Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to ensure that the United States does create new arrears at the United Nations. At a time when our Government is seeking important reforms at the United Nations, it would be a mistake for us to fall short on our dues at the U.N. But unless Congress acts promptly, that is what we are about to do.

Here's why.

In 1994, Congress passed a law limiting U.S. payments for U.N. peacekeeping at 25 percent after 1995. At the time, the United States was assessed by the U.N. at a rate of about 31 percent for peacekeeping. Thus, the United States incurred arrears because of the 25 percent limitation--that is, the gap between the 25 percent and 31 percent.

In 1999, Congress approved the Helms-Biden law. It authorized the repayment of U.S. arrears to the U.N. conditioned on certain reforms in the U.N. system. One of those reforms was a negotiated reduction in the United Nations of the U.S. peacekeeping rate down to 25 percent. Through negotiations in 2000, U.S. Ambassador Holbrooke succeeded in reducing the U.S. assessments for peacekeeping to just over 27 percent.

In 2001, Congress amended the Helms-Biden law to allow the arrears payments to be provided to the U.N. at the higher rate--27 percent-- that Ambassador Holbrooke negotiated. But the original 1994 law limiting our payments to 25 percent was never repealed.

In the past few years, Congress has amended the 1994 law on a temporary basis by raising the 25 percent limitation to conform it to the rate negotiated by Ambassador Holbrooke. That temporary change in law lasted through fiscal year 2005. But it has now expired.

Therefore, the law today is this: the United States may not pay more than 25 percent for peacekeeping--even though the United Nations assesses the United States at the rate of roughly 27 percent. In the coming weeks, we are scheduled to pay a bill of about $344 million that has come due since October 1. Under U.S. law, we will only be able to pay about $319 million, leaving a shortfall of about $25 million. At a time when our diplomats are in the final stages of negotiating important reforms in the U.N. system, it would be a mistake unilaterally to withhold payments to the U.N. Rather than encourage reform, it may cause an adverse reaction by other nation and undermine our reform agenda.

Earlier this year, the Bush administration recognized this coming train wreck. On March 1, the Department of State transmitted to Congress its official request for the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006 and 2007. Section 401 of that legislation would amend current law and raise the limitation on U.S. payments to 27.1 percent through calendar year 2007. The summary of the request said as follows: ``Without further relief, the U.N. peacekeeping cap would revert to 25% and the United States would go into arrears. The proposed section would . . . enable the United States to pay U.N. assessments at the rate assessed by the U.N. up to a rate of 27.1% . . . [t]his would allow the United States to pay its peacekeeping assessment in full, including funding for a new peace support operation in Sudan . . .''

Since then, however, the administration has done little to secure enactment of this provision. On December 1, 2005, the Secretary of State requested by letter to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations several ``critical legislative proposals that are of a time sensitive nature and warrant enactment prior to the Congress' adjournment in mid-October.'' The request contains four provisions but does not include the provision required to assure full payment of U.N. peacekeeping assessments.

Mr. President, I realize that the Congress has a lot on its agenda in the final days of the first session. But we have a responsibility to ensure payment of our obligations to the United Nations--and to ensure that we do not undermine the negotiations on U.N. reform now underway.

Mr. President, yesterday the U.S. Senate approved the conference report to accompany H.R. 2862, the Science-State-Justice appropriations bill. I voted for this legislation because it provides critical funding for the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Administration. However, I rise to explain that I am voting for this bill reluctantly because I feel that some of the funding priorities set forth in the bill will leave our communities more vulnerable to terrorist attacks traditional crime. In particular, this bill continues the wrongheaded trend of slashing Federal funding for State and local law enforcement and important criminal justice programs. This bill slashes funding for the Justice Assistance Grant and the COPS Program. And, for the first time, the Congress has decided to zero out the COPS hiring Program. I believe that this decision is a terrible mistake on so many levels, and I fear that our Nation's citizens will be less safe from traditional crime and terrorism as a result. Further, the bill slashes Federal assistance for the effective and cost-efficient drug court program by an astounding 75 percent.

Back in 1994 when we passed the legislation that created the COPS Program, our crime rates were at all-time highs. At that time, we made a commitment to our State and local law enforcement partners. During those years, we invested roughly $2.1 billion for State and local law enforcement each year and substantially upgraded our ability to combat crime. We added over 100,000 officers to patrol our neighborhoods, and we expanded crime prevention programs such as community policing programs across the Nation. What was the ultimate result? Crime rates for violent crime, murder and rape were all reduced, and today they remain at all-time lows. Many law enforcement experts and local officials credit the COPS Program for helping to achieve these results. In fact, no one, to my knowledge, with law enforcement expertise has argued otherwise. The International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, and other local law enforcement groups all support the COPS Program. Attorney General Ashcroft has stated that the COPS Program was a miraculous success, and Attorney General Gonzalez stated that the COPS Program put officers on the street and we reduced crime. Moreover, a recent report by the Government Accountability Office concluded that COPS hiring grants had an impact on reducing crime rates.

Why would the Congress eliminate a program that is strongly supported by local law enforcement officials and has been proven effective by statisticians at the Government Accountability Office? Well, it has its basis in ideology. Some of my Republican colleagues argue that local crime is a local problem and the Federal Government should not be funding these local efforts. I completely disagree. How can it be a local responsibility when roughly 60 percent of all the crimes committed in America relate to drugs, abuse of drugs, and the sale and trafficking of illicit drugs? These drugs are smuggled across our national borders from State to State and city to city by sophisticated drug cartels and street gangs. How does a local sheriff prevent drugs that start out in a foreign country from being trafficked into his or her county? How does a police chief prevent the recruitment of local kids into international street gangs? In my opinion, crime is a national problem, and it requires a national response. The COPS Program demonstrated the Federal Government's commitment to approach crime as a national problem--and it worked.

I would also point out that State and local law enforcement forms our first line of defense against terrorism. Homeland security experts have pointed out the value that community policing programs can have in combating terrorism. This only makes sense--it is the local officer who knows the neighborhood who will be able to provide the types information necessary to help infiltrate a local terror cell. In addition, it will be a local officer walking the beat who happens to catch a suspect trying to pump sarin gas into the local mall air- conditioning ducts. It won't be a brave Special Forces agent with night vision goggles; it will be a local cop walking the beat. In this era of uncertainty, we need to be providing more support for our local police agencies to help make their efforts against terrorism and crime as robust as possible.

And by cutting the drug court program--one of the most effective programs to reduce substance abuse in the criminal population--we are sending a devastating message to the 16,000 individuals that graduate from drug courts each year. We are telling them that we don't care that diversion programs are successful at helping people overcome addiction to reenter society as productive citizens, holding down jobs, and regaining custody of their children. We are sending a message that we would prefer to revert to the bad old days of locking up nonviolent drug offenders in prisons where most will get no drug treatment and they will most likely just sink deeper into a life of crime.

And what message are we sending to the 70,000 people currently enrolled in drug courts who are working hard to live sober, crime-free lives? By slashing funding for the drug court program we are telling them that we are not invested in their recovery and we are putting their future in drug court programs in jeopardy.

It makes absolutely no sense to me that we are cutting this cost- effective program by 75 percent. By enrolling nonviolent drug offenders in drug courts, States save an enormous amount of money. One study showed that California's drug courts save the State $18 million a year. Another study showed that every dollar spent on a drug court program saves the city of Dallas, TX, $9.43 over a 40 month period. It is inconceivable to me that we would choose to cut this program. The

National Association of Drug Court Professionals estimates that our actions here today will result in more than 13,000 individuals losing access to drug court services. These 13,000 people will likely continue their lives of crime and drugs and being a threat to public safety instead of getting enrolled in a tough-love program that will help them to turn their lives around and get sober. It is truly a tragedy.

