Floor Statements

Mr. President, Mark Twain once said: ``20 years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do, than by the things you did do.'' Well, Mr. Twain had not met Margaret Aitken, the woman I wish to acknowledge today.

Margaret is the youngest of eight children--a born negotiator, advocate, and spirited woman who has dedicated her professional career to excellence in public service. She has served the people of Delaware and the U.S. Senate with distinction.

She began her career in the Senate as a press secretary on my staff at the young age of 27. She came to us with impeccable credentials from the county executive's team and the Department of Education. Her work ethic and energy are surpassed only by her keen wit and disarming use of humor.

Margaret's sense of justice is embedded in her character--a byproduct of her strong faith and commitment to family. Her professional constituency was well served by her 15 years in the public domain. However, Margaret recently decided that there was one constituency that needed her most of all. In August, she and her husband Chris became the proud parents of Ronan William Haggerty, and Margaret is now a full- time mom.

She understood the wisdom and the sentiment in Mark Twain's words and so--she will not be disappointed in hindsight. Margaret, a wordsmith herself, also took George Bernard Shaw to heart: ``Perhaps the greatest social service that can be rendered by anyone to this country and to mankind is to bring up a family.''

And so I say to you Margaret--bring up that family--in the image and likeness of the best hopes and expectations for a better world. Thank you for your service, goodness, loyalty, honor, and courage. You are a force unto yourself, and you are very appreciated.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a resolution marking May 2008 as National Drug Court Month. The more than 2,000 drug courts that currently operate across the country are critical to curbing drug use, reducing recidivism, and turning non-violent prisoners into law abiding and productive members of our society.

Drug courts closely supervise non-violent drug offenders as they address their addiction or substance abuse problem. When they graduate from the program they are clean, sober and better prepared to participate productively in society. In order to graduate from most drug court programs, participants are required to finish high school or obtain a GED, hold down a job, as well as maintain financial obligations including drug court fees and child support payments. A sponsor is also required to help ensure they stay on track.

In 1994, I wrote the law that created the drug courts program because we believed that the programs they oversee were cost-effective, innovative alternatives to prison that would reduce crime and deal with non-violent offenders who are in desperate need of treatment. It turns out we were right. A 2005 report from the Government Accountability Office found that drug court program participants were less likely to be rearrested or reconvicted than those who did not participate in drug court programs. The report also concluded that a conservative estimate of the net benefits to society of sending a non-violent offender throug drug court program ranges from about $1,000 per participant to about $15,000. There is just no question that these alternative to prison programs not only work, but also make great financial sense.

Treating non-violent offenders through drug court-monitored programs and other alternatives to prison treatment programs provides them with an opportunity to turn away from drugs and to get on the path to be healthy, contributing members of society. It also helps to reduce America's exploding prison population: more than 2.3 million people are in prisons and jails across the U.S.; 1 in 100 adults in the United States are behind bars. It costs an average of nearly $24,000 to imprison an individual. Drug courts can reduce the financial burden on State and local budgets.

I hope that National Drug Court Month raises awareness about the importance of drug courts and other alternatives to prison treatment- based programs. I ask my colleagues to join me in commending these programs and urging state, local and Federal officials to help expand and robustly fund these treatment programs throughout the country.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 93rd anniversary of the Armenian genocide.

On April 24, 1915, an ancient nation faced extermination when officials of the Ottoman Government initiated a series of raids in which hundreds of Armenians were arrested and subsequently deported or killed. Isolated incidents of brutality had occurred before, but sadly this event marked the beginning of a campaign of murder, deportation, and forced starvation. When the violence ultimately ended, as many as 1.5 million Armenians had died and 500,000 were exiled. Armenians all but disappeared from land their people had occupied for centuries.

The American Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire at the time was the distinguished Henry Morgenthau who described the horrors perpetrated against the Armenians as the ``murder of a nation.''

Just this week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which I have the honor to chair, had a hearing on the systematic murder of innocents in Darfur. The incident serves as an important reminder that an open discussion of the Armenian genocide is critical. Since the 1915 ethnic cleansing, the murder by a government of its own citizens has occurred again and again.

It is depressing to think that human beings have not learned their lesson. The whole world is diminished, wounded, and made poorer by such tragedies and we must not forget them if we hope to prevent them. The commemoration of this act of brutality and systematic murder 93 years ago is important and relevant not only for the survivors and their descendents, but for humanity as a whole.

Mr. President, April 25 is World Malaria Day. That is the day that the world pauses to acknowledge that over a million people a year die of a disease borne by mosquitoes, a disease that we know how to prevent, a disease that we know how to treat. The most vulnerable are children under the age of 5; every 30 seconds a child dies of malaria. Pregnant women are also at high risk; 10,000 expectant mothers perish each year from the disease. Malaria exacts an enormous economic and social toll as well, costing the poorest countries in the world billions of dollars each year in lost productivity, working days, revenue, and investment. With global weather patterns changing, malaria is spreading further, reaching areas that were previously unaffected.

Last month, the Foreign Relations Committee approved a bipartisan bill that could, over the course of time, help to save millions of lives by providing people with the means to prevent and treat malaria. I am proud to have sponsored this bill, along with Senator Lugar and our other colleagues. This legislation, S. 2731, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008, authorizes up to $5 billion over the next 5 years to combat malaria, a dramatic increase in resources. It also formally establishes the position of a global malaria coordinator to oversee U.S. programs and strengthens U.S. participation in the multilateral global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. These efforts will build on the dramatic early success of the President's malaria initiative, which was launched 3 years ago by President Bush. Already, under this initiative, the island of Zanzibar has witnessed a 95 percent reduction in infection rates among children. Through bednets, spraying of homes, and providing drugs, we can replicate that success on a much broader scale.

Similar legislation has passed the House of Representatives, and our bill received a strong vote of support in committee here. It is my hope that the Senate will soon take up S. 2731, that we will debate whatever differences we may have and vote on it, and that the President will be able to sign it into law well in advance of the G-8 meeting in July. If so, he will be in an excellent position to help convince other countries to undertake similar commitments. Even more important, we will let the people of Africa and other hard-hit areas of the globe know that the United States is sustaining the commitments that it first made in 2003 when Congress passed the original United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act.

Mr. President, America has come a long way in addressing discrimination in the workplace since the days my ancestors faced ``No Irish Need Apply'' signs. Yet discrimination today still exists. Even now, women still earn on average 77 cents for every dollar a man earns performing the same work. This is not fair. And with a record 70.2 million women in the workforce, this wage discrimination hurts American families across the country.

