would be eligible to participate in health benefits, long-term care, Family and Medical Leave, federal retirement benefits, and all other benefits for which married employees and their spouses are eligible. Federal employees and their domestic partners would also be subject to the same responsibilities that apply to married employees and their spouses, such as anti-nepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements.

When the domestic partners of Federal employees are granted the same benefits and obligations as the spouses of federal employees, the Federal Government will be able to attract from a larger pool of applicants the best possible employees to carry out the Government's responsibilities to the American people. In the coming years, as a large percentage of federal employees become eligible for retirement, a new generation of employees will be hired, and the Federal Government will be competing with the private sector for the most qualified among them. This legislation will help put the Federal Government on equal footing to compete for those new recruits and then retain them.

From a human rights perspective, this legislation is one more step on the long road to bring the gay and lesbian community equality under the law.

We are not talking about an insignificant number of people. According to UCLA's Williams Institute, over 30,000 federal workers live in committed relationships with same-sex partners who are not Federal employees.

We often hear--and I have often said--that Government should be run more like a business. While the purpose of Government and business are different, I believe Government has a lot to learn from private sector business models including in the matter before us today. The fact is that a majority of U.S. corporations--including more than half of all Fortune 500 companies--already offer benefits to domestic partners.

General Electric, IBM, Eastman Kodak, Dow Chemical, the Chubb Corporation, Lockheed Martin, and Duke Energy are among the major employers that have recognized the economic reward of providing benefits to domestic partners. Overall, almost 10,000 private-sector companies of all sizes provide benefits to domestic partners. The governments of 13 States, including my home State of Connecticut, about 145 local jurisdictions across our country, and some 300 colleges and universities also provide these benefits.

Surveys show that many private sector employers offer these benefits because it is the right thing to do. You can bet each one knows that the policy makes good business sense; it is good management policy, it is good employee policy, and it is good recruitment and retention policy.

In fact, employers have told analysts that they extend benefits to domestic partners to boost recruitment and retain quality employees--as well as to be fair. If we want the Government to be able to compete for the most qualified employees, we are going to have to provide the same benefits that job seekers can find elsewhere.

The experts tell us that 19 percent of an employee's compensation comes in the form of benefits, including benefits for family members. Employees who do not get benefits for their families are,

therefore, not being paid equally. Of course, the supporters of this legislation understand that covering domestic partners will add some increment to the total cost of providing federal employee benefits. And we understand that we have to be particularly careful about government spending right now and perform rigorous cost benefit analyses of all, not just new, federal expenditures.

Based on the experience of private companies and state and local governments, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that benefits to same-sex domestic partners of federal employees would increase the cost of those programs by less than one-half of one percent. The Office of Personnel Management says the cost of health benefits for domestic partners over 10 years would be $670 million. In the name of fairness and raising the appeal of federal employment, this is affordable legislation.

Among the many stories I have heard about the impact of this inequality on real people, I particularly remember the words of Michael Guest, who was ambassador to Romania in the Bush Administration and Dean of the Foreign Service Institute before he left public service. In his resignation letter, Mr. Guest made a moving and eloquent case for extending benefits to same sex partners. I believe Ambassador Guest was the first publicly gay man to be confirmed for an U.S. ambassadorship from the U.S. When he resigned the Foreign Service in 2007, he said, and I quote here from his farewell address to his colleagues ``. . . I have felt compelled to choose between obligations to my partner--who is my family--and service to my country. That anyone should have to make that choice is a stain on the Secretary's leadership and a shame for this institution and our country.''

Those are convincing words from a talented and loyal former public servant--who once described the Foreign Service as the career he was ``born for . . . what I was always meant to do.'' It is a great loss to the nation that he felt compelled to leave the Foreign Service-- particularly at a time when our nation so desperately needs talented diplomats to help meet the challenges we face abroad. He may have left public service for many reasons--but one of them should not have been that his federal employee benefits did not allow him to care for the needs of his family in an adequate manner.

The Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act makes good economic sense. It is sound policy. And it is the right thing to do. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that MAJ Brian Forrest, who is with me from the Army for a year, be given floor privileges during the proceedings on the supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. President, I wish today to honor Pleasant Valley Elementary School in South Windsor, CT. Pleasant Valley, or ``PV'' as it is affectionately referred to by many in South Windsor, will be celebrating its 50th anniversary this June. To mark this momentous occasion, I feel it is fitting to reflect back on all this school has done for its students and its community.

Pleasant Valley's motto is ``Pleasant Valley School, a place to learn, to grow, and to care,'' and many of the students, parents, and faculty that have been involved with the school would attest that it has more than succeeded in creating such an environment. For 50 years, Pleasant Valley has helped the children of South Windsor develop a love of learning and discovery while instilling in them the skills and work ethic needed to succeed in South Windsor's excellent secondary schools.

When Pleasant Valley first opened in September 1958, it taught grades one through eight. While it was tough managing a large group of kids with such large age differences, those who attended or worked at the school during this time fondly recall basketball games, spelling bees, school plays, dedicated teachers, and, of course, friendships that would last a lifetime. Eventually, Pleasant Valley would become responsible for teaching students in kindergarten up to the fifth grade, and would always remain a vibrant, innovative place of learning.

Over the years, Pleasant Valley's staff has consistently launched inspired new initiatives designed to connect with their students. In 1981, PV started the Read at Home Program, which was put together to encourage students to read on their own. The theme for the program's first year was ``footsteps to reading,'' which allowed students to post a paper foot on the school's walls for every book they read. By the end of the year, students had

managed to cover almost the entire school, including the principal's office. In 1989, the school established the Special Friends Program-- the first in South Windsor--to provide a safe setting, counseling, and friendship to at-risk students and those students experiencing sudden changes in their lives.