It is my opinion that we found a winning formula when we made the decision to invest in our State and local law enforcement partners and smart on crime initiatives in the nineties, and I believe that we are making a terrible mistake when we reduce funding for them. There is no greater responsibility of the Federal Government than the protection of its citizens. This is true whether the threat comes from international terrorist or from a thug down the street, and I strongly believe that we are taking the wrong approach when we cut funding for our State and local law enforcement partners. Sheriff Ted Sexton, the president of the National Sheriffs Association, got it right when he stated that ``cuts of this magnitude will seriously inhibit our ability to protect our communities and secure the homeland.'' And, the president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police was correct in pointing out that ``demanding that we play a central role in our Nation's homeland security efforts, while at the same time cutting the resources we need to do our job, is both hypocritical and irresponsible.'' I hope that the Republican-led Congress and President Bush will heed the call of these brave men and women and fully fund these critical programs next year.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Full Strength Bureau Initiative Act of 2005. This is a piece of legislation that I think is critically important to our national security. Over the past four years, we

have had numerous debates here in the Senate about what we need to do to protect ourselves from international terrorists. While I have disagreed with many of the specific decisions this Congress and President Bush have made, I do agree that we face a grave threat from radical fundamental terrorists. And, it should be a primary focus of our national security efforts. However, it simply makes no sense for us to spend all of our time worrying about terrorism if we turn a blind eye to traditional crime and the threat that it poses to our citizens. We simply have to be able to do both, and the legislation that I am introducing today will help do that.

Part of the response to address this threat has been to shift the primary function of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from investigating and capturing criminals to the prevention of terror attacks. I don't disagree that this is an appropriate shift in priorities, but, we haven't made the investments necessary for the FBI to shift priorities and meet its commitment to combat traditional crime. To address this concern, I am introducing legislation that will authorize funding for the FBI to hire an additional 1,000 agents. These agents will replace the ones that have been reassigned to counterterrorism cases and will help keep our communities safe. The cost--$160 million per year--is minimal when compared to the benefits it will provide. Its passage will help ensure that the FBI has the resources to achieve its counterterrorism priorities without neglecting its traditional crime fighting functions.

A 2004 Government Accountability Office found that the number of overall agents at the FBI has increased by only seven percent since 2001. During the same time, the overall percentage of agents dedicated to counterterrorism by twenty five percent--with 678 agents being permanently shifted from drug, white collar, and violent crime cases to counter-terror activities. In addition, we know that many agents are working on counterterrorism cases even if they have not been ``officially'' dedicated to that effort in a process know within the FBI as ``overburning.''

Ultimately, the GAO concluded, as it often does, that the impact on traditional crime was statistically inconclusive; however the report demonstrated many concerns. First, the report found that the FBI referred 236 counterterrorism matters to U.S. Attorneys for prosecution in fiscal year 2001, which ended three weeks after September 11. Two years later, in fiscal year 2003, the FBI referred 1,821 counterterrorism cases to U.S. Attorneys for prosecution--this is a 671 percent increase. During the same period of time, referrals for drug, whitecollar, and violent crime matters all declined by 39 percent, 23 percent, and 10 percent respectively. This statistically demonstrates that the reprogramming effort--while critical--has had an impact on the FBI's traditional crime fighting efforts.

In addition to investigating Federal crimes, the FBI also provides critical assistance to State and local law enforcement. Quite simply, the FBI has technical expertise and resources that are not available to many State and local agencies--especially smaller jurisdictions. These local agencies rely on the FBI to assist them on technical matters, and as the FBI continues to divert resources from criminal cases, a gap in overall law enforcement capabilities is developing. In order to preserve public safety and national security this is a gap that must be filled.

Unfortunately, local budget woes are making it impossible for local agencies to fill the slack. A recent survey indicated that 23 of 44 police agencies are facing an officer shortfall. The USA Today and the New York Times have reported officer shortages in New York, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Houston and others. In addition, I recently attended a Judiciary Committee hearing in Philadelphia and we heard testimony from the Philadelphia Chief of Police that he had lost 2,000 officers in recent years, and the Pittsburgh police chief reported that she had lost nearly \1/4\ of her officers and had to suspend her community policing programs and other crime prevention programs due to budget cuts.

In addition to local budget woes, the U.S. Congress continues to slash Federal assistance for State and local law enforcement. In this year's Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill, the Congress cut roughly $300 million from the Justice Assistance Grant and completely eliminated the COPS hiring program. Any local sheriff or police chief will tell you how important this funding assistance is to their efforts, and the investments that we made in them over the past ten years helped drive down crime rates from all-time highs to the lowest levels in a generation. In addition, the COPS program has been statistically proven to reduce crime by the Government Accountability Office, and the Justice Assistance Grants are the primary grant programs used by local agencies to combat illegal drug use in their communities. I voted for this spending bill because it provided critical funding for the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Agency, but I remain very critical of the cuts to state and local law enforcement assistance and hope that the President and the Republican-led Congress will change course.

Unfortunately, these cuts and the FBI reprogramming of agents from crime to counter-terror cases is creating a perfect storm that I'm afraid will contribute to rising crime rates in the future. The good news is that the 2004 Uniform Crime Reports show that crime rates remain at historic lows. But, many criminologists have pointed out that many crime indicators should caution against complacency. Last year, there were over 16,000 murders throughout the United States, and police chiefs and sheriffs are reporting worrying signs of local youth violence. Indeed, a 2005 report by the FBI on youth gangs shows that gang activity is on the rise. Rather than pull-back, we need to re- double our effort to ensure that crime rates don't rise in the future and to push them even lower. I've often said that the safety of Nation's citizens should be the top priority of our Federal Government--this applies to combating international terrorists and traditional crime.

We spent a bulk of the nineties creating a Federal, State, and local partnership that helped make our Nation safer than it has been in a generation. This partnership is breaking down because the President and many in Congress feel that local crime is not a national priority. I couldn't disagree more. The safety of the American people is the most important priority that we have. It doesn't matter whether the threat comes from international terrorists, drug traffickers, or from the thug down the street. In my opinion, it is a terrible mistake to use the successes of the past ten years and the new focus on terrorism as an excuse to abandon our critical anti-crime responsibilities. We can--and we must do both. The American people are counting on us, and the legislation that I am introducing today will help ensure that we meet our commitment to the American people to make sure that they are safe from crime and terrorism.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Full Strength Bureau Initiative Act of 2005. This is a piece of legislation that I think is critically important to our national security. Over the past four years, we

have had numerous debates here in the Senate about what we need to do to protect ourselves from international terrorists. While I have disagreed with many of the specific decisions this Congress and President Bush have made, I do agree that we face a grave threat from radical fundamental terrorists. And, it should be a primary focus of our national security efforts. However, it simply makes no sense for us to spend all of our time worrying about terrorism if we turn a blind eye to traditional crime and the threat that it poses to our citizens. We simply have to be able to do both, and the legislation that I am introducing today will help do that.

Part of the response to address this threat has been to shift the primary function of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from investigating and capturing criminals to the prevention of terror attacks. I don't disagree that this is an appropriate shift in priorities, but, we haven't made the investments necessary for the FBI to shift priorities and meet its commitment to combat traditional crime. To address this concern, I am introducing legislation that will authorize funding for the FBI to hire an additional 1,000 agents. These agents will replace the ones that have been reassigned to counterterrorism cases and will help keep our communities safe. The cost--$160 million per year--is minimal when compared to the benefits it will provide. Its passage will help ensure that the FBI has the resources to achieve its counterterrorism priorities without neglecting its traditional crime fighting functions.

A 2004 Government Accountability Office found that the number of overall agents at the FBI has increased by only seven percent since 2001. During the same time, the overall percentage of agents dedicated to counterterrorism by twenty five percent--with 678 agents being permanently shifted from drug, white collar, and violent crime cases to counter-terror activities. In addition, we know that many agents are working on counterterrorism cases even if they have not been ``officially'' dedicated to that effort in a process know within the FBI as ``overburning.''

Ultimately, the GAO concluded, as it often does, that the impact on traditional crime was statistically inconclusive; however the report demonstrated many concerns. First, the report found that the FBI referred 236 counterterrorism matters to U.S. Attorneys for prosecution in fiscal year 2001, which ended three weeks after September 11. Two years later, in fiscal year 2003, the FBI referred 1,821 counterterrorism cases to U.S. Attorneys for prosecution--this is a 671 percent increase. During the same period of time, referrals for drug, whitecollar, and violent crime matters all declined by 39 percent, 23 percent, and 10 percent respectively. This statistically demonstrates that the reprogramming effort--while critical--has had an impact on the FBI's traditional crime fighting efforts.