Since passage of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, working women have been able to challenge discriminatory pay. Most appellate courts, including the Third Circuit that incorporates Delaware, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission operated under a rule that gives workers a reasonable time limit to file complaints and receive a fair hearing in our country's courtrooms.

Last year, the Supreme Court in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber

Co., ignored the basic reality of how--and indeed, when--workers discover that they have been the victim of paycheck discrimination. The Court ruled that employees must sue within 180 days of the employer's pay decision. That Supreme Court's ruling, in the words of Justice Ginsberg, is at best a ``cramped interpretation'' of title VII and at worst reverses the hard-won gains women have made in the workplace.

As a practical matter, employees often do not know what their peers earn, the amount of annual raises, or how wages are determined. Given the typical confidentiality rules covering pay issues, the Supreme Court's ruling means that women will in many instances be shut out from recovering what they are owed after years of unfair pay. This interpretation makes title VII of the Civil Rights Act an empty promise.

The Supreme Court's decision will hurt Americans from all walks of life. It perpetuates inequality by allowing workers to receive lower pay because of their age, gender, religion, ethnicity, or disability. It threatens to stop and reverse the steady progress we have made toward job equality by letting employers off the hook for prolonged discrimination. The House took the first step toward correcting this injustice when it passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007. The Senate now has the opportunity, and an obligation, to do the same. I am a cosponsor and strong supporter of this bill, which would simply clarify and restore the rule the country operated under before the Supreme Court's decision. That rule was strong and simple--each separate paycheck based on a previous discriminatory decision is itself an unlawful employment practice.

Mr. President, this Fair Pay Restoration Act isn't a radical change of direction. It is really nothing new. We know the consequences of the act because for years American businesses and their workers operated under the standards it restores. It will not open the floodgates for litigation or force employers to fork out exorbitant sums of money--it will just restore the rules of the game before the Court changed them. It gives Americans who are doing the same job as someone else--but for lower pay--access to courts and equality.

In today's economy, coping with a recession and a housing crisis, American workers need our help. The basic social compact that built our economy, that created our middle class, that provided opportunities for millions--that compact is breaking down. This is one small step to restore some fairness.

Mr. President, equal work should mean equal pay. I urge my colleagues to join me and restore that principle.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, 11 years ago this month, the Senate gave its advice and consent to U.S. ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention, or CWC. Those of us who were here then remember all too well how contentious and difficult a task that was.

Eleven years later, I have no doubt in my mind that the Senate did the right thing. The CWC clearly serves the national security interests of the U.S. It continues to enhance international peace and security.

Since the CWC entered into force, 183 States have signed on to the treaty's commitment to forgo poison gas forever, and have subjected themselves to the treaty's verification procedures. States Parties to the CWC have destroyed over 27,000 tons of chemical weapons--over a third of the world's declared stockpiles--and 11 destruction facilities around the world are working to destroy even more. Sixty-five chemical weapons production facilities that, without a Chemical Weapons Convention, could have churned out still more poison gas are no longer carrying out that horrible work, and all but 4 of those former weapons production facilities have been verifiably destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes. Most importantly, there has been no use of chemical weapons by any country in the last 11 years, and no international support for the use of such weapons by terrorist groups.

Under the able leadership of its Director-General, Ambassador Rogelio Pfirter, the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons runs a tight ship. It works with all States Parties to improve national declarations, to mount effective inspections, and to secure the adoption of effective national laws, regulations and procedures that criminalize and guard against the production or stockpiling of chemical weapons.

The States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention are gathering over the next 2 weeks in The Netherlands for the Convention's Second Review Conference. Senator Lugar and I have introduced this resolution during the Review Conference in order to reaffirm the Senate's commitment to the goals of the CWC. We are proud of the progress that has been made so far, and we call upon all States Parties to continue to meet their commitments under the CWC and to do all they can to further the noble aims of the Convention.

I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. President, I wish today to commend a standout chapter of a renowned organization, one that has been responsible for bringing light to the lives of countless Americans throughout its existence. Easter Seals Delaware and Maryland's Eastern Shore is celebrating its 60th year of providing critical help to those in need.

In 1948, the organization was started to meet the needs of children with disabilities, and it has grown exponentially since then. This chapter served 18,000 Delawareans last year through eight locations, and they now have an annual operating budget of $15 million.

The services provided by the staff and volunteers at Easter Seals are well known: speech and hearing therapy, assistive technology, and job training are just a few of the ways they help children and adults with disabilities lead independent lives in their communities.

As we embark on spring this year, it is appropriate to recall the symbol of Easter Seals: the lily. The lily makes us all think of rebirth and new life, which is exactly what Easter Seals provides to those they help. It is why the lily has appeared on every Easter ``Seal'' produced since the 1950s.

I would be remiss if I thanked Easter Seals Delaware and Maryland's Eastern Shore without recognizing its driving force for the last half century. Sandra Tuttle, who has been associated with the organization for nearly 50 years--including as its president and CEO since 1978--is stepping aside from her formal role. Her leadership has been the engine of this remarkable organization; her devotion, professionalism, and guidance are known to all associated with Easter Seals.

I wish her the best of luck in all her future endeavors and thank her from the bottom of my heart for what she has helped this organization become. The lives she has touched are without number. She truly is an angel walking among us.

I know I am not the first to thank Easter Seals in this Chamber, and I doubt I will be the last. This incredible organization, started by a few people trying to make a difference for disabled children, has blossomed into the model for all such groups in America. I thank my local chapter for its work, congratulate it on this momentous occasion, and hope that its influence will continue to grow for years to come.

Madam President, yesterday, the Secretary of Defense announced the 2008 Commander in Chief's Awards for Installation Excellence. These awards honor the best installation for each service. For the first time in the 23-year history of the award, the Air Force winner is a mobility base, Dover Air Force Base. Out of 117 Air Force installations, Dover AFB was chosen as the absolute best.

I cannot say that I was surprised. I believe they won because of the tradition of excellence imbued in each man and woman working at Dover.

It started in 1941, when the 112th Observation Squadron of the Ohio National Guard arrived to set up antisubmarine operations at the new Dover airfield. That mission and the others that helped America and her allies win World War II began an enduring tradition of excellence. In 1948, the airfield was officially named Dover Air Force Base and the Nation moved into its Cold War posture. Some may not know this, but for 7 years, 1951-1958, Dover was home to fighter squadrons defending American airspace.

In 1955, one of Dover's best known missions came to the base, the Aerial Port Mortuary. For over 70 years, the Dover team has given fallen Americans an honorable and compassionate homecoming. While it is only one mission on the base, every generation of air men and women stationed at Dover has taken pride in honoring America's heroes and ensuring the grace and dignity of their return to our Nation and their families.