In the 1990-1991 school year, Nancy Mason, the school nurse, and Priscilla Spencer, the school's gym teacher, introduced an inventive project designed to teach students about both geography and physical fitness. The students were told that the school's mascot--Popcorn the Panther--was going to take a walking trip across the United States in which he would travel a mile for every mile that each student walked or ran. For the rest of the year, students were required to walk or run at least half a mile during every recess period and were encouraged to walk more. Prizes were given to the class and grade that contributed the most miles to Popcorn's journey. Throughout the year, teachers would have friends and family members who lived around the country send postcards ``from Popcorn'' so that students could see the fruits of their efforts and learn about various regions of the country. This successful program concluded with a large welcome home ceremony at the end of the school year, with several students joining Popcorn, played ably by an older student, for his final walk back to school.

At a time when much of our focus is understandably on improving schools that are not living up to standards, it is important to take time out to recognize those schools that have consistently provided a quality education to their students and that are constantly striving to find new ways to inspire students to reach new heights. For 50 years, Pleasant Valley School of South Windsor, CT, has been one of these schools; providing students with the ideal setting in which to develop their abilities, meet friends, and cultivate new interests. It truly is a place to learn, to grow, and to care. I congratulate all of Pleasant Valley's students, alumni, faculty, parents, and volunteers on a remarkable 50 years and look forward to seeing how they tackle the challenges of the future. Their dedication is truly an inspiration and should serve as an example to us all.

Mr. President, I wish today to honor the ``Techno Ticks,'' the FIRST Robotics team from Lyme-Old Lyme High School in Old Lyme, CT, which won the Chairman's Award at the 2009 International FIRST Robotics Championship. The Chairman's Award is the most prestigious honor given out at the FIRST competition, which this year included 348 teams from most states in the United States as well as Brazil, Israel, Canada, and Mexico. It is awarded to the team that best represents a model for other teams to emulate, and which embodies the goals and purposes of FIRST.

FIRST--For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology--was established in 1989 to inspire young people's interest and participation in science and technology through a variety of mentor- based programs that help young people develop skills in science, technology, and engineering. Every year, the FIRST Robotics Competition challenges teams of high school students to design and build robots from a kit of hundreds of parts. The teams then control their robots in a game against other teams. The goal of this program is not just to teach students about robotics, but help them to develop general problem solving abilities as well as self-confidence, communication skills, and leadership.

Before participating in the International Competition, the Techno Ticks won the Chairman's Award at the Connecticut FIRST Robotics Competition for the 7th year in a row--a record amongst the more than 1700 FIRST teams now in operation worldwide. This remarkable record of success is a testament to the hard work and dedication of head coach William Derry and all the students and faculty who have been a part of the Techno Ticks over the last 11 years. The team has also benefitted from the efforts of many volunteers and supporters, including mentors from local businesses that generously share there time and expertise with the team.

At a time when our Nation's ability to sustain a growing economy and create good jobs at home increasingly depends upon our achievements in science and technology, the FIRST competition has helped to instill in many young people a thirst for discovery that leads so many to pursue a career in the physical sciences. It is hardly surprising that so many former Techno Ticks have gone on to study engineering. Two years ago, I was fortunate enough to attend the Connecticut regional competition in Hartford, and I couldn't help but be amazed by the creativity and dedication the Ticks and all the other teams put into building their robots.

I offer my congratulations to Coach Derry and the Lyme-Old Lyme Techno Ticks for winning the Chairman's Award at the 2009 International FIRST Robotics Championship and commend

all the faculty members, volunteers, mentors, and supporters who were instrumental in their victory.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I call up amendment No. 904.

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

Mr. President, I am honored to be joined in introducing this amendment by my colleagues, Senators Cornyn, Thune, and the distinguished occupant of the chair, Senator Begich. This amendment would ease the strain on the U.S. Army which today is carrying the bulk of the battle in Iraq and Afghanistan for us by establishing a deficit-neutral reserve

fund to increase Army Active-Duty end strength by 30,000 personnel.

Although we have depleted the so-called Grow the Force initiative and the Army is now at an end strength of 547,000, the so-called well time for our soldiers has not improved. They still have little more than 1 day at home for every day they spend in the theater. Our soldiers and their families----

Our soldiers continue to serve under an unacceptable strain. I ask my colleagues to ease that strain by adopting this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to express my unqualified endorsement of Jane Holl Lute to be Deputy Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security.

Mrs. Lute has impressive educational credentials--including a Ph.D. from Stanford, a J.D. from Georgetown, and 3 years as a professor at West Point--an outstanding professional history, and broad national security and management experience, all of which is more than ample preparation for the position to which she has been nominated.

She had a distinguished career in the military, served as the European specialist at the National Security Council during the first Bush and Clinton administrations, and for the past several years has worked in various positions with United Nations Peacekeeping Operations.

Mrs. Lute joined the Army right out of college and spent the next 16 years serving in a variety of capacities, including as an action officer in Operation Desert Storm, U.S. Army Central Command, Riyadh; as company commander, U.S. Signal Command, a brigade signal officer; and as director for european affairs on the National Security Council for President George H.W. Bush and President Bill Clinton. Her military experience with signals intelligence and on the National Security Council has helped prepare her for the intelligence and counterterrorism missions of DHS.

Since 2003, she has served in a variety of senior leadership positions with the U.N., including as the Assistant Secretary-General of Peacekeeping Operations, and most recently as the Assistant Secretary General for Peacekeeping Support in the Executive Office of the Secretary-General of the U.N.