In addition to investigating Federal crimes, the FBI also provides critical assistance to State and local law enforcement. Quite simply, the FBI has technical expertise and resources that are not available to many State and local agencies--especially smaller jurisdictions. These local agencies rely on the FBI to assist them on technical matters, and as the FBI continues to divert resources from criminal cases, a gap in overall law enforcement capabilities is developing. In order to preserve public safety and national security this is a gap that must be filled.

Unfortunately, local budget woes are making it impossible for local agencies to fill the slack. A recent survey indicated that 23 of 44 police agencies are facing an officer shortfall. The USA Today and the New York Times have reported officer shortages in New York, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Houston and others. In addition, I recently attended a Judiciary Committee hearing in Philadelphia and we heard testimony from the Philadelphia Chief of Police that he had lost 2,000 officers in recent years, and the Pittsburgh police chief reported that she had lost nearly \1/4\ of her officers and had to suspend her community policing programs and other crime prevention programs due to budget cuts.

In addition to local budget woes, the U.S. Congress continues to slash Federal assistance for State and local law enforcement. In this year's Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill, the Congress cut roughly $300 million from the Justice Assistance Grant and completely eliminated the COPS hiring program. Any local sheriff or police chief will tell you how important this funding assistance is to their efforts, and the investments that we made in them over the past ten years helped drive down crime rates from all-time highs to the lowest levels in a generation. In addition, the COPS program has been statistically proven to reduce crime by the Government Accountability Office, and the Justice Assistance Grants are the primary grant programs used by local agencies to combat illegal drug use in their communities. I voted for this spending bill because it provided critical funding for the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Agency, but I remain very critical of the cuts to state and local law enforcement assistance and hope that the President and the Republican-led Congress will change course.

Unfortunately, these cuts and the FBI reprogramming of agents from crime to counter-terror cases is creating a perfect storm that I'm afraid will contribute to rising crime rates in the future. The good news is that the 2004 Uniform Crime Reports show that crime rates remain at historic lows. But, many criminologists have pointed out that many crime indicators should caution against complacency. Last year, there were over 16,000 murders throughout the United States, and police chiefs and sheriffs are reporting worrying signs of local youth violence. Indeed, a 2005 report by the FBI on youth gangs shows that gang activity is on the rise. Rather than pull-back, we need to re- double our effort to ensure that crime rates don't rise in the future and to push them even lower. I've often said that the safety of Nation's citizens should be the top priority of our Federal Government--this applies to combating international terrorists and traditional crime.

We spent a bulk of the nineties creating a Federal, State, and local partnership that helped make our Nation safer than it has been in a generation. This partnership is breaking down because the President and many in Congress feel that local crime is not a national priority. I couldn't disagree more. The safety of the American people is the most important priority that we have. It doesn't matter whether the threat comes from international terrorists, drug traffickers, or from the thug down the street. In my opinion, it is a terrible mistake to use the successes of the past ten years and the new focus on terrorism as an excuse to abandon our critical anti-crime responsibilities. We can--and we must do both. The American people are counting on us, and the legislation that I am introducing today will help ensure that we meet our commitment to the American people to make sure that they are safe from crime and terrorism.

Mr. President, before my friend from Connecticut leaves, I point out it is not partisanship that has caused the American people to leave this war; it is the incredible gap between the rhetoric of the administration of the last 2 years and the reality on the ground. Before we ever got into the open debate, the American people in droves were leaving this not just because Americans are dying, as tragic as that is, but because they do not think we have a plan.

What I think all Democrats and Republicans are deciding is, Tell us the plan, Stan. Tell us, Mr. President, what is the plan? It is the first time this has happened.

The purpose of the amendment is as clear as it is critical: to require the Bush administration to lay out what we need to do to succeed in Iraq. For

the first time, our Republican colleagues have joined Democrats in insisting on a clear Iraqi strategy from this administration, a schedule to achieve it, and real accountability.

Let me be clear about what the amendment does not do. It does require the administration to explain in detail, in public, its plan for success--it has not been public, and that is why the American people have left this outfit--and do it with specific goals, a realistic schedule for achieving those goals, and the relationship between achieving the goals and redeploying U.S. forces. It does not set a deadline for withdrawal.

In providing the plan, both Democrats and Republicans are saying: I hope the administration will start by being realistic and state specifically what the mission is. Is the mission to protect every Iraqi, or is the mission different? As the military will tell, and no one knows better than my friends on the Committee on Armed Services, the mission dictates the force structure, and the more realistic mission calls for less force. We have to refocus our mission on preserving America's fundamental interests in Iraq. What are they?

First, we have to ensure that Iraq does not become what it was not before the war: a haven for jihadist terrorists.

Second, we have to do what we can to prevent a full-blown civil war that turns into regional war. I predict if there is a civil war, there will be a regional war.

To leave Iraq a stable and a united country with representative government, posing no threat to its neighbors, we need to proceed on three tracks at the same time: a political diplomatic track, an assistance track, and a security track. We cannot succeed in Iraq without all three of those succeeding.

On the diplomatic track, nothing is more important than getting Iraq's three main groups--Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds--to agree to changes in a constitution by next spring so that there is a consensus constitution.

My friend, the chairman of the committee, says without a political solution, we cannot do this. He is right. We need to know exactly what the administration is doing to convince each community to make the compromises necessary for a broad and sustainable political settlement.

We also need to know that the administration plans to engage the world powers and regional powers in this effort, as we did in the Six Plus Two Plan in Afghanistan, as we did in Bosnia. Iraq's neighbors have real influence with these different communities, and we need them to use that influence to arrive at a political settlement.

On the assistance track, the whole house of cards will collapse if Iraqis have no capacity to govern themselves, and if the Iraqi people cannot turn on the lights, drink the water, and walk out their front doors without wading into sewage.

So we need to know what specific steps the administration is taking to strengthen the capacity of Iraq's governmental ministries. We all know none of them can function now--none. Not a single Iraqi ministry is capable of functioning. The administration rejected the British plan to adopt these ministries. So what is the plan? What are you going to do, Mr. President, to make them able to function? How many regular police do we have to keep? What are the basic law-and-order requirements before we can draw down?

We need to stop this silliness about having trained 179,000 troops. Stop this silliness. Tell us what the facts are and tell us the relationship between the facts and our ability to draw down.

What is the plan to ensure that these local ministries are able to move on their own and coordinate Iraqi security forces?

Our amendment lays this out. The fact that our Republican colleagues have signed on to a very similar amendment makes it clear that all of us in this body are tired of not being told the facts.

So, Mr. President, the gap between this administration's rhetoric on Iraq and the reality on the ground has created a huge credibility gap. And I would have never thought this: Only this President could unite the Senate. He has united the Senate on a single point: What is the plan? That is what our amendment does.

I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, if it is possible, for 1 minute for my friend from California.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr. President, will the chairman yield for a question?

Mr. President, I have no debate or disagreement about what the Senator said. I was wondering whether the chairman and the cochair, the Democratic chair, would object to--maybe this is not the appropriate place to do it--a second-degree amendment, or an additional amendment, whatever form it would take, that would require not the intelligence community but the State Department to report to the Foreign Relations Committee on the status of their judgment as to whether we are in compliance with international treaties--their view on that matter.

I don't want to be the skunk at the family picnic. I am not trying to cause any difficulty. But it seems to me that such an approach would not in any way fly in the face of the intelligence community reporting to the Intelligence Committee. The Senator is right--historically, the various committees, including the Foreign Relations Committee, have been represented on the Intelligence Committee. I have no argument with that. I wonder whether any of my friends could respond to that concern I have raised.

Parliamentary inquiry: If we dispense with the second- degree amendment, is there any ability to further amend this legislation? This is a substitute or a second degree?

If it is adopted, and I am not saying I will, but will the Senator from Delaware have an opportunity to amend the substitute?