By the late 1950s, Dover was transformed into a mobility base, under the Military Air Transport Service, which became Military Airlift Command, and eventually became Air Mobility Command. Since 1973, Dover has been home to America's largest military transport aircraft, the C- 5. Just last year, the Nation's second largest military transport aircraft, the C-17, was added to the base. As home to the Nation's great airlifters, Dover has always been busy--supporting American forces in every military engagement from Vietnam to Grenada to Panama to the first gulf war to the Balkans to Afghanistan and Iraq; supporting our Israeli allies with critical supplies during the Yom Kippur War; evacuating Americans from Iran in 1978; assisting with clean-up from the devastating Exxon Valdez oil spill; assisting Central American nations, Turkey, and Taiwan that have experienced devastating earthquakes; providing humanitarian aid around the globe after major natural disasters; and supporting Presidential travel around the world. This dual mission, to provide lethal force and vital humanitarian aid, makes Dover critical to America's use of both hard and soft power and has made it all the more important that every generation serving at Dover carry on the tradition of excellence.

This year, Dover's tradition of excellence and the entire Dover team have been recognized with the Commander in Chief's Award. What does it mean to be the best base in the Air Force? It means that the entire Dover team has found innovative ways to make the absolute most of the resources they have. They have not only saved the taxpayers money, they have also given the warfighter more capability.

They have also been unstinting in giving back to the local community and the larger Delaware community. The Dover team is not just the air men and women serving on the base. It is also their families, civilians working on base, the businesses that support base operations and life, the State and local government that support base needs, and the entire Delaware military community working together to give the State and the Nation the very best.

Let me give you some examples from the seven categories that were considered in the competition. Keep in mind that all of these accomplishments occurred in 1 year. They were only possible because the people at Dover, despite full-time, 365/24/7 operations in support of Iraq and Afghanistan, constantly challenged themselves to do more and to do it better.

First, improvements to the infrastructure of the base and the working environment were considered.

Dover opened a state-of-the-art, $77.5 million Air Freight Terminal that increased cargo capacity and efficiency through Dover by 50 percent. The base also invested $53 million in a major runway improvement project and another $3.5 million to repair 183,000 square feet of taxiway, improving both the efficiency and safety of airfield operations. After a close analysis of their budget, the Dover team found $32 million to use for base improvements, including a $5 million renovation of a squadron operations building, C-5 recapitalization, and projects needed for the C-17 squadron setup. Thoughtful planning allowed Dover to keep the bed down of a new C-17 squadron on schedule because base personnel proactively made $780,000 necessary basic infrastructure improvements. In addition, they installed solar lights on the runways and reinforced the taxiway so that C-17 aircrews could do navigation training and combat off-load training.

Dover also improved security operations by installing over 450 removable bollards on the base, including some at the gate in a ``Lazy S'' curve to prevent reverse entry threats. The bollard installation reduced the force protection squadron's time spent on contracting by 50 percent, freeing them for security missions. Security was further enhanced by the installation of a $450,000 crash-rated airfield gate, U.S. Transportation Command's No. 1 priority for force protection, and by the use of radiological detection equipment to screen over 91,000 trucks in 1 year alone. This valuable equipment, valued at $150,000, was obtained by base personnel at no cost. In addition, by renovating the Security Forces firing range at a cost of $4.8 million, the base was able to increase the range's capacity by 15 percent and save 1,000 manhours per year.

Second, improvements to the quality of life on the base were considered.

Dover has pioneered Air Mobility Command's privatization effort for base housing. Dover built 240 homes in 2007 and was named the 2007 Outstanding Housing Installation Team-Privatized Location for the Air Force. The $250 million housing project is the benchmark for the command and will ultimately increase the housing standards for 980 families when complete in 2009. Dover's Services Squadron was recognized as Air Mobility Command's 2007 Youth Program of the Year and the Outdoor Recreation Program earned the Air Force's 5-Star Program Award. Quality of life for airmen was further enhanced by finalizing the design of a $13 million, 144-room dormitory that exceeds command standards and will be a model for other bases.

Keeping the Dover team, including families, healthy is critical to a high quality of life. Dover is the only base in the command with 100 percent of its pharmacy technicians nationally certified. In addition, the base was first in the command and third in the Air Force for flu immunization rates, at over 99 percent.

Third, efforts to enhance the productivity of the workforce were considered.

Dover has taken the lead role in reducing the time needed for Isochronal, ISO, inspections and, as a result, was made the regional center for all east coast C-5 Isochronal inspections in July of 2007. This is the first such regional facility in the Air Force. Historically, an ISO inspection took up to 38 days to complete. The 436th Maintenance Team reviewed the entire process to increase velocity while maintaining quality. This led the team to one record-breaking effort in which an ISO inspection was completed in only 13.2 days. These initiatives were also a key reason the 436th Maintenance Squadron won the 2006 Air Force Maintenance Effectiveness Award.

In order to reduce the time planes are on the ground, the 436th Maintenance Squadron did a complete review of how they maintained ground equipment. As a result, they were able to reduce the steps each mechanic takes from 763 to 73, saving 29.7 minutes per inspection, while reducing wait time by 34 minutes. They also saved 63.7 minutes per inspection or 26.54 manhours per year and vacated 17,660 square feet of floor space to be designated for other use. The cellular work design they came up with is considered the benchmark for such designs in the command and is a model of how the Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st century initiative and use of Lean Six Sigma, a process improvement approach first used in the private sector, can make better use of existing resources.

The Dover Operations Group improved throughput for aircraft by creating the only C-5 one-stop/jet-side service system in the Air Force. The Required Flight Manual, Flight Information Publications, weapons and tools needed by an aircrew for a mission are delivered directly to the aircraft. This reduces travel time by 20 minutes, allowing a 12-percent reduction in the C-5 launch sequence and providing more duty days for the crews to complete their missions.

Dover was able to reduce the amount of time needed to overhaul and rebuild C-5 jet engines, TF39, by 12 days, going from 75 to 63 days. The process improvement also allowed two production crews to be reassigned to other sections, regained five critical manning positions, and saved 36 manpower positions and $3.8 million in operating costs. On the whole, by reducing wasted motion for support equipment and tools, the 436th Maintenance Group has saved 73.3 annual man-days and expedited engine repairs so that they are done 5 days faster than the original standard and freeing 1,944 square feet of floor space for other work.