As Assistant Secretary-General, Mrs. Lute has managed a very large and complex Peacekeeping workforce, with responsibility for hundreds of thousands of military and civilian personnel in over 30 countries, including hotspots such as Kosovo, the Congo, and Darfur, to name just a few. This was no small accomplishment. Her leadership helped to ensure the security and welfare of people around the globe living in unaccommodating and hostile circumstances.

She also managed multibillion-dollar budgets and welcomed oversight and constructive criticism of her department, in an organization that many have described as ``openly hostile'' to such transparency.

At the U.N., she managed support operations for the second largest deployed military force in the world, and oversaw a multibillion budget, which grew from $2 billion to nearly $8 billion annually. She undertook a variety of initiatives to improve the management and financial accountability of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, which included instituting a requirements review panel for acquisitions and a mission startup monitoring process.

When she noticed that the U.N. was short on the procurement personnel with the language skills and expertise needed for the complex transactions they would work on, she helped institute a program to identify, recruit, and train additional staff.

She also instituted advanced training programs for senior administrative and management personnel, in response to deficiencies she observed.

I am particularly impressed by Mrs. Lute's leadership and management experience in a career dedicated to public service. In her testimony before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last week, it was apparent that her experiences have helped her develop into the leader she is today: One who recognizes that, in her own words, ``people are the most important resource any . . . organization has.''

It is a testimony to Mrs. Lute and her work that the committee has received numerous letters supporting her nomination. Letters have come from the International Association of Emergency Managers, the National Emergency Managers Association, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the Major Cities Chiefs, the National Sheriffs' Association, Lee Baca, the Sheriff of L.A. County, Lee Hamilton, former congressman and current President and Director, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, HRH Prince Zeid Ra'ad Al-Hussein, Jordan's Ambassador to the U.S., and many others.

Managing the Department of Homeland Security is no small task, demanding a smart and steady hand. The Deputy Secretary post carries with it diverse responsibilities that range from overseeing preparations to respond to a nuclear terrorist attack to ensuring that DHS employees have adequate office space.

DHS has at times struggled to gain solid footing over the course of its six-year lifespan. Each year it becomes stronger, I am happy to note. And I don't think there is any question that the country is safer as a result of the Department's efforts.

But the Department has a difficult and varied mission and its work is central to the security of all Americans. So we must continue to press forward to improve upon its capabilities.

To that end, I am working to draft the Senate's first authorization bill for the Department as a means of laying out what I believe should be its priorities and to make the Department more efficient and effective in its missions. Needless to say, we will be seeking input from the administration.

One of the biggest problems the Department faces is its management of acquisitions. Some of the Department's largest and most troubled acquisition programs--Deepwater, SBINet, radiation detection portal monitors--need stronger oversight and more decisive leadership than they have gotten in the past.

Furthermore, the Department's heavy reliance on contractors to perform basic services raises serious questions about whether DHS is building sufficient internal capacity and institutional knowledge. Right now, DHS still has insufficient capacity to develop requirements and evaluate the technical feasibility of contractors' proposals.

In recent years the United States has seen serious threats to our cyber networks and we have not yet developed the tools to detect and defend against these threats. Due to the vulnerabilities that still exist, we have experienced massive identity theft, monetary loss, and leaks of sensitive information. Moreover, if these vulnerabilities are ever fully exploited, there is the potential to do significant damage to our Nation's critical infrastructure. The Department of Homeland Security has the important responsibility of leading Federal efforts to protect domestic cyber networks, both public and private. The Department has made some progress in developing its capabilities in this area, but much more work remains to be done. I look forward to working with Mrs. Lute to bolster the nation's cyber security.

Clearly, our southern border security has also become a central focus for the Department and the Obama administration. Senator Collins and I successfully amended the budget resolution this week to add $550 million for the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice to help stem the flow of drugs and people moving north into the U.S. and guns and money moving south into Mexico. I look forward to a close collaboration with the Department in this area.

The Department faces many other challenges that must be met and conquered if it is to succeed in its ultimate mission of protecting the nation from terrorism and natural disasters. This committee has always worked cooperatively with the Department and will continue to do so to ensure its success.

If confirmed, Mrs. Lute will play a large part in setting the Department on course to overcome these challenges. I want to thank her for her many years of service and say that I believe she is exceptionally qualified to take on DHS' challenges. I urge my fellow Senators to support her confirmation.

Mr. President, on March 18, the lights were dimmed by theatres on Broadway in tribute to a talented actor and a passionate patriot. Ron Silver's life was cut short by cancer and, as a result, America lost an individual who was not just a marvelous entertainer, but an engaged and active citizen.

I was proud and privileged to call Ron Silver my friend. Everyone who knew Ron was impressed by his intelligence, his humor, and his passion. He was not the distant celebrity, but rather he was a man of humility who possessed great talent.

Ron's acting ability was recognized in 1988 when he won a Tony Award for his performance in the play ``Speed-the-Plow.'' He was known to millions of Americans for his roles on television in ``Rhoda'' and more recently as the political operative in the ``West Wing.''

Ron's had a deep and abiding love for America. He took the responsibilities of citizenship very seriously and he was active in the public square. Ron was one of the cofounders of the Creative Coalition that advocated for support for the arts. As Ron once said, ``I'm an actor by calling but an activist by inclination.''

I believe that Ron was a political liberal in the best and truest sense of the term. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attack, Ron recognized that our progressive values and our national security were most threatened by the forces of radical Islamic extremism. He became an eloquent and effective advocate in winning the war on terror and defending our values and country.

Some said Ron Silver changed his political orientation. In reality, he was entirely consistent in his belief that we can never be complacent when the values we cherish are under attack whether at home or abroad.