Mr. President, I will vote in favor of the Ensign amendment to this bill, relating to the use of riot control agents, and I want to make clear to my colleagues why a steadfast supporter of the Chemical Weapons Convention can do so in good conscience. Senator Ensign is concerned that current interpretation of U.S. policy and of U.S. obligations under international law might be hampering U.S. forces in Iraq. I gather that not everybody shares that belief, but I do not doubt that some people have this concern, and I appreciate Senator Ensign's desire to make sure that people in the

military fully understand what they can and cannot do when it comes to using riot control agents in Iraq.

What is important about the Ensign amendment, in my view, is that it will in no way modify either U.S. policy or U.S. international obligations regarding the use of riot control agents. The statement, in subsection (a) of the amendment that ``riot control agents are not chemical weapons'' is fully consistent with the Chemical Weapons Convention, in which ``riot control agent'' is defined as a chemical, not listed in any of the Convention's three lists of chemical weapons or their precursors, ``which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure.'' That definition is quite different from the definition of a ``toxic chemical'' in a chemical weapon, ``which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals.'' So the Ensign amendment is correct in that a riot control agent, as defined in the Chemical Weapons Convention, would not be a chemical weapon as defined in that convention.

Similarly, the Ensign amendment now before this body accurately reflects U.S. policy as established by President Gerald Ford in Executive Order 11850 of April 8, 1975. That Executive order, signed by a Republican President and implemented by six subsequent Presidents of both parties over the last 30 years, states: ``The United States renounces, as a matter of national policy . . . first use of riot control agents in war except in defensive military modes to save lives. . . .'' It goes on to give four examples of such defensive military modes, only two of which relate to combat zones:

``(b) . . . in situations in which civilians are used to mask or screen attacks and civilian casualties can be reduced or avoided''; and

``( c) . . . in rescue missions in remotely isolated areas, of downed aircrews and passengers, and escaping prisoners.''

Executive Order 11850 then orders implementation, as follows:

``Sec. 1. The Secretary of Defense shall take all necessary measures to ensure that the use by the Armed Forces of the United States of any riot control agents and chemical herbicides in war is prohibited unless such use has Presidential approval, in advance.

``Sec. 2. The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe the rules and regulations he deems necessary to ensure that the national policy herein announced shall be observed by the Armed Forces of the United States.''

As far as I can tell, Senator Ensign does not intend that anything in Executive Order 11850 be changed, nor that there be any change in the U.S. policy and obligation to fully obey the Chemical Weapons Convention, which binds each state party ``not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.'' It is standing U.S. policy that if somebody is using human shields, as occurred in Somalia in the early 1990s, our Armed Forces may use riot control agents ``in defensive military modes to save lives'' without violating our obligations as state party to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

In light of my view that the Ensign amendment will not change U.S. policy and will not call into question the requirement to comply with our international obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention, I see no reason to oppose this amendment. I do urge, however, that the limited nature of this amendment be made more explicit in conference.

Mr. President, on November 1, the Committee on Foreign Relations conducted a business meeting to consider several matters.

The motion to report the nomination of Roland Arnall to be U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands failed on a 9-to-9 tie. The chairman then ruled that the nomination was ordered reported by an 8-to-2 vote, which reflected the vote of those physically present.

With all respect to my friend and chairman, Senator Lugar, I disagree with his ruling, which negated the proxy votes cast by me and several of my colleagues; I believe it to be inconsistent with the rules of the Committee on Foreign Relations. So that the record of the proceedings at the meeting will be available to all members, I ask unanimous consent that the relevant portion of the transcript of that meeting be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, back in January I used a similar amendment for the first bill I introduced this year. There is a simple reason for it: It is more clear it is needed now. We have to take this out of politics. As long as we are involved, we will argue this about Democrat-Republican. It is not about Democrat-Republican. The world has changed. It has changed utterly.

The fact is we need a clear-eyed assessment of where we are in this changed world. This is a lot less about them--that is, the prisoners and the terrorists. It is much more about us and our troops. I wonder what happens the first time an American troop is captured anywhere in this or a future war and turned over to the secret police of that country, taken to a spot that no one knows, one that is clandestine. I wonder what happens then.

It is all about where we stand as a nation, about our values. We are in, as everyone says in this Senate, a battle for the hearts and minds of 1.2 billion people who share a different religion and maybe a different point of view. We are hurting, not helping, our troops. We are hurting, not helping, our cause. We have to have a clear-eyed resolution of it. The clearest way to do this is through a commission.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Extending the Child Safety Pilot Program Act of 2005, along with my good friend Senator Hatch.

At the outset, let me thank Senator Hatch and his staff for joining with me in this effort. I can think of no stronger advocate for children's safety than my friend from Utah, and I am so pleased to have him as an original cosponsor of this bill.

When a mom drops her young son or daughter off at the local Boys & Girls Club, when a dad brings his child to little league practice, or when one of our kids is mentored by an older member of the community, we hope and pray that they are going to be safe. They usually are, and youth-serving organizations are constantly vetting new employees and volunteers to ensure there's nothing in their background to indicate that potential workers should not be around our kids.

But these groups can only do so much. They send information and fingerprints on prospective workers to their State criminal identification agencies, and that effort typically results in a comprehensive search of criminal history information on file in the State where the organization is established. But if the worker spent time in another state, or if a State's records are not up to date, kids' safety can be put in jeopardy.

The organization with the most complete set of national criminal history information is the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division, in Clarksburg, West Virginia. Years ago, I was approached by the Boys & Girls Clubs and others and asked whether there would be a way for them to directly access CJIS' records and avoid the then- cumbersome system requiring them to apply for these national background checks through their States.

I looked into the issue and discovered that a patchwork of statutes and regulations govern background checks at the State level. There are over 1,200 State statutes concerning criminal record checks. In different States, different agencies are authorized to perform background checks for different types of organizations, distinct forms and information are required, and the results are returned in various formats that can be difficult to interpret. Youth-serving organizations trying to do the right thing and keep the kids in their charge safe were being forced to navigate an extremely cumbersome system.

Indeed, in 1998, the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division performed an analysis of fingerprints submitted for civil applicant purposes. CJIS found that the average transmission time from the point of fingerprint to the State bureau was 51.0 days, and from the State bureau to the FBI was another 66.6 days, for a total of 117.6 days from fingerprinting to receipt by the FBI. The worst performing jurisdiction took 544.8 days from

fingerprinting to receipt by the FBI. In a survey conducted by the National Mentoring Partnership, mentoring organizations waited an average of 6 weeks for the results of a national criminal background check to be returned. In a New York Times article published this past August, the Boys & Girls Clubs of America's vice president of club safety, Les Nichols, was quoted as saying that about a third of the criminal records that Clubs' checks turned up were from states other than the one where the applications were submitted. ``It can take as long as 18 months to retrieve those records,'' Mr. Nichols said, ``and that time lag works against us, particularly because we are in a business where we have a lot of seasonal staff and volunteers.''

Not only was the national criminal history background check process slow, but it was often too expensive to be useful to youth-serving organizations. In 2000, I introduced comprehensive legislation designed to plug these security holes. No action was taken on my National Child Protection Improvement Act that year. The following year, I re- introduced the bill as S. 1868. That bill cleared the Senate unanimously but was never acted on by the House. It would have set up an office in the Justice Department to coordinate background check requests from youth-serving organizations, and would have required the results of these checks to be forwarded from the FBI to the requesting groups quickly and affordably.

Finally, in 2003's PROTECT Act, we were able to make some progress on this critical issue. Along with Senator Hatch and Chairman Sensenbrenner of the House Judiciary Committee, I authored section 108 of the PROTECT Act conference report. Section 108 of Public Law 108-21 established an 18-month pilot program for certain organizations to obtain national criminal history background checks. When he signed the PROTECT Act into law, the President noted ``this law creates important pilot programs to help nonprofit organizations which deal with children to obtain quick and complete criminal background information on volunteers. Listen, mentoring programs are essential for our country, and we must make sure they are safe for the children they serve.''

The Child Safety Pilot Program created in the PROTECT Act was extended for another 12 months by a provision in last year's Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, but the initiative is scheduled to expire at the end of January 2006. Although the Department of Justice has yet to submit a status report on the Child Safety Pilot Program, as required by law, data provided by groups using the program demonstrate its effectiveness and the need for it to be extended.