Another key initiative was the effort to ensure that Basic Post Flight inspections be done within 10 hours of mission completion. This initiative was begun in 2005 by the Dover Maintenance Group Commander and brought completion time down to 6 hours, a 40-percent improvement. The complete process review improved Home Station Logistics Reliability rate by 40 percent and overtime man hours were reduced by 75 percent. Overall, this means the team saved 23,000 labor-hours and $1.168 million. The mission benefits included the following: a reduced number of tail swaps, increased number of aircraft ready for flight, reduced number of late take-offs, and dramatically improved efficiency in the launch sequence of events.

The Dover team also ensured a seamless transition for the new C-17 squadron, ensuring that Dover's first C-17 was able to fly its first combat mission within 36 days of arrival. In the squadron's first month, they had a 100-percent on-time departure rate and a 99-percent mission capable rate.

In addition, once investigators were done with the 2007 C-5 crash scene, Dover personnel took the initiative to save and recover parts. Their efforts ensured that 127 parts were recovered, inspected, and restocked into the Air Force supply system, saving $7 million.

Fourth, increases in customer satisfaction or improvements in customer service were considered.

Today, Dover's key mission, or customer service, is to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Twenty-seven percent of the entire Department of Defense airlift requirement last year went from Dover. The 3rd and 9th Airlift Squadrons flew more than 8,000 hours, with more than 2,000 combat hours and 460 combat missions. The two squadrons combined airlifted 59.4 million pounds of cargo and more than 12,000 passengers.

Dover is the second busiest en route airfield in the Department of Defense. It supported 3,000 en route missions in 2007 with a 95-percent departure reliability rate.

In addition, Dover assisted America's diplomatic efforts and the State Department by supporting foreign military sales to 32 countries, handling 85 missions and 950 tons of cargo.

The Dover team also made sure that it provided the best possible services to military personnel and their families on base. Access to mental health care was increased by 35 percent, despite a 40-percent decrease in manning. This exceeded the command's goal for access by 20 percent. In order to keep basic operations functioning, the Communications Squadron answered 99 percent of their 2,700 assistance requests within 2 days. That is 4 percent better than the Air Force standard.

In an effort to improve safety and provide instantaneous responses to emergencies with existing resources, the Civil Engineer Fire Department teamed with the Medical Group to provide 24/7 ambulance service. The Medical Group Airmen who provide ambulance response are now co-located at the emergency call center at the base Fire Department.

Fifth, efforts to encourage bottom-to-top communication and team problem solving were considered.

Dover has been a true leader in implementing Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st century. The key to the success of this initiative to make operations more streamlined and ``lean'' has been clear communication and a team approach. In recognition of this excellence, Dover has hosted numerous training sessions for units from five major commands, Air Force senior leaders, and for the Royal Air Force. Dover instructors have trained 4,200 students in Basic Lean Awareness including a program at the First Term Airmen Center.

Dover is the first base in the command to have two fully qualified level-2 facilitators. These facilitators certified seven level-1 facilitators and trained another 20 level-1 students. They have successfully made operations more efficient in over 50 areas in just 1 year. In addition, Dover's trainers ensured that 210 future Ramstein Air Force Base and Charleston Air Force Base facilitators understood the basics of lean initiatives. These efforts won the Dover team praise from the Logistics Director at Air Mobility Command Headquarters.

Sixth, the promotion of unit cohesiveness and the recognition of outstanding individual effort was considered.

The Dover team won two Department of Defense, one Secretary of the Air Force, 12 Air Force, and 93 Air Mobility Command Awards in 2006. In addition, they won the 2007 U.S. Small Business Administration Award for the State of Delaware. One critical example of why these awards were won is in antiterrorism, where they won command honors for the ninth consecutive year for best

antiterrorism and force protection programs. Dover was able to obtain $1.2 million in Combating Terrorism Readiness Initiative Funds that it used to resolve installation vulnerabilities, resulting in winning the Department of Defense's Best Antiterrorism Operational Unit in 2006 and the Department of Defense's Best Antiterrorism Program Manager Awards for 2007. The Dover team won these awards by completing over 20 antiterrorism and force protection initiatives that created a hard target security signature. These efforts paid off by deterring Fort Dix terrorists from attacking Dover AFB. This event permeated Air Force culture and is commonly referred to as the ``Dover Effect.''

Seventh, the promotion of energy conservation and environmental safety, including compliance, remediation, and stewardship, was considered.

The maintenance squadron at Dover was able to dramatically improve the process for cleaning ground equipment while also making it more environmentally sound. Formerly all ground equipment had to be moved to a separate wash facility primarily used for aircraft. Through careful research, a completely self-contained wash system with zero environmental impact was selected, designed, and installed in the ground equipment facility. This decreased travel time from 190 hours to 12 hours a year, a 94-percent savings. This increased the capability and availability for ground equipment, alleviated contractual issues that had arisen with the old cleaning system, and reduced the chance for aircraft delays. The new process is environmentally friendly and captures, filters, and recycles all waste water.

Dover also received the 2006 Secretary of Defense Environmental Restoration Award for Best Environmental Restoration Program for its restoration of natural resources used to support the base's warfighting mission. Dover reached the Defense Department's environmental goals 4 to 8 years ahead of schedule. Activities at Dover Air Force Base which earned this award include, but are not limited to: obtaining regulator signatures on six Records of Decision for 39 sites in 6 months; achieving Response Complete status at 27 of Dover's 59 sites; opening up 54 acres of formerly restricted land for use in supporting the base's mission; and completing Remedial Designs and Work Plans for 17 sites in only 3 months.

In addition, Dover won the 2006 Air Force General Thomas D. White Environmental Award which recognizes the efforts of installations and individuals to improve environmental quality, restoration, pollution prevention, recycling, and conservation of natural and cultural resources. Dover is 6 years ahead of schedule in its environmental remediation program.

These are the areas that the selection committee looked at when it decided which base was the best in the Air Force this past year. It is obvious that in every area, the Dover team took seriously the challenge to improve base operations and the quality of life wherever possible. From the smallest process improvements to the largest investments in critical infrastructure, Dover personnel found ways to do more. The result is not just that they upheld the base's long tradition of excellence, they surpassed it. In so doing, they have truly given our Nation their best and have made me and every Delawarean proud. We have always known Dover is the best in the Air Force. It is time the rest of the Nation knew about your excellence.

Congratulations, Dover Air Force Base!

Mr. President, I have been instructed by the Budget Committee that I have to ask for a modification of the amendment. The pagination on the amendment was off. First, I call up amendment No. 4164.