Although Ron had political differences with some of his old friends, it rarely affected their friendships. He understood that people of good faith could have political differences and still get along. That dynamic is reflected in some of the tributes that I have included at the conclusion of my remarks. We can all learn from Ron's example.

Ron Silver was a passionate patriot who entertained us, moved us and made us think. My prayers and wishes are with his family and many friends. He was an original and will be sorely missed.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from North Dakota, chairman of the Budget Committee. I call up the amendment that has been filed by Senator Collins and me recently.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, the reporting of the amendment mentioned my name and others. I rise with Senator Collins, representing the bipartisan leadership amendment of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, to offer this bipartisan amendment to the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution to strengthen Federal law enforcement efforts on our southern border. Our amendment would provide an additional $550 million to increase the number of Federal agents, investigators, and resources on the border to staunch the flow of guns and money southward into Mexico and the flow of drugs and violent drug dealers northward into America.

The increasing competition among the Mexican drug cartels caused by the initiative by President Philippe Calderon has touched off a bloody war that has claimed over 7,200 lives in Mexico since the start of 2008. This violence is supported by guns flowing south from the United States, along with billions of dollars of ill-gotten money earned from drug sales in the United States which allows the cartels, among other things, to corrupt officials in Mexico but also some in the United States as well. President Calderon has taken unprecedented steps to challenge the cartels. He has deployed the Mexican military to assist in the fight and has acted aggressively to root out corruption in government and law enforcement agencies in Mexico. But he needs our help and more of it, and we need to help him succeed in defeating the Mexican drug cartels which create such havoc in the United States through the drugs they sell but whose violence has begun to spill over the Mexican border into the United States. We cannot sit idly by while the streets in Mexico run with blood, nor can we wait until the cartels' brutal violence further invades our own cities.

The Department of Justice testified before the Senate Homeland Security Committee on this subject a week or so ago that the Mexican drug cartels are today the No. 1 organized crime threat in our country. They operate in 230 of our cities, bringing their deadly drugs and violence with them. In Phoenix, AZ, alone, the cartels have been involved in kidnappings that numbered 700 in the last 2 years. That makes Phoenix second only to Mexico City in the number of kidnappings in any city in the world. That is a direct overflow result of the Mexican drug cartel violence and competition in Mexico. This lawlessness must be stopped before it spreads.

Last week, the Obama administration announced it was redeploying investigators and other law enforcement officers from the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice to the southern border to expand our Government's efforts to investigate and interdict the cartels' activities in the United States. This was a real step forward. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano said at her hearing before the committee last Wednesday that the plan she had put into effect the day before was budget neutral. I know we want everything we do to be budget neutral, but this is an urgent crisis.

The Mexican drug cartels are a clear and present danger not only to the people of Mexico but to the people of the United States. That fact, Senator Collins and I believe, compels us to provide our Federal law enforcement agencies with additional funding to ensure that the redeployment of forces that Secretary Napolitano announced last week is sustainable, that it does not take personnel away from other sections of our country where they are needed for law enforcement purposes, and that we provide the substantial additional resources that we conclude, as the leaders of the Homeland Security Committee, are necessary to effectively combat the cartels.

Secretary Napolitano announced the redeployment of 350 personnel within her Department. We need to do more. The Secretary also said she had to play with the hand she was dealt. This amendment would dramatically improve that hand, and I urge my fellow Senators to support our Secretary and the amendment and the security of the American people by supporting it.

I wish to briefly speak now about what the amendment does. It provides $260 million additional for Customs and Border Protection to hire, train, and equip 1,600 new officers and 400 canine teams to be sent to the border to significantly increase the number of inspections there, particularly exit inspections, which we do not do routinely. The funding would also cover costs related to temporary infrastructure to ensure that the officers are protected from both the elements and those who would evade inspection to come across the border. CBP would also receive $20 million to modernize its border-screening database to better identify potential criminals and stop suspicious loads-- truckloads or carloads--at ports of entry.

The Department of Homeland Security would receive an additional $20 million to improve the tactical communications in the field for Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to ensure that our law enforcement officers have the ability to call for help when they are confronted by dangerous situations and to better communicate with State and local law enforcement who must be part of this anti-Mexican drug cartel campaign.

Increasing inspections is just one part of a comprehensive strategy which this amendment would enable. We also need to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice have the resources--

people--they need to investigate the cartels. That is why our amendment provides $130 million to ICE--Immigration and Customs Enforcement--for 350 full-time investigators to work on firearms-trafficking and money- laundering investigations.

We would also double the number of border enforcement security teams along the southwest border. These teams create fusion centers that bring together all the Federal agencies with State and local governments to combat the cartels' activities. The fact is, many State and local law enforcement agencies, particularly along our southern border, simply cannot afford to detail the necessary additional resources and personnel to these fusion centers. So this amendment would provide $30 million for Operation Stonegarden to reimburse State and local law enforcement for their participation in these programs.

We would also add $10 million in the Department of Justice competitive grants for local, State, and tribal law enforcement agencies located along the southern border and in high-intensity drug- trafficking areas across our country.

There is $50 million here for the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agency to better support an existing program called Project Gunrunner. It would enable the hiring of an additional 150 agents and 50 inspectors to investigate illegal firearms trafficking near or across the Mexican border, and $20 million for the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center at the Department of Homeland Security to better coordinate investigations between Federal, State, and local law enforcement.

Finally, we appropriate an additional $10 million so the Department of Homeland Security can oversee the implementation of its part of the Merida Initiative, most of which has funds flowing through the Department of State. If I may borrow a phrase from another conflict, this amendment enables a real surge in America's joint war with the Government of Mexico against the Mexican drug cartels to occur.