At last check, over 10,000 background checks have been conducted through the pilot program. In those performed checks, 7.5 percent of all workers screened had an arrest or conviction in their record. Crimes discovered were serious: rape, child sexual abuse, murder, and domestic battery. Half of those individuals were not truthful in their job application and instead stated they did not have a criminal record. Over one-quarter, 28 percent, of applicants with a criminal record had crimes from States other than where they were applying to work. In other words, but for the existence of the Child Safety Pilot Program, employers may not have known that their applicants had a criminal record.

The bill Senator Hatch and I introduce today will extend the Child Safety Pilot Program for an additional 30-month period. It will also change the original program so that more youth-serving organizations can participate, and will shorten the timeframe given to the FBI in which to return the results of the background check. We are pleased that our bill has been endorsed by the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, the National Mentoring Partnership, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

I would like to thank those who have made this program such a success. Specifically, Ernie Allen and his team at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children have generously provided staff and equipment and have served as a clearinghouse to process background check requests. Robbie Callaway and Steve Salem of the Boys & Girls Clubs of America originally came up with this idea, and have provided tireless advocacy on its behalf. And Margo Pedroso of the National Mentoring Partnership has been invaluable in making Members of Congress and the general public aware of the need for an affordable, efficient national criminal history background check system. Without her, this program would never have been created.

I urge my colleagues to support the Child Safety Pilot Program Act, and I look forward to its prompt consideration.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Extending the Child Safety Pilot Program Act of 2005, along with my good friend Senator Hatch.

At the outset, let me thank Senator Hatch and his staff for joining with me in this effort. I can think of no stronger advocate for children's safety than my friend from Utah, and I am so pleased to have him as an original cosponsor of this bill.

When a mom drops her young son or daughter off at the local Boys & Girls Club, when a dad brings his child to little league practice, or when one of our kids is mentored by an older member of the community, we hope and pray that they are going to be safe. They usually are, and youth-serving organizations are constantly vetting new employees and volunteers to ensure there's nothing in their background to indicate that potential workers should not be around our kids.

But these groups can only do so much. They send information and fingerprints on prospective workers to their State criminal identification agencies, and that effort typically results in a comprehensive search of criminal history information on file in the State where the organization is established. But if the worker spent time in another state, or if a State's records are not up to date, kids' safety can be put in jeopardy.

The organization with the most complete set of national criminal history information is the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division, in Clarksburg, West Virginia. Years ago, I was approached by the Boys & Girls Clubs and others and asked whether there would be a way for them to directly access CJIS' records and avoid the then- cumbersome system requiring them to apply for these national background checks through their States.

I looked into the issue and discovered that a patchwork of statutes and regulations govern background checks at the State level. There are over 1,200 State statutes concerning criminal record checks. In different States, different agencies are authorized to perform background checks for different types of organizations, distinct forms and information are required, and the results are returned in various formats that can be difficult to interpret. Youth-serving organizations trying to do the right thing and keep the kids in their charge safe were being forced to navigate an extremely cumbersome system.

Indeed, in 1998, the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division performed an analysis of fingerprints submitted for civil applicant purposes. CJIS found that the average transmission time from the point of fingerprint to the State bureau was 51.0 days, and from the State bureau to the FBI was another 66.6 days, for a total of 117.6 days from fingerprinting to receipt by the FBI. The worst performing jurisdiction took 544.8 days from

fingerprinting to receipt by the FBI. In a survey conducted by the National Mentoring Partnership, mentoring organizations waited an average of 6 weeks for the results of a national criminal background check to be returned. In a New York Times article published this past August, the Boys & Girls Clubs of America's vice president of club safety, Les Nichols, was quoted as saying that about a third of the criminal records that Clubs' checks turned up were from states other than the one where the applications were submitted. ``It can take as long as 18 months to retrieve those records,'' Mr. Nichols said, ``and that time lag works against us, particularly because we are in a business where we have a lot of seasonal staff and volunteers.''

Not only was the national criminal history background check process slow, but it was often too expensive to be useful to youth-serving organizations. In 2000, I introduced comprehensive legislation designed to plug these security holes. No action was taken on my National Child Protection Improvement Act that year. The following year, I re- introduced the bill as S. 1868. That bill cleared the Senate unanimously but was never acted on by the House. It would have set up an office in the Justice Department to coordinate background check requests from youth-serving organizations, and would have required the results of these checks to be forwarded from the FBI to the requesting groups quickly and affordably.

Finally, in 2003's PROTECT Act, we were able to make some progress on this critical issue. Along with Senator Hatch and Chairman Sensenbrenner of the House Judiciary Committee, I authored section 108 of the PROTECT Act conference report. Section 108 of Public Law 108-21 established an 18-month pilot program for certain organizations to obtain national criminal history background checks. When he signed the PROTECT Act into law, the President noted ``this law creates important pilot programs to help nonprofit organizations which deal with children to obtain quick and complete criminal background information on volunteers. Listen, mentoring programs are essential for our country, and we must make sure they are safe for the children they serve.''

The Child Safety Pilot Program created in the PROTECT Act was extended for another 12 months by a provision in last year's Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, but the initiative is scheduled to expire at the end of January 2006. Although the Department of Justice has yet to submit a status report on the Child Safety Pilot Program, as required by law, data provided by groups using the program demonstrate its effectiveness and the need for it to be extended.

At last check, over 10,000 background checks have been conducted through the pilot program. In those performed checks, 7.5 percent of all workers screened had an arrest or conviction in their record. Crimes discovered were serious: rape, child sexual abuse, murder, and domestic battery. Half of those individuals were not truthful in their job application and instead stated they did not have a criminal record. Over one-quarter, 28 percent, of applicants with a criminal record had crimes from States other than where they were applying to work. In other words, but for the existence of the Child Safety Pilot Program, employers may not have known that their applicants had a criminal record.

The bill Senator Hatch and I introduce today will extend the Child Safety Pilot Program for an additional 30-month period. It will also change the original program so that more youth-serving organizations can participate, and will shorten the timeframe given to the FBI in which to return the results of the background check. We are pleased that our bill has been endorsed by the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, the National Mentoring Partnership, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

I would like to thank those who have made this program such a success. Specifically, Ernie Allen and his team at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children have generously provided staff and equipment and have served as a clearinghouse to process background check requests. Robbie Callaway and Steve Salem of the Boys & Girls Clubs of America originally came up with this idea, and have provided tireless advocacy on its behalf. And Margo Pedroso of the National Mentoring Partnership has been invaluable in making Members of Congress and the general public aware of the need for an affordable, efficient national criminal history background check system. Without her, this program would never have been created.

I urge my colleagues to support the Child Safety Pilot Program Act, and I look forward to its prompt consideration.

Mr. President, yesterday the Senate passed S. Res. 282, which recognizes October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month and establishes a sense of the Senate that the Congress should raise awareness of domestic violence in the United States and its impact on our Nation's families. I am thankful to the 32 co-sponsors of this resolution and to my colleagues for its unanimous passage.

We have made substantial progress in combating domestic violence since 1994 when we passed the Violence Against Women Act. Since the Act's passage, domestic violence has dropped by almost 50 percent. Incidents of rape are down by 60 percent. The number of women killed by an abusive husband or boyfriend is down by 22 percent and more than half of all rape victims are stepping forward to report the crime.

Despite this record of success, we still have so much more to do. According to the Department of Justice, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends every day. More than 2.5 million women are victims of violence each year and nearly one in three women experiences at least one physical assault by a partner during adulthood. Reports also indicate that up to ten million children experience domestic violence in their homes each year, and nearly 8,800,000 children in the United States witness domestic violence each year.

This is unacceptable. The impact this has on our Nation's families and on the fabric of our society as a whole is clear. What is lesser known is the impact that domestic violence has on our Nation's pocketbook. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently found that violence against women costs our country in excess of $5.8 billion each year; $4.1 billion of this is spent on direct medical and mental health care services. Since 1994, we have invested $15.50 per woman to implement the Violence Against Women Act, but it is estimated that this investment has saved $159 per woman, with a net overall savings of $14.8 billion. I bring this up to remind my colleagues that even in this time of budget deficits, investing in programs to halt domestic violence is not only the right thing to do, but it ultimately saves money.