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

Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk. As I explained to my colleagues, the pagination in the amendment was incorrect.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. My amendment will support full funding for the COPS Program. It is fully offset by an across-the-board cut in nondefense discretionary spending. The chairman asked whether I would be willing to have a voice vote. At this hour of the night, I would be willing to do about anything he asked me to do, including a voice vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4245.

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

Mr. President, this amendment reinstates the President's international affairs budget to the number he called for, No. 1. No. 2, it has 34 cosponsors, evenly divided, Republicans and Democrats. Everyone from Senator Lugar to Senator Vitter and everyone in between has cosponsored this amendment.

No. 3, the point I would like to make is, Defense Secretary Gates, as well as 50 flag officers, represented by General Zinni and Admiral Smith, as well as our commanders in the field, all recognize we are spending $19 to $1--19 military dollars to every one civilian dollar we spend--to deal with international affairs. I will conclude by saying, when I was in Afghanistan last week, the commanding general made the comment the Taliban begins where the road ends.

I say to my colleagues this is critically important to our physical security to fund the international function because it is redevelopment money to go to Afghanistan.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the higher education tax provisions included in the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution.

I would like to begin by commending Chairman Conrad and the rest of the Budget Committee for their foresight in providing for $13 billion in tax relief to help make college more accessible and affordable. Prioritizing education in this year's budget, in my opinion, is a step in the right direction. If we do not change the status quo, over the next decade, an estimated 2 million students will not attend college because their families cannot afford it. We must not stand idly by while the goal of providing a better future for our children becomes unattainable. Qualified students should not be denied access to a college education because they cannot afford it.

Since my first Senate campaign in 1972, I have supported tax incentives to help families send their children to college. While we have come a long way since then, we must do more, such as enacting the bill I introduced last year--the College Affordability and Creating Chances for Educational Success for Students Act, S.1399--or ``College ACCESS Act.'' I would encourage my colleagues to consider one specific provision in the College ACCESS Act: the creation of a single $3,000 refundable tax credit, or the ACCESS credit.

The ACCESS credit would consolidate two existing tax incentives--the Hope credit and the tuition deduction--and replace them with a single $3,000 refundable tax credit. Families would no longer face the complex and varying eligibility criteria or the difficult task of determining which tax incentive has the greatest value. The ACCESS credit improves the existing tax incentives in several ways.

First, the ACCESS credit would allow families to claim the credit for each child in their household. While the Hope credit can be claimed for multiple students in a household, the tuition deduction can only be claimed once per tax return. The ACCESS credit removes this discrepancy.

Second, the ACCESS credit would be available for all 4 years of college and 2 years of graduate school. Presently, the Hope credit is available only for the first 2 years of a student's postsecondary education while the tuition deduction can be claimed for multiple years. The ACCESS credit remedies this discrepancy.

Another improvement is that the maximum value of the ACCESS credit is $3,000 per student, which covers the average cost of tuition at a public 2-year college and half the average cost of tuition at a public 4-year college. In comparison, the Hope credit's maximum value is only $1,650 per student and the tuition deduction's maximum value is only $1,120 per household.

One of the most important features of the ACCESS credit is that it would be refundable. The existing tax incentives for higher education are of limited or no benefit to low-income families who have no income tax liability. These families cannot claim either the Hope credit or the tuition deduction. The ACCESS credit's refundability provides relief for those that need it the most.

The ACCESS credit also broadens the income eligibility limits to help more middle-class families. Couples earning up to $130,000 could claim the full credit, while a reduced credit would be available for those earning up to $166,000.

A report issued by the Government Accountability Office found that 27 percent of eligible tax filers claimed neither the tuition deduction nor an education tax credit because of their complexity. Tax incentives cannot benefit students and their families if they do not know about them or understand their eligibility criteria or their value. The ACCESS credit would eliminate existing discrepancies and reduce the complexity of the existing incentives for students and their families, helping approximately 4 million more hard-working American families pay for college.

While a college education has never been more important, a college degree is fast becoming a luxury good for too many families. This budget provides us with an opportunity to reverse that trend. If we expect to maintain our status as a leader in the global economy, we must do more for our students. The ACCESS credit I have introduced would do just that, ensuring that the doors that lead to opportunity in our country remain open to all our children.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Hatch and Senator Specter to introduce the Child Protection Improvements Act of 2008. This bill will expand and make permanent the national child safety pilot program that we passed as part of the PROTECT Act back in 2003. This bill is, in my view, an absolutely essential step towards developing a comprehensive approach to protect our Nation's children.

Human service organizations rely on volunteers and employees to provide services and care to children. These individuals coach soccer games, mentor young people, run youth camps, and much more. Approximately 61 million adults currently volunteer--with 27 percent dedicating their volunteer service to education and youth programs. By volunteering, they necessarily gain very close, often unsupervised access to our children. Of course, the vast majority of these people have the best interest of our children at heart--and we need as many volunteers as we can get. But, at the same time, we have to understand that bad people will take any step they can to gain access to children and many attempt to do this by volunteering.

Congress has previously attempted to ensure that States make FBI criminal history record checks available to organizations seeking to screen employees and volunteers who work with children, through the National Child Protection Act of 1993 and the Volunteers for Children Act. However, according to a report from the Attorney General, these laws ``did not have the intended impact of broadening the availability of checks.'' A 2007 survey conducted by MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership found that only 18 States allowed youth mentoring organizations to access nationwide Federal Bureau of Investigation background searches. And, even when states do provide access to background checks, it can be expensive and time consuming.

With the PROTECT Act pilot we decided to give some groups a direct line towards obtaining a national background check from the FBI and obtaining a fitness determination by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to see whether the applicant could present a potential threat to children. Thanks to the hard work and commitment of NCMEC, the FBI, MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership, and others this pilot program has proven incredibly effective. During the course of the pilot, we conducted roughly 37,000 background checks. Of these checks, 6.1 percent of prospective volunteers were found to have a criminal record of concern--including very serious offenses like sexual abuse of minors, assaults, murder, and serious drug offenses. In all, this represents over 2,200 dangerous people we prevented from working as volunteers with children. In addition, over 40 percent of the individuals with criminal records had committed an offense in a state other than where they were applying to volunteer, meaning that a state- only search would not have found relevant criminal records. In my view, this speaks to the urgent need of expanding this pilot to more groups and towards making the program permanent.