The cartels are now presenting a genuine and very unique security threat to our homeland. Our Federal law enforcement officers and investigators are doing the best they can, but there are simply not enough of them with enough resources to take on the threat the cartels pose to America's security and the security of our friend and ally nation to the south, Mexico. Additional resources provided by this amendment would improve our ability to break the grip of the cartels and ensure that the drug-related violence from Mexico does not further encroach on America's communities and people.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I now am proud to yield to the ranking member of our committee, Senator Collins of Maine.

Mr. President, I first wish to thank my colleague from Maine for her excellent statement as well as for the spirit of bipartisanship that has blessed and characterized our relationship. I am very pleased we have been able to bring this amendment forward quickly in response to testimony we have heard and an investigation our staff has done. This is an urgent problem that concerns people particularly along our southern border but also in cities around America, 230 cities where the Mexican drug cartels are operating, and they are all over the country. This is a business that by varying estimates returns between $16 billion and $38 billion a year. It takes $16 billion to $38 billion a year out of the United States and sends it back to the drug cartel kingpins in Mexico. If that was a business, it would be one of the larger businesses in our country today.

We just have to help President Calderon, who has had the guts to take on the Mexican drug cartels at tremendous risk to himself and his government and deployed his military. We are helping him through the merit initiative. This is a way to beef up our own response and our own partnership on this side of the border. I thank Senator Collins for her statement and for her support.

I do wish to indicate for the Record that also original cosponsors of this amendment are Senator Bennet from Colorado, Senator Bingaman from New Mexico, Senator Feinstein from California, Senator Hutchison from Texas, Senator Kyl from Arizona, Senator Pryor from Arkansas, Senator Udall from Colorado, and Senator Udall from New Mexico, a truly bipartisan group of cosponsors. We are going to ask for a rollcall vote on this amendment. I know there is a lot of interest in it from Members on both sides of the aisle throughout the Senate and throughout the country, and we hope we can vote on it as soon as possible.

With that, I thank the Chair, and I yield back the remaining time that we have been allotted on this amendment.

Mr. President, I wish today to honor Christopher G. Caine, who will be leaving International Business Machines, IBM, Corporation after 25 years.

For the past 13 years, Chris has served as IBM's vice president for governmental programs. At this position, Chris has had responsibility for all global public policy issues that impact the IBM Corporation. He represented IBM at a number of policy and economic forums that addressed critical issues in the emerging global economy, including the 2004 National Intelligence Council Conference convened by the Center for Strategic and International Studies; the 2003 World Knowledge Forum in Seoul, Korea; the 2003 World Economic Forum; and events put on by the Shanghai International Forum and the Congressional Black Caucus.

Before taking his current position, Chris served as IBM's director of Human Resources and Environmental Policy, where he worked on a variety of domestic policy issues including health-care reform, labor, personnel, health and safety, environment, and energy. Prior to that, he worked in a variety of government relations capacities for IBM has well as Coca Cola, the Eaton Corporation, and the Electronic Industries Association.

In addition to his professional success, Chris has taken the time to use his skills and expertise for public service. He currently serves on the State Department's Advisory Committees on International Economic Policy and International Communication and Information Policy, where he shares his expertise on global economic issues with our country's top foreign policymakers. He was appointed by then-Governor Mark Warner to the Virginia Information Technology Investment Board, which works to provide the Commonwealth's government with information technology that will improve efficiency, safeguard important information, and enable the government to better serve the public. He also serves on the advisory boards of the Global Strategy Institute, Ford's Theatre, the Constitution Project, and Brainfood.

Last year, Chris established the Caine's Scholar Award for Global Leadership, Business and Policy at Lafayette College, where he earned his bachelor's degree. This award provides recipients, who are enrolled in Lafayette's policy studies program, a stipend for a summer internship experience. Chris has stated that he created this award with the hope that it will help develop a new generation of leaders that have an appreciation for public policy and business in a global environment.

Looking forward, Chris plans to start his own professional service firm, which will help its clients engage and succeed in our increasingly global economy. If Chris can provide his new clients with the same level of service he gave to IBM and his previous employers, I am confident that his new venture will be a resounding success.

I offer my congratulations and sincere best wishes to Christopher Caine, his wife Betsy, and their two children as he prepares for this exciting new phase in his life.

Mr. President, Senate Standing Rules XXVI requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedure of the committee and to publish those rules in the Congressional Record. On March 16, 2009, a majority of the members of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight adopted subcommittee rules of procedure.

Consistent with Standing Rule XXVI, today I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the rules of procedure of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed as in morning business for no more than 10 minutes.

Madam President, it was exactly 21 years ago today that Saddam Hussein perpetrated one of modern history's most barbaric crimes. On the morning of March 16, 1988, the Iraqi Air Force dropped chemical weapons on Halabja, a Kurdish city in northeastern Iraq. Over the course of 3 days, tens of thousands of victims were exposed to mustard gas--which burns, mutates DNA, and causes malformations and cancer--as well as sarin gas--which can kill, paralyze, and cause lasting neurological damage--among other deadly chemical agents. Over the course of 3 days of bombing, it is believed that at least 5,000 civilians were murdered in Halabja.

The attack on Halabja was not the only instance in which the former Iraqi regime committed mass murder with chemical weapons. On the contrary, it was just one event in a large-scale campaign against the Iraqi Kurds called the Anfal, led by Saddam and his henchman, Ali Hassal Al Majid, also known as ``chemical Ali.''