It is fitting that this year's National Domestic Violence Awareness Month is the month that the Senate passed the Violence Against Women Act of 2005. This bill will reauthorize critical components of the original act, and it will establish further protections for battered immigrants and victims of human trafficking in order to additionally combat domestic violence and sexual assault. The legislation takes the critical next steps to helping victims become safe, secure, and self- sufficient. I would like to point out that this bill had 57 co-sponsors and passed unanimously. This is in stark contrast to the original Act, which took many, many years to get passed. We have changed the paradigm on this issue and we have come a long way. But, we need to do more. The Violence Against Women Act of 2005 will help do this, and I look forward to the House-Senate conference on this bill and getting the bill passed into law.

In addition to the work that we are doing in the Senate, National Domestic Violence Awareness Month gives us a chance to acknowledge the hard work of so many individuals and groups that have tackled this issue head-on. These advocates talk the talk and they walk the walk. They help ensure a better life for so many battered women and children, and they remind Congress what is at stake and what remains to be done. We all owe a debt of gratitude to the advocates, lawyers, service providers, judges, police, nurses, shelter directors, and the many others who have dedicated their lives to this cause.

Again, I thank my colleagues for acting on this important resolution, and I look forward to working with them in the coming months and years to address the problem of domestic violence in our Nation.

Mr. President, Senator Specter, Senator Brownback, and I introduce today the Second Chance Act of 2005, which takes direct aim at reducing recidivism rates for our nation's ex-offenders and improving the transition for these offenders from prison back into the community.

All too often we think about today, but not tomorrow. We look to short-

term solutions for long-term problems. We need to have a change in thinking and approach. It's time we face the dire situation of prisoners reentering our communities with insufficient monitoring, little nor no job skills, inadequate drug treatment, insufficient housing, lack of positive influences, a pap city of basic physical and mental health services, and deficient basic life skills.

The bill we introduce today is about providing a second chance for these ex-offenders, and the children and families that depend on them. It's about strengthening communities and ensuring safe neighborhoods.

Since my 1994 Crime Bill passed, we've had great success in cutting down on crime rates in this country. Under the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, program, we've funded over 100,000 officers all across the country. And our crime rate has plummeted.

But there's a record number of people currently serving time in our country--over 2 million in our federal and state prisons; with millions more in local jails. And 95 percent of all prisoners we lock up today will eventually get out. That equals nearly 650,000 being released from federal or state prisons to communities each year.

If we are going to continue the downward trend of crime rates, we simply have to make strong, concerted, and common-sense efforts now to help ex-prisoners successfully reenter and reintegrate to their communities.

And right now, we're not doing a good enough job. A staggering two- thirds of released State prisoners are expected to be rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years of release. Two out of every three. You're talking about hundreds of thousands of reoffending, ex-offenders each year and hundreds of thousands of serious crimes being committed by people who have already served time in jail.

And, unfortunately, it's too difficult to see why such a huge portion of our released prisoners recommit serious crimes. Up to 60 percent of former inmates are not employed; 15-27 percent of prisoners expect to go to homeless shelters upon release; and 57 percent of federal and 70 percent of state inmates used drugs regularly before prison, with some estim1tes of involvement with drugs or alcohol around the time of the offense as high as 84 percent.

These huge numbers or released prisoners each year and the out-of- control recidivism rates are a recipe for diaster--leading to untold damage, hardship, and death for victims; ruined futures and lost potential for re-offenders; and a huge drain on society at large. One particularly vulnerable group is the children of these offenders. We simply cannot be resigned to allowing generation after generation entering and reentering our prisons. This pernicious cycle must come to an end.

My 1994 Crime Bill recognized these extraordinarily high rates of recidivism as a real problem. My bill, for example, created innovative drug treatment programs for State and Federal inmates to help them kick their habit.

But this is only one piece of the puzzle. I introduced a bill in 2000 that would have built on my 1994 Crime Bill--the ``Offender Reentry and Community Safety Act of 2000'' (S. 2908). This bill would have created demonstration reentry programs for Federal, State, and local prisoners. These programs were designed to assist high-risk, high-need offenders who served their prison sentences, but who posed the greatest risk of reoffending upon release because they lacked the education, job skills, stable family or living arrangements, and the health services they needed to successfully reintegrate into society.

While we have made some progress on offender reentry efforts since 1994, much more needs to be done. In the current session of Congress, I am pleased that colleagues of mine--from both sides of Capitol Hill and from both sides of the aisle--are also focusing their attention and this vital issue.

Senators Specter and Brownback have been dedicated and tireless leaders on crime and public safety issues throughout their careers, and I am proud to join efforts with them today. Other Senators have also taken a leadership role on these issues, including Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Brownback, Hatch, Specter, Grassley, Feinstein, DeWine, Santorum, Landrieu, Bingaman, Coburn, Durbin, and Obama.

The Second Chance Act of 2005 provides a competitive grant program to promote innovative programs to this out a variety of methods aimed at reducing recidivism rates. Efforts would be focus on post-release housing, education and job training, substance abuse and mental health services, and mentoring programs, just to name a few.

Because the scope of the problem is so large--with 650,000 prisoners being released from state and federal prisons each year--our bill provides $100 million per year in competitive grant funding . This isn't being wasteful with our scarce federal resources, it's just an acknowledgement of the scope of the problem we're faced with.

A relatively modest investment in offender reentry efforts compares very well with the alternative, building more and more prisons for these ex-offenders to return to if they are unable to successfully reenter their communities and instead are rearrested and reconvicted of more cries. We must remember that the average cost of incarcerating each prisoner exceeds 20,000 per year, with expenditures on corrections alone having increased from $9 billion in 1982 to $60 billion in 2002. We simply can't be penny-wise but pound-foolish.

The Second Chance Act of 2005 also requires that federal departments with a role in offender reentry efforts coordinate and work together; to make sure there aren't duplicative efforts or funding gaps; and to coordinate reentry research. Our bill would raise the profile of this issue within the executive branch and secure the sustained and coordinated federal attention offender reentry efforts deserve.

We also need to examine existing Federal and State reentry barriers-- laws, regulations, rules, and practices that make it more difficult for former inmates to successfully reintegrate back into their communities; laws that confine ex-offenders to society's margins, making it even more likely that they will recommit serious crimes and return to prison.

Turning over a new leaf and going from a life of crime to becoming a productive member of society is tough enough. We shouldn't have Federal and State laws on the books that make this even more challenging. That's not say that we don't want to restrict former drug addicts from working in pharmacies, for example, or to bar sex offenders from working it day care centers. But many communities across the country currently exclude ex-prisoners from virtually every occupation requiring a state license, like chiropractic care, engineering, and real estate. Lifting these senselessly punitive bans would make it easier for ex-offenders to stay out of prison.

Our bill provides for a roust analysis of these federal and state barriers with recommendations on what next steps we need to take. And these reviews are mandated to take place out in the open under public scrutiny.

The Second Chance Act also spurs state-of-the-art research and study on offender reentry issues. We need to know who is most likely to recommit crimes when they are released, to better target our limited resources where they can do the most good. We need to study why some ex-offenders who seem to have the entire deck stacked against them are able to become successful and productive members of our society. We need to know what, works and how we can replicate what works for others.

Our bill also provides a whole slew of common-sense proposals in the areas of job training, employment, education, post-release housing, substance abuse, and prisoner mentoring--efforts and changes in law that we can do now.

Our Second Chance Act is a next, natural step in our campaign against crime. Making a dent in recidivism rate is an enormous undertaking; one that requires action now and continued focus in the future. I commit to vigorously pushing this legislation as well as keeping an eye on what steps we need to take in the future. We need to realize that the problems facing ex-offenders are enormous and will need sustained focus. The safety of our neighbors, our children, and our communities depends on it.

I am proud today to join with Senator Specter and Senator Brownback in introducing the Second Chance Act and ask our colleagues to join with us in this vital effort.

Mr. President, Senator Specter, Senator Brownback, and I introduce today the Second Chance Act of 2005, which takes direct aim at reducing recidivism rates for our nation's ex-offenders and improving the transition for these offenders from prison back into the community.