Despite these successes, the pilot was limited in several respects. The pilot was limited in scope with only a few youth-serving entities able to participate, and irregularities with respect to the annual appropriations process made it extremely difficult to operate the program to its fullest extent. With the legislation, we are introducing today, we build upon the lessons learned by taking the following steps: make the program permanent, which will help ensure that long-term investments are made to make the program effective and inexpensive; establish an Applicant Processing Center, APC, to assist youth serving organizations with the administrative tasks related to accessing the system, such as obtaining a fingerprint and handling billing with the FBI; and permanently establish and upgrade the fitness determination process at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

In addition, we authorize the collection of a small surcharge to pay the FBI fee and offset the expenses incurred by National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the Applicant Processing Center. With literally millions of volunteers working with our Nation's youth every year, it is imperative to provide a mechanism to allow more youth-serving organizations access and ensure a steady stream of resources to allow the program to grow toward the goal of protecting more children. This bill will do that.

Before closing, I want to touch on fee for service component which is added to this bill. Of course, the goal has always been that the checks have to be fast, inexpensive, and accurate for these checks to be suitable for non-profit organizations. By adding a small surcharge to the fee the FBI charges, we maintain that goal while expanding access. The bottom line is this--youth-serving organizations have told us that the ability to consistently obtain background checks and fitness determinations is critical and they will pay a little more to have access. Because Federal resources are simply not sufficient to provide wide access, and because the ebb and flow of the appropriations process creates instability with respect to how many checks can be completed, we felt that a small surcharge was the right approach.

Even with the surcharge, we still keep the cost very low. The bill calls for a fee no greater than $25 or the actual costs of preparing the application, running the background check by the FBI, and making the fitness determination by NCMEC for nonprofits. The applicant processing center created in this bill will collect this fee and make sure that all the costs are offset. And the goal is that this fee will offset all of the costs so that we can grow a system that is available to a wide range of entities that work with children. As of today, the American Camp Association, the Afterschool Alliance, the America's Promise Alliance, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Communities In Schools, Inc., First Focus, MENTOR/ National Mentoring Partnership, and YMCA of the USA all agree with this approach.

In addition, the bill authorizes $5 million in 2009 for startup costs and to develop new processes and technologies to automate and streamline the functions to keep costs down. And, while it's not a part of this legislation, I hope that we can get some of our great technology companies to help us with this effort by possibly donating some of their time, expertise, and ingenuity towards helping us automate the process--especially with the fitness determination process at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children which is a time consuming, labor-intensive process involving the manual review of criminal rap sheets. We formed a similar public-private partnership when we established the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and I hope we will be able to replicate that success here. Once we get this bill passed, I will be reaching out to some of our best technology companies to see if they can help us ensure that these checks remain inexpensive and

available for as many youth-serving groups as possible.

I would once again like to thank my colleagues Senator Hatch's and Senator Specter's work on crafting this bill. We proved that we can help protect children at a low cost with the pilot program, and I believe that this bill will help expand access to a greater number of groups so that we can grow that number of protected children exponentially. To me, this is exactly the kind of service that the government owes to its people, and I look forward to its prompt passage before the expiration of the pilot program on July 30th, later this summer.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Hatch and Senator Specter to introduce the Child Protection Improvements Act of 2008. This bill will expand and make permanent the national child safety pilot program that we passed as part of the PROTECT Act back in 2003. This bill is, in my view, an absolutely essential step towards developing a comprehensive approach to protect our Nation's children.

Human service organizations rely on volunteers and employees to provide services and care to children. These individuals coach soccer games, mentor young people, run youth camps, and much more. Approximately 61 million adults currently volunteer--with 27 percent dedicating their volunteer service to education and youth programs. By volunteering, they necessarily gain very close, often unsupervised access to our children. Of course, the vast majority of these people have the best interest of our children at heart--and we need as many volunteers as we can get. But, at the same time, we have to understand that bad people will take any step they can to gain access to children and many attempt to do this by volunteering.

Congress has previously attempted to ensure that States make FBI criminal history record checks available to organizations seeking to screen employees and volunteers who work with children, through the National Child Protection Act of 1993 and the Volunteers for Children Act. However, according to a report from the Attorney General, these laws ``did not have the intended impact of broadening the availability of checks.'' A 2007 survey conducted by MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership found that only 18 States allowed youth mentoring organizations to access nationwide Federal Bureau of Investigation background searches. And, even when states do provide access to background checks, it can be expensive and time consuming.

With the PROTECT Act pilot we decided to give some groups a direct line towards obtaining a national background check from the FBI and obtaining a fitness determination by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to see whether the applicant could present a potential threat to children. Thanks to the hard work and commitment of NCMEC, the FBI, MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership, and others this pilot program has proven incredibly effective. During the course of the pilot, we conducted roughly 37,000 background checks. Of these checks, 6.1 percent of prospective volunteers were found to have a criminal record of concern--including very serious offenses like sexual abuse of minors, assaults, murder, and serious drug offenses. In all, this represents over 2,200 dangerous people we prevented from working as volunteers with children. In addition, over 40 percent of the individuals with criminal records had committed an offense in a state other than where they were applying to volunteer, meaning that a state- only search would not have found relevant criminal records. In my view, this speaks to the urgent need of expanding this pilot to more groups and towards making the program permanent.

Despite these successes, the pilot was limited in several respects. The pilot was limited in scope with only a few youth-serving entities able to participate, and irregularities with respect to the annual appropriations process made it extremely difficult to operate the program to its fullest extent. With the legislation, we are introducing today, we build upon the lessons learned by taking the following steps: make the program permanent, which will help ensure that long-term investments are made to make the program effective and inexpensive; establish an Applicant Processing Center, APC, to assist youth serving organizations with the administrative tasks related to accessing the system, such as obtaining a fingerprint and handling billing with the FBI; and permanently establish and upgrade the fitness determination process at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

In addition, we authorize the collection of a small surcharge to pay the FBI fee and offset the expenses incurred by National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the Applicant Processing Center. With literally millions of volunteers working with our Nation's youth every year, it is imperative to provide a mechanism to allow more youth-serving organizations access and ensure a steady stream of resources to allow the program to grow toward the goal of protecting more children. This bill will do that.

Before closing, I want to touch on fee for service component which is added to this bill. Of course, the goal has always been that the checks have to be fast, inexpensive, and accurate for these checks to be suitable for non-profit organizations. By adding a small surcharge to the fee the FBI charges, we maintain that goal while expanding access. The bottom line is this--youth-serving organizations have told us that the ability to consistently obtain background checks and fitness determinations is critical and they will pay a little more to have access. Because Federal resources are simply not sufficient to provide wide access, and because the ebb and flow of the appropriations process creates instability with respect to how many checks can be completed, we felt that a small surcharge was the right approach.