For 18 months between 1987 and 1988, it is estimated that Saddam's forces destroyed several thousand Iraqi Kurdish villages and murdered approximately 100,000 Iraqi Kurds, the majority of them unarmed civilians. At least 40 chemical weapon attacks have been documented-- the first time in human history that a government has used weapons of mass destruction against its own citizens.

In her Pulitzer prize-winning book, ``A Problem From Hell,'' Samantha Power describes the assault on Halabja. It is a chilling account. The chemical weapons were dropped from aircraft that flew low over the city. In Samantha Power's words:

Many families tumbled into primitive air raid shelters they

had built outside their homes. When the gases seeped through

the cracks, they poured out into the streets in a panic.

There, they found friends and family members frozen in time

like a modern version of Pompeii. Slumped a few yards behind

a baby carriage, caught permanently holding the hand of a

loved one or shielding a child from the poisoned air, or

calmly collapsed behind a car steering wheel. Not everyone

who was exposed died instantly. Some of those who inhaled the

chemicals continued to stumble around town, blinded by the

gas, giggling uncontrollably, or, because their nerves were

malfunctioning, buckling at the knees.

On the anniversary of this horrific attack on Halabja, I urge my colleagues to pause and reflect on the lessons it teaches us.

What happened in Halabja should remind us that there is, unfortunately, such a thing as evil in the world, and that we in the United States not only protect our security but uphold our most cherished humanitarian values when we fight against it.

Halabja should also remind us that there are leaders in the world whose conduct is unconstrained by the most basic rules of humanity, whose only interest is their own power, and who are willing to do anything necessary--no matter how unspeakable or cruel--to perpetuate their power.

Halabja should remind us of the extraordinary danger posed by rogue states that possess weapons of mass destruction, and why we and our allies must be prepared to take extraordinary measures to prevent the world's most dangerous regimes from getting the world's most dangerous armaments.

Finally, Halabja should also remind us that despite the many mistakes and missteps the Bush administration made in the course of the war in Iraq, all who value human rights should be deeply grateful that Saddam Hussein and his terrible regime are gone and now consigned to the dustbin of history. If anyone doubts the world is a better, safer place with Saddam gone, they need only look to the history of what happened on this day 21 years ago in Halabja.

Two decades ago, the Kurdish-inhabited regions of Iraq were decimated and depopulated by one of the 20th century's most vicious and tyrannical despots. Fortunately, the story does not end there. Today, thanks in no small part to the protection provided by the United States, the Kurds of Iraq have rebuilt and their region is flourishing. The great Kurdish cities of Erbil, Sulaymaniyah, and Dohuk are the safest in Iraq today, and they are booming economically. The Kurdish people have emerged from the yoke of tyranny to become some of America's best and most loyal allies anywhere in the world.

The leaders of the Kurdistan Regional Government still face challenges. They need to pursue further political reform and economic liberalization. They must fight corruption, and they must continue to work with the democratically elected Government in Baghdad to ensure that disputes over contested territory in northern Iraq, including in the city of Kirkuk, are resolved peacefully and not through violence. And I am confident they will.

Indeed, in a remarkable--I would say miraculous--turn of history, 21 years after the atrocity of Halabja, the Kurds of Iraq have at least assumed their rightful role in shaping the future of the great country of which they are a part. Today, the Kurds of Iraq enjoy the same rights and privileges as every other Iraqi citizen, and their representatives sit in a democratically elected Parliament in Baghdad.

Perhaps in the most miraculous of all turn of events and one of the great historical justices of our time, Saddam Hussein, that evil tyrant who ordered the mass murders of tens of thousands of Kurds, has been replaced as President of Iraq by a great Kurdish Iraqi patriot, a freedom fighter and a great friend of the United States, Jalal Talabani. That is something the survivors of Halabja 21 years ago could never possibly have imagined.

As we pause to remember the victims of Halabja today, we should also give thanks to the extraordinary progress that has been achieved since that terrible day 21 years ago--progress that has been made possible through the courage and sacrifice of Kurds, Iraqis, and Americans alike.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I happened to be on the Senate floor. I thank my friend from Tennessee for his statement in regard to the time and difficulty it takes to confirm nominees for higher office in a new administration.

I will tell my friend what he may well know, which is, under the leadership of one of his predecessors, Fred Thompson, a former Senator from Tennessee, our committee attempted to grapple with this problem. I think we made some progress but obviously not enough.

I will be glad to discuss the Senator's proposal with Senator Collins who is always ready to lead a gang in a good cause.

I thank my friend from Tennessee.

Madam President, I rise to speak in favor of the amendment which I have cosponsored to the legislation before us, the one with Senator Ensign and others. I believe it is amendment No. 615.

This amendment would strike language currently in the omnibus bill before us that is crippling to the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. The language we seek to strike terminates the OSP program unless a reauthorization bill is passed by Congress and the DC Council prior to the 2010-2011 school year. So the language I have offered with Senator Ensign would strike the language that terminates the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program.

Madam President, quoting from title IV of the underlying bill, it says:

. . . use of any funds in this Act or any other Act for

opportunity scholarships after school year 2009-2010 shall

only be available upon enactment of reauthorization of that

program by Congress and the adoption of legislation by the

District of Columbia approving such reauthorization.

In narrative language attached to the report, it says:

Funding provided for the scholarship program shall be used

for currently-enrolled participants rather than new

applicants. The chancellor of the District of Columbia Public

Schools should promptly take steps to minimize potential

disruption and ensure smooth transition for any students

seeking enrollment in the public school system as a result of

any changes made to the private scholarship program affecting

periods after school year 2009-2010.

That is a quote from the underlying measure which the amendment of Senator Ensign and I and others would strike.