All too often we think about today, but not tomorrow. We look to short-

term solutions for long-term problems. We need to have a change in thinking and approach. It's time we face the dire situation of prisoners reentering our communities with insufficient monitoring, little nor no job skills, inadequate drug treatment, insufficient housing, lack of positive influences, a pap city of basic physical and mental health services, and deficient basic life skills.

The bill we introduce today is about providing a second chance for these ex-offenders, and the children and families that depend on them. It's about strengthening communities and ensuring safe neighborhoods.

Since my 1994 Crime Bill passed, we've had great success in cutting down on crime rates in this country. Under the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, program, we've funded over 100,000 officers all across the country. And our crime rate has plummeted.

But there's a record number of people currently serving time in our country--over 2 million in our federal and state prisons; with millions more in local jails. And 95 percent of all prisoners we lock up today will eventually get out. That equals nearly 650,000 being released from federal or state prisons to communities each year.

If we are going to continue the downward trend of crime rates, we simply have to make strong, concerted, and common-sense efforts now to help ex-prisoners successfully reenter and reintegrate to their communities.

And right now, we're not doing a good enough job. A staggering two- thirds of released State prisoners are expected to be rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years of release. Two out of every three. You're talking about hundreds of thousands of reoffending, ex-offenders each year and hundreds of thousands of serious crimes being committed by people who have already served time in jail.

And, unfortunately, it's too difficult to see why such a huge portion of our released prisoners recommit serious crimes. Up to 60 percent of former inmates are not employed; 15-27 percent of prisoners expect to go to homeless shelters upon release; and 57 percent of federal and 70 percent of state inmates used drugs regularly before prison, with some estim1tes of involvement with drugs or alcohol around the time of the offense as high as 84 percent.

These huge numbers or released prisoners each year and the out-of- control recidivism rates are a recipe for diaster--leading to untold damage, hardship, and death for victims; ruined futures and lost potential for re-offenders; and a huge drain on society at large. One particularly vulnerable group is the children of these offenders. We simply cannot be resigned to allowing generation after generation entering and reentering our prisons. This pernicious cycle must come to an end.

My 1994 Crime Bill recognized these extraordinarily high rates of recidivism as a real problem. My bill, for example, created innovative drug treatment programs for State and Federal inmates to help them kick their habit.

But this is only one piece of the puzzle. I introduced a bill in 2000 that would have built on my 1994 Crime Bill--the ``Offender Reentry and Community Safety Act of 2000'' (S. 2908). This bill would have created demonstration reentry programs for Federal, State, and local prisoners. These programs were designed to assist high-risk, high-need offenders who served their prison sentences, but who posed the greatest risk of reoffending upon release because they lacked the education, job skills, stable family or living arrangements, and the health services they needed to successfully reintegrate into society.

While we have made some progress on offender reentry efforts since 1994, much more needs to be done. In the current session of Congress, I am pleased that colleagues of mine--from both sides of Capitol Hill and from both sides of the aisle--are also focusing their attention and this vital issue.

Senators Specter and Brownback have been dedicated and tireless leaders on crime and public safety issues throughout their careers, and I am proud to join efforts with them today. Other Senators have also taken a leadership role on these issues, including Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Brownback, Hatch, Specter, Grassley, Feinstein, DeWine, Santorum, Landrieu, Bingaman, Coburn, Durbin, and Obama.

The Second Chance Act of 2005 provides a competitive grant program to promote innovative programs to this out a variety of methods aimed at reducing recidivism rates. Efforts would be focus on post-release housing, education and job training, substance abuse and mental health services, and mentoring programs, just to name a few.

Because the scope of the problem is so large--with 650,000 prisoners being released from state and federal prisons each year--our bill provides $100 million per year in competitive grant funding . This isn't being wasteful with our scarce federal resources, it's just an acknowledgement of the scope of the problem we're faced with.

A relatively modest investment in offender reentry efforts compares very well with the alternative, building more and more prisons for these ex-offenders to return to if they are unable to successfully reenter their communities and instead are rearrested and reconvicted of more cries. We must remember that the average cost of incarcerating each prisoner exceeds 20,000 per year, with expenditures on corrections alone having increased from $9 billion in 1982 to $60 billion in 2002. We simply can't be penny-wise but pound-foolish.

The Second Chance Act of 2005 also requires that federal departments with a role in offender reentry efforts coordinate and work together; to make sure there aren't duplicative efforts or funding gaps; and to coordinate reentry research. Our bill would raise the profile of this issue within the executive branch and secure the sustained and coordinated federal attention offender reentry efforts deserve.

We also need to examine existing Federal and State reentry barriers-- laws, regulations, rules, and practices that make it more difficult for former inmates to successfully reintegrate back into their communities; laws that confine ex-offenders to society's margins, making it even more likely that they will recommit serious crimes and return to prison.

Turning over a new leaf and going from a life of crime to becoming a productive member of society is tough enough. We shouldn't have Federal and State laws on the books that make this even more challenging. That's not say that we don't want to restrict former drug addicts from working in pharmacies, for example, or to bar sex offenders from working it day care centers. But many communities across the country currently exclude ex-prisoners from virtually every occupation requiring a state license, like chiropractic care, engineering, and real estate. Lifting these senselessly punitive bans would make it easier for ex-offenders to stay out of prison.

Our bill provides for a roust analysis of these federal and state barriers with recommendations on what next steps we need to take. And these reviews are mandated to take place out in the open under public scrutiny.

The Second Chance Act also spurs state-of-the-art research and study on offender reentry issues. We need to know who is most likely to recommit crimes when they are released, to better target our limited resources where they can do the most good. We need to study why some ex-offenders who seem to have the entire deck stacked against them are able to become successful and productive members of our society. We need to know what, works and how we can replicate what works for others.

Our bill also provides a whole slew of common-sense proposals in the areas of job training, employment, education, post-release housing, substance abuse, and prisoner mentoring--efforts and changes in law that we can do now.

Our Second Chance Act is a next, natural step in our campaign against crime. Making a dent in recidivism rate is an enormous undertaking; one that requires action now and continued focus in the future. I commit to vigorously pushing this legislation as well as keeping an eye on what steps we need to take in the future. We need to realize that the problems facing ex-offenders are enormous and will need sustained focus. The safety of our neighbors, our children, and our communities depends on it.

I am proud today to join with Senator Specter and Senator Brownback in introducing the Second Chance Act and ask our colleagues to join with us in this vital effort.

Mr. President, the people of Kashmir are no strangers to hardship. Their beautiful, tragic land has been the arena of full-scale warfare between India and Pakistan, a long-running insurgency marked by exceptional brutality and penetration by terrorist groups in league with al-Qaida.

On October 8, the people of Kashmir suffered the most devastating blow yet: A massive earthquake killed about as many Kashmiris in just a few minutes as all the bullets and bombs of massed armies were able to kill there over the previous half-century. And unless we act now, the casualty count will climb even higher.

At latest count, the quake's death toll is somewhere between 55,000 and 80,000. An estimated 3 million people are now homeless. As the survivors spend day after miserable day with little food or water, little medical care, little protection from the bitterly cold winter temperatures that have already hampered relief efforts, the number of the dead will certainly rise.

Residents of the Indian-administered portion of Kashmir were hit hard: 1,400 have died, a number greater than the death toll of Katrina. But the worst devastation has been felt in the area administered by Pakistan, which has borne the brunt of the disaster.

For Pakistan, the earthquake was at least 40 Katrinas, all rolled into one.

The capitol of Pakistani Kashmir has been largely destroyed. Relief efforts will cost billions of dollars, and repairs to the very most basic infrastructure will cost billions more.

American helicopter pilots and other military personnel have performed heroically in the rescue operation. The first 72 hours after a disaster of this magnitude are vital, since this is the window in which trapped survivors have a realistic chance of being brought out alive. As of last week, October 17, 442 U.S. personnel and 11 helicopters were involved in the effort, and the U.S. military had evacuated 2,500 survivors. I am proud of our service men and women, and I wholeheartedly support President Bush's decision to deploy our military assets to this mission of mercy.

I would like to see far more of our choppers devoted to this vital effort: With only 30 percent of the affected villages reachable by road, the single greatest need is for every utility helicopter that can be rushed to the scene; we've got Chinooks, Blackhawks, and other suitable craft right across the border in Afghanistan, and I hope the administration will immediately shift more of these assets to the short-term mission of saving lives.