Even with the surcharge, we still keep the cost very low. The bill calls for a fee no greater than $25 or the actual costs of preparing the application, running the background check by the FBI, and making the fitness determination by NCMEC for nonprofits. The applicant processing center created in this bill will collect this fee and make sure that all the costs are offset. And the goal is that this fee will offset all of the costs so that we can grow a system that is available to a wide range of entities that work with children. As of today, the American Camp Association, the Afterschool Alliance, the America's Promise Alliance, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Communities In Schools, Inc., First Focus, MENTOR/ National Mentoring Partnership, and YMCA of the USA all agree with this approach.

In addition, the bill authorizes $5 million in 2009 for startup costs and to develop new processes and technologies to automate and streamline the functions to keep costs down. And, while it's not a part of this legislation, I hope that we can get some of our great technology companies to help us with this effort by possibly donating some of their time, expertise, and ingenuity towards helping us automate the process--especially with the fitness determination process at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children which is a time consuming, labor-intensive process involving the manual review of criminal rap sheets. We formed a similar public-private partnership when we established the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and I hope we will be able to replicate that success here. Once we get this bill passed, I will be reaching out to some of our best technology companies to see if they can help us ensure that these checks remain inexpensive and

available for as many youth-serving groups as possible.

I would once again like to thank my colleagues Senator Hatch's and Senator Specter's work on crafting this bill. We proved that we can help protect children at a low cost with the pilot program, and I believe that this bill will help expand access to a greater number of groups so that we can grow that number of protected children exponentially. To me, this is exactly the kind of service that the government owes to its people, and I look forward to its prompt passage before the expiration of the pilot program on July 30th, later this summer.

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

Madam President, I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee. It is a job I don't envy.

Let me say at the outset, I have two purposes in rising today. One is, I am going to, at the end of my comments, introduce an amendment that restores full funding for the 150 function, the State Department budget, cosponsored by Senators Feinstein, Smith, Durbin, Sununu, Dodd, Martinez, Menendez, Snowe, Kerry, Collins, Levin, Voinovich, Obama, Corker, Leahy, and Hagel.

What I rise to speak to now is an amendment already at the desk, amendment No. 4164. That amendment will add $551 million to the $599 million already provided in the budget resolution for the COPS Program for a total funding of $1.15 billion. I thank the Budget Committee for allocating the $599 million to the COPS Program in this resolution. That is a significant increase from the President's priorities. In fact, for the first time since its inception in 1994, the President's budget proposes to eliminate the COPS Program entirely. I am offering my amendment to get us closer to full funding of the level of $1.15 billion that proved successful in driving down crime in the 1990s.

I realize I am a broken record on this issue. Each year my colleagues hear me come down and talk about the COPS Program, the fact that we have to fully fund the program. Why am I such an advocate for the COPS Program? Mostly because I wrote the original legislation. There is a tendency around here, if you write something, you hang onto it, even if it no longer functions. But that is not the reason. It is not pride of authorship. I support it because it works. It worked. It continues to work. And it will work even better if we fund it.

In the 8 years following the creation of the COPS Program, we have driven down violent crime by 30 percent in the United States. Cops and sheriffs themselves have told us the COPS Program works and is critical to their ability to keep communities safe. In addition, we have one dozen academic studies showing that COPS grants help reduce crimes in cities of all sizes.

If it ain't broke, as Ronald Reagan used to say, why fix it? I have never heard the other side argue that this program does not work. They all agree it works. But they choose not to fund it because they think funding of local law enforcement is not a Federal responsibility or that we need to defund the program to be fiscally responsible. The truth is, this devolution of Government argument I find not very compelling. The argument that the Federal Government has no responsibility for local crime would be true if the Federal Government had no responsibility, if the States were able to do something about the drugs pouring across our international borders, if, in fact, States were able to affect crime coming across their borders from some other States, if, in fact, they had jurisdiction to reach out and deal with 60 percent of the crime that occurs in their communities because of drug abuse and drug trafficking. So there is an overwhelming Federal responsibility here.

My view is that allowing crime rates to grow and not doing everything in our power to protect our constituents is irresponsible. It is not that we are being fiscally responsible, we are being irresponsible by not funding programs we know work.

I should point out, the COPS Program actually saves money in the long run. I hear from some of my neoconservative friends, who are big on the devolution of Government and fiscal responsibility, as they talk about it. I also hear them use phrases as businesspeople: You have to spend money to make money. Well, we should, as I say, change the paradigm here.

Last March, the Brookings Institute issued a study showing that the COPS Program greatly benefits society as a whole. The study found that every $1.4 billion invested in COPS generates a benefit to society of between $6 billion and $12 billion by reducing crime. According to Brookings scholars:

COPS appears to be one of the most cost-effective options

available for fighting crime.

That is because when you prevent a crime or you fight crime, you do not pay for the cost of the injury, you do not pay for the cost of the physical damage done to the community, you do not pay for all the ancillary costs that are associated with high crime rates. You actually save money by spending money on COPS.

The Bush administration argues that because crime is lower than it was in the early 1990s, we can afford to slash crime-fighting assistance. Well, I find that striking. I start with the basic premise that if we do not see a drop in crime rates each year, then we failed. The fact is, we talk about the number of crimes, violent crimes being committed in America. If you take the total number of crimes being committed, even though they have leveled out or are only slightly increasing, they are down from the high points in the mid 1980s and the early 1990s. The fact is, there are still over 1,400,000 of those crimes being committed. Is that OK? Should we not spend money to deal with what is still an incredible number of crimes committed in America--17,000-plus murders this year? We need to get back on track now.

Our law enforcement agencies are facing a perfect storm. Let me explain why I mean by that.

Since he took office, the President has cut annual funding to COPS and Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Programs by $1.7 billion. The President's budget proposes now to eliminate these programs entirely. At the same time, he asks State and local law enforcement to take on new responsibilities--new responsibilities--relating to counterterrorism, homeland security, and immigration duties. The President is asking cops to do much more and giving them considerably less.

The FBI agents reassigned away from fighting crime to terrorism--and they must do that--have not been replaced. One investigative report last year stated that the number of criminal cases investigated by the FBI has dropped by 34 percent. I am not being critical of the FBI, nor critical of the commitment to counterterrorism. But in our effort to protect America from terrorism, we cannot leave them vulnerable to violent crime on their streets. It does not matter if you get blown up by a terrorist or shot by a drug thug on the street, you are dead. You are dead. Family members do not make a distinction between how you die. We have to protect them from both the crime on the street and from terrorism. That takes a commitment of resources that has been lacking in recent years.