Madam President, the language, in my opinion, is unnecessary, in some sense it is gratuitous, as is the narrative language, which essentially says to approximately 1,700 low-income students in the District of Columbia who are benefitting from this program: Get ready for it to end. I think substantively this is terribly wrong, but I think procedurally it is wrong to include such a measure in an Omnibus appropriations bill that we are being asked to pass without amendment. I understand that request, but it is harder to respond to that request when we are asked not to amend something that is not necessary as part of the Omnibus appropriations bill. It is an unnecessary and, I would say, gratuitous attempt to undercut this DC Opportunity Scholarship Program before the evaluation of the benefits of the program for the students involved are in and in total contradiction of the enormous amount of money we appropriate every year without authorization for a host of different programs.

That is the summary of why I support this amendment. I would come back to say that the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program was created as part of an agreement--a kind of grand bargain that occurs here occasionally. A lot of people were opposed to these so-called vouchers, but an agreement was made--a kind of tripartite agreement--which said we would give, at that point, as I recall, an equal or slightly greater amount of money to the public school budget for the District of Columbia, to the charter school budget for the District of Columbia, and to the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, which allows low-income students in the District to basically get a scholarship to go to a private or religious--faith-based--school. I think in that agreement there was the essence of what this is all about: Education is not about protecting a particular system for the sake of the system, it is about how we best educate our children.

I don't think anyone can say all our public schools are doing the job that is so fundamental to our society; that of educating every one of America's children so every one of them has an equal opportunity to rise as far as their talents and hard work will take them. Some of them are not getting a quality education in the public schools they are in. Of course, as a societal goal, we should try to make sure every public school in America is prepared to give every child that equal opportunity to a first-class, world-class education. But that is not the reality now. Suffering most of all are the poor children--often children of minorities, either African American or Hispanic.

As one response to this dilemma, while we are working on so much else, there has been an attempt in some parts of the country--Ohio, I believe Wisconsin, and here, through congressional action the District of Columbia--to create a lifeline for some of the children whose parents want them to go to another school than the one they are going to. As studies have shown, most Members of Congress send our children not to public schools but to the private and faith-based schools because we can afford it. This program says to the parents of children of the District of Columbia--a limited number--you have the same right, if you think the public school your child is in is not now giving them the kind of high-quality education your child needs to realize his or her dreams.

So far the evaluations of students who have benefitted or taken advantage of this program have been quite positive. Final evaluation is coming this spring. I guess one evaluation is that every year this program is oversubscribed. In other words, there are many more parents of children in the DC school system who aspire to a scholarship to go to a school their parents feel is better. So why put in this omnibus bill a demand or requirement that there needs to be an authorization for this program to continue and adoption by the District City Council? Why do that, when so many programs are appropriated without authorization?

I read from a CBO report--Congressional Budget Office report--dated January 15, 2009, titled ``Unauthorized Appropriations and Expiring Authorizations,'' and on page 2 of that report it says:

In recent years, the total amount of unauthorized

appropriations reported by the Congressional Budget Office

has ranged between $160 billion and $170 billion.

Unauthorized appropriations every year are between $160 billion and $170 billion. How much money do we appropriate for the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program? Fourteen million dollars. That is million with an M. So why are we singling out the $14 million dedicated to providing school choice to low-income students in the District of Columbia for such a demand, such a requirement? I don't think it is fair. I don't think it makes sense. I think it is an attempt to put into this bill a kind of obstacle that the sponsors of it don't think can be passed, and particularly to do it on a measure in which we are

asked to oppose all amendments is just plain impossible to accept.

The average household income of the families in the scholarship program in Washington is less than $24,000. So how in good conscience can we tell parents in the District they are going to be denied the resources to do what they believe is best for their children, when so many of us make the very same decision regarding the education of our own children? The DC scholarship program comes from our Nation's fundamental commitment not just to opportunity but to equal opportunity, so each and every American child is able to develop their God-given talents to the fullest extent based on their own willingness to work hard. We can't let the realization of that promise be jeopardized by the language in this bill.

There was discussion on the DC Voting Rights Act of this DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. Those who were going to amend that bill withdrew it in a colloquy in which two things happened: First, as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I committed to holding hearings this spring, hopefully after the final evaluation of this program comes out--an independent evaluation which will allow us to fairly evaluate it before we act in any way. Why our committee? It happens that Governmental Affairs' jurisdiction-- traditional historic jurisdiction--includes jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. I am open to proposals to improve the standards in administration of the program and will probably propose some of my own. But I believe the restrictive language in this bill, this Omnibus appropriations bill, is so damaging to the Opportunity Scholarship Program and to the lives of these 1,700 children that it should be removed.

I was very encouraged that our new Education Secretary, Arnie Duncan, said as much himself, when he said it would be particularly unfair to stop this program appraisal and the funding of it by Congress for the 1,700 students who are in it now.

There was a second promise made, which was from Senator Reid, the majority leader, which I greatly appreciate; and that was that at some point this spring there would be floor time given to a debate on the merits of the Opportunity Scholarship Program in the District of Columbia. So why jump ahead of that with this restrictive language in this underlying bill?

I would add this, finally. This is all about children, about the future of our children. It is not about protecting the status quo, it is not about teachers' rights, it is about giving kids a chance to make their way forward and ultimately improving our public schools so they are all as good as we want them to be.

I was raised with a quote that may seem irrelevant to this, but I think it is relevant. It came from religious sources. It was that if you save one life, it is as if you saved the whole world. What did that mean? I was taught it meant if every individual--and I am looking at these great pages of ours, young men and women with all sorts of promise that just radiates from them--if you saved the life of one person, all the promise, the possibilities of what that young man or woman would do in life will be saved, and they, in effect, can change the world.