I also support the President's pledge of financial aid for the reconstruction effort--indeed, I rise today to urge President Bush to send more aid. This is no time for half-measures.

If there is one thing we all should have learned from Katrina and the Southeast Asian tsunami, it is that an effective, rapid, well-funded response is necessary to prevent a terrible tragedy from spiraling into an uncontrolled disaster.

As of today, October 24, the total amount of earthquake aid committed by the administration has been about $27 million. President Bush has pledged ``up to'' $50 million, and Secretary Rice has hinted that the total figure might be higher than this, but so far--2 weeks after the tragedy--these are still vague abstractions. The costs for tsunami relief proved far higher than the initial estimates--or the initial U.S. pledge. It is a safe bet that the needs for this tragedy will also prove much greater than initial estimates. It is far too early to cap our contribution.

The U.N. has sought $312 million to meet immediate needs but has found the world community willing to pledge barely a quarter of this amount--and the White House's response has been to promise less than 4 percent of this modest sum, per USAID fact-sheet of 10/21: $10.8 million to U.N. flash appeal. Mr. President, we need to do much more, to do it much faster--and we need the administration to start telling us some answers:

How much money will we actually spend? And where will it come from? Does the administration plan to shift funds from existing accounts for Pakistan, in which case the President's pledge would look like a bait- and-switch? Would the funds come from existing disaster accounts, in which case every dollar sent to Kashmir would potentially be a dollar taken from Darfur, Guatemala, or Niger?

With so many pressing needs here in the United States, some may ask why send any aid overseas. Let's take care of our own people, some may say, leave other nations to take care of themselves.

But this is a false choice. We can take care of our own people and fulfill our moral duty to our fellow human beings elsewhere in the world.

When we were struck by the tragedy of Katrina, 90 nations offered us assistance--including a pledge of $1 million from Pakistan. Aiding the victims of the Kashmiri earthquake is the right thing to do, and it is also in our vital national interest. As we have seen in the aftermath of the Asian tsunami this year, disaster relief is one of the most effective--and cost-effective--tools in our diplomatic or political arsenal.

Other nations recognize the twinned moral and political need for generous humanitarian response. Some 30 countries have sent relief aid to Pakistan, countries including Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, France, Spain, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Iran, Jordan, Syria and Afghanistan. Several, including Britain and Turkey, sent specialized search-and-rescue teams to pull survivors out of the rubble.

Others have already established mobile field hospitals that are saving hundreds--maybe thousands--of lives on a daily basis. Even Pakistan's longtime rival India sent planeloads of tents, medicine, and other supplies.

The U.S. has been generous, but so too have other countries. If the administration does indeed follow through on President Bush's $50 million promise, that would be half the amount pledged by Kuwait, half the amount pledged by the United Arab Emirates. Last weekend, Saudi Arabia announced an aid package of $133 million. We are not the

only country involved in this relief effort and our contribution should reflect our Nation's true generosity of spirit.

It is not just nations that are joining the effort: private individuals and groups have opened their hearts and wallets. Here in this country, NGOs like Mercy Corps, CARE, the International Rescue Committee, Save the Children and the Red Cross have collected many thousands of dollars.

In one development that builds upon an encouraging warming of ties between Pakistan and Israel, President Musharraf has specifically welcomed the contributions of American Jewish charities.

But there are other organizations whose support is more troubling: extremist groups have been in the forefront of disaster relief. There is a desperate need for more assistance--and that void is being filled by groups hostile to American interests.

Jamaat ul-Dawa, an affiliate of the terrorist group Lashkar-e Taiba, has been operating a major field hospital complete with x-ray facilities and an operating theater--a facility so capable that it has been treating casualties of the Pakistani military itself.

More than a week after the earthquake, the U.S. had still not set up a mobile field hospital, despite the proximity of resources in Afghanistan and the Middle East; I hope that by now such a facility is in operation. We have the finest military medical personnel in the world, and they are eager to save as many lives as they can.

Why has the administration been unable to accomplish a vital humanitarian task that is currently being carried out by a terrorist affiliate?

And Jamaat ul-Dawa isn't the only extremist group filling this need. The AI-Khidmat Foundation, the charity branch of hardline Islamist party Jamaat-e Islami, has organized relief convoys, medical facilities and camps sheltering survivors.

The Al-Rasheed trust, a group whose U.S. assets have been frozen on the suspicion that it channeled funds to al-Qaida is highly visible in a variety of relief efforts.

There's nothing new about extremist groups performing social services. Hezbollah, Hamas, the Tamil Tigers, and a variety of other groups on the Foreign Terrorist Organization list have long bolstered their base of support by providing social welfare programs--especially where the government has been either unable or unwilling to meet its citizens' most basic needs.

The extremists know that such programs build goodwill among the populace. They have learned a lesson already known to every U.S. military officer: You can't win a war with bombs alone, you have to win hearts and minds.

Our military professionals know this, but it sometimes seems as if the civilian leadership in the White House has forgotten the lesson. We had an opportunity to demonstrate our friendship to the Pakistani people, to the Kashmiris on both sides of the line of control, to Muslims throughout the globe, and instead we have failed to match our commitment with our superpower status. Every day we let the extremists fill the void is another opportunity wasted.

The Asian tsunami provides a shining example of the need for rapid action, and what we can accomplish when we do things right.

The initial response from the White House was disappointing: for the first week after the tragedy, the administration lagged behind other nations, including small countries with far inferior resources than we possess.

But once the administration decided to match America's contribution with our superpower status, we leapt to the forefront of the relief effort. When the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier group and other naval assets arrived on the scene, they immediately established us the leader of the global response.

The sailors, marines and other service members did an absolutely superb job: They performed an act of public diplomacy more powerful than any dollars-and-sense reckoning could calculate.

They showed that the U.S. military is not merely a fearsome adversary but also a powerful friend.

This effort had an immediate impact: In Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, popular attitudes towards the United States profoundly improved, almost overnight. Before George Bush took office, 75 percent of Indonesians had a favorable impression of the United States; by 2003, that number had fallen to 15 percent.

But in the aftermath of the tsunami, Indonesians saw Americans as friends rather than foes. In a survey sponsored by the nonpartisan group Terror Free Tomorrow, 65 percent of respondents had a more favorable view of the United States after the arrival of the USS Abraham Lincoln.

This public attitude is directly reflected in Indonesian views of the war on terror. In the same poll, support for Osama bin Laden dropped from 58 percent prior to the tsunami to 23 percent afterward. For the first time in any major poll, a plurality, 40 percent, supported the U.S.-led fight against terrorism.

And this isn't merely a matter of poll numbers: Indonesian-based extremist groups tried to use their relief operations in the tsunami- ravaged province of Aceh as a tool for recruitment, and due in large part to the strong U.S. response these groups utterly failed to make headway. When they tried to preach anti-American sentiments, the people of Aceh shut them down cold: The survivors of the tsunami knew better because they had seen American sailors and marines saving lives.

The lesson is clear: Our humanitarian duty and our national security interests here are in complete accord. When we use our military and financial strength to save lives, we help drain the swamp of terrorism.

We accomplished a tremendous feat in the tsunami recovery effort. For the price of just a few days' operating expenses in Iraq, we bought an incalculable amount of goodwill among the 210 million Muslims in Indonesia, and improved our standing among many other Muslims worldwide.

Today, we have the chance to replicate our success. We can do in Pakistan what we did in Indonesia: prove that America is not engaged in a crusade against Islam.

We can demonstrate--with deeds, not empty words--that we are allies rather than adversaries. We can show that we, and not the extremists or the terrorists, are the best friends that the people of Muslim nations could want to have.

We can do this, but we can't do it on the cheap. We can't do it with just a dozen helicopters and $27 million and a promise that eventually we may contribute half as much as Kuwait.

Mr. President, I urge this Chamber to do more. And I urge the administration to immediately match our contribution with the vital need at hand: With Pakistan reeling from the worst natural disaster in its history, we can't afford to let our response be too little and too late.

Today, Mr. President, our moral duty and our national security interest are one.