Finally, the economy has slowed down. The Washington Post reported recently that next year 20 States expect their budgets to be in the red. As State governments are forced to tighten their belts and cut back on critical law enforcement funding, as they do that, Federal assistance is going to become even more important.

Many of you have heard me say this before: Fighting crime is like cutting grass. This spring, when the grass begins to grow, you go out and cut it. For 1 week, it is going to look great. Don't cut it for 2 weeks, it looks a little ragged. Don't cut it for a month, it is really ragged. Don't cut it for the summer, and you have a jungle in your front yard.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once said in another context: Society is like a wave. The wave moves on, but the particles remain the same.

God hasn't made a new brand of man in a millennia. As long as there are people and the population is increasing, there is going to be continued crime. The idea that we can spend less money one year than the year before in fighting crime I find preposterous because you do not change human nature.

Many of you have, as I have said, heard me say this for a long, long time. But the fact is, we have neglected State and local law enforcement for much too long, and we have an increasing problem on our hands.

A recent poll published by the nonpartisan Third Way indicates that 94 percent of Americans view crime as a ``very serious'' or ``fairly serious'' problem. Sixty-nine percent of Americans think violent crime is a bigger threat to them than the possibility of terrorist attacks. It is sort of a self-evident proposition, but it is interesting to know they feel that way.

The concerns of these Americans are serious, and they are real. Last year, 1.4 million Americans were victims of violent crime. Now, if crime is down from what it was a decade ago, is that an acceptable rate? Is it acceptable to say we do not have to spend any more money, we can level off violent crime at 1.4 million violent crimes a year? Are we doing our job? Are we winning the war? Are we protecting Americans? How can we justify spending less money when there are still 1.4 million violent crimes in America? More than 445,000 Americans were robbed. More than 17,000 were murdered. Is there anyone in this body who does not think these numbers are unacceptably high for a civilized nation? We know what the solution is. We know how to make American communities safer. But we know it takes a commitment, and it takes a financial commitment.

In all my years dealing with this issue of crime and the criminal justice system, there are only a few things we know for sure. One is, the older you get, the less violent crimes you commit because it is harder to run down the street being chased by a cop and to jump a chain-link fence when you are 50 years old. So violent crime decreases as you get older. The other thing we know for sure is that cops matter. If there is going to be a crime committed at an intersection and there are three cops at that intersection, the crime is going to be committed on the corner of the intersection where the cops are not standing. Cops matter.

So I find it preposterous that no one has argued against the merits-- the merits--of the COPS Program and the crime bill originally written. No one argues that it does not work, but they argue we fiscally cannot afford it. Can we afford 17,000 murders in this civilized country? Can we afford 1.4 million violent acts against our fellow citizens? Can we afford 445,000 robberies, for which we know if we commit these resources of $1.15 billion a year we can significantly reduce the number

of people being victims of violent crime?

My amendment will add $551 million for the COPS Program to support the local law enforcement officials on the front lines, and it is fully offset by an across-the-board cut to nondefense, discretionary spending.

So when the appropriate time comes, I will urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I might add, it passed last year. It passed, and it passed the appropriations process until we ended up with a continuing resolution. So there has been overwhelming support for this, and I think it is needed.

Now, Madam President, I would like to turn, in the moments I have left, to an amendment I would like to offer at this time for myself and Senator Lugar. We are joined by a number of our colleagues whom I mentioned earlier. Our amendment builds on similar work done by Senator Feinstein. We all share the same goal.

My amendment restores the full amount of the President's requested $39.5 billion to the international affairs budget. To put this in perspective, for every $19 we spend on the military, we spend $1--$1-- on diplomacy and development.

Last week, two distinguished former senior military officers, GEN Anthony Zinni and Admiral Smith, came before the Foreign Relations Committee to tell us that we must reorder our Nation's priorities in order to protect our national security. With more than 50 of their fellow former flag officers behind them, they are calling for a new emphasis on smart power--using our Nation's diplomatic and economic resources to protect our interests.

Secretary of Defense Gates has made the same point absolutely clear. He said:

Having robust civilian capabilities could make it less

likely that military force will have to be used in the first

place.

We can all see the results in both Iraq and Afghanistan of not having those capabilities, the resources, or the plan to turn military action into a sustainable peace.

But Secretary Gates was also perfectly clear about the real issue. In his words:

Sometimes there is no substitute for money.

He was talking about the need for an international affairs budget that can do the jobs that are now increasingly shifted onto our overburdened military or simply are not being done at all. The way we do things now, we have, in his words, ``field artillerymen and tankers building schools and mentoring city councils--usually in a language they don't speak.''

We have to do better. We face many challenges around the world in the rise of religious fundamentalism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the spread of disease, and failed states. They are all vectors that, in fact, intersect and cause great threats to us. Not one of them can be met solely or even primarily with military force. No one knows that better than our men and women in uniform.

The message we heard in our committee last week was: ``We cannot rely on military power alone to make our nation secure.'' Yet, as I said, for every $19 we spend on military resources, barely $1 goes toward civilian programs that can prevent military action, support a balanced response to security threats, or secure the peace once the shooting stops. We spend more in 3 weeks on military operations in Iraq, for example, than we have spent since 9/11 to rebuild and secure Afghanistan--the total amount of money spent in Afghanistan, which is one end of the superhighway of terrorism between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We have spent less money, since 9/11, in Afghanistan defeating the Taliban and dealing with its civilian as well as military needs than we spend for 3 weeks in Iraq. This amendment will not fix that problem, but it will keep us from making it worse.

Last month, I wrote to my colleagues on the Budget Committee asking them to treat the President's budget for international operations ``as a floor, not a ceiling.'' I ask unanimous consent, Madam President, to have a copy of my views printed in the Record.

Madam President, working under tight constraints, the committee reduced the President's budget request by $4.1 billion. I understand they have a difficult task and a great staff, but I believe we have to do a lot better.

I ask my colleagues today to join me, when this amendment comes forward, in restoring the full $39.5 billion the President requested. That will allow us to at least continue the work now underway to help rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, to support our ongoing nonproliferation programs, to provide the manpower and skills for our Civilian Stabilization Initiative, to fight AIDS, and to do all the things that reduce threats, relieve human suffering, and help to rebuild the moral stature of the United States in the world.

Our amendment is supported by the One Campaign, Interaction, the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign, and many other groups, many of whom are men and women who have worn the uniform their whole life.

The money we are asking for is less than a couple weeks of military operations in Iraq. It is an absolutely essential investment in our national security. So at the appropriate time, I will urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam President, I thank my colleagues for the time on the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.