When I heard that years ago, and I thought of saving a life, I thought of protecting somebody from danger or a doctor who saved the life of a patient. But I will tell you that a good education in our country today makes so much of a difference between whether a person will have a real life in this country, full of opportunity and satisfaction and self-sufficiency or whether the person will always feel slightly behind the ball and always feel slightly unable to do what one has to do in this society to make it.

So this DC Opportunity Scholarship Program says we can save lives by giving kids a choice, giving parents a choice to send their children to the school they want to send them to because they think it will be better for the child than the public school the child happens to be in now.

As I mentioned in the beginning, this was part of a tripartite agreement that gave money to public schools in the District, charter schools in the District, and the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. In this budget this year, those numbers are $20 million for the public schools here in the District, $20 million for the charter schools, and $14 million to opportunity scholarships. I say to my friends who seem to have this wonderful DC Opportunity Scholarship Program in the crosshairs, that if this is followed through on, the danger here is that other Members of the Senate and Congress will rise and eliminate the extra funding for the DC public schools and the charter schools. That would be a shame three times over. That is why I am so proud to stand with Senator Ensign and others to try to strip this language from this bill so my committee can go ahead and hold a hearing this spring and we can bring a bill out to the floor this spring and have a full debate based on the final evaluation that an independent group will do. It is in the process of doing that, finishing the report now.

I understand there are colleagues, like my friend and colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, who just spoke before, who support the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, and she has worked so hard to make this happen. I have the greatest admiration for her for doing that--and so much else she has done in her public life. She will not vote for this amendment of ours because she does not want to jeopardize the underlying Omnibus appropriations bill.

I understand that, and I understand that is probably why the amendment Senator Ensign and I and others have sponsored will not make it. But it is an important cause for which we are fighting. I think it is important that the vote on the amendment occur and that it serve as a kind of preface to the full-scale debate we will have this spring on this critically important and innovative and I think effective program that is changing the lives--as I took the liberty to say, saving the lives, creating a future--for 1,700 children, and hopefully more in the years ahead, who live in the District of Columbia.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Gustavo Delgado, Jr., be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the consideration of the omnibus bill. Mr. Delgado is a member of my staff.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr President, I rise to speak about the Great Cats and Rare Canids Act, which I am introducing today along with my friends

Senators Sam Brownback and Tom Udall. This bipartisan legislation continues our tradition of protecting threatened and endangered species around the world and comes at a critical time in the survival of these animals.

Of the 37 wild felid species worldwide, all are currently recognized as species in need of protection under the World Conservation Union, IUCN, Red List, the lists of species in CITES appendices I, II, and III, or the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Of the 35 wild canid species worldwide, nearly 50 percent are recognized as in need of such protection in one of these categories.

This legislation would create the Great Cats and Rare Canids Conservation Fund and builds on the success of the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, NSCF, which presently provides funding to protect tigers, rhinoceroses, elephants, great apes, and marine turtles. The Great Cats and Rare Canids Conservation Fund would support the conservation of wild felid and canid populations outside the United States by providing financial resources to conserve 15 such species that are vital for their ecological value and are listed as endangered or threatened on the IUCN Red List of Endangered Species. The great cats and rare canids included in this bill are umbrella species that, if conserved appropriately, protect their corresponding landscapes and other species dependent on those ecosystems.

Among the species protected under this act are the majestic jaguar of South and Central America, the elusive snow leopard, the cheetah, the African wild dog, and other rare carnivore species. These species are threatened by habitat loss, poaching, disease, and pollution.

The struggle of the African wild dog is one example of the plight these large carnivores face. The less than 2,500 adults that remain not only have to combat the widespread misconception that they are livestock killers, but are extremely susceptible to diseases common in domesticated animals. They have lost 89 percent their habitat and are now found in only 14 of the 39 countries that comprise their historic range.

The snow leopard is another example. Like all great cats, the snow leopard needs a large tract of uninterrupted land in which to live, but the snow leopard's habitat in China has been fragmented due to human encroachment. The cats are also under extreme poaching pressures as their fur is sold on the black market.

In addition to protecting the species already listed in the Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been mandated to complete a study within two years of the bill's enactment to determine what other critically endangered species could become eligible for conservation assistance. The findings of this study will enable the United States to provide conservation assistance to protect additional great cat and rare canid species that are determined to need conservation assistance in the future.

Our bill would authorize $5 million in annual spending for the conservation of more than a dozen species of great cats and rare canines. The Great Cats and Rare Canids Conservation Fund would leverage private conservation dollars from corporate and non-government sources in order to address the critical need to conserve these threatened large carnivores. Historically, for every $1 invested by the Federal Government in the programs that are part of the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, there is at least a $3 match by private donations.

These funds enable the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to partner with nonprofit groups and foreign entities to undertake a range of conservation programs where threatened and endangered species live. Typical activities to protect the different species in the Multinational Species Conservation Fund include new educational programs for local populations to increase awareness of these species and prevent interactions that could be harmful to people and animals, as well as increased monitoring and law enforcement activities to prevent poaching and illegal animal trafficking. Great cats are particularly at risk from hunting for trade purposes while rare canids are susceptible to disease, and this bill will allow the establishment of programs to address these species-specific threats.

The genesis of the Great Cats and Rare Canids program is nearly a decade old, and the bill under consideration today was also introduced in the past two Congresses. In that time, these species have continued to decline in numbers. I do not think our children and grandchildren will forgive us if we stand by and let these magnificent animals drift into extinction. With a relatively small investment, we can invigorate ongoing conservation efforts around the world.