Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleagues for passing yesterday by unanimous consent the Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act of 2007, which I introduced in March of last year. I am delighted that my colleagues, Senators Specter, Brownback, and Leahy, and I were able to bring Democrats and Republicans together to support this very important piece of legislation.

The bill aims to reduce the rate of recidivism by improving the transition of offenders from prison back into the community. Preventing recidivism is not only the right thing to do, it makes our communities safer and it saves us money.

Today, we have over 2 million individuals in our Federal and State prisons and millions more in local jails. Our Federal and State prisons will release nearly 650,000 of these offenders back into our communities this year. A staggering two-thirds of released State prisoners will be rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years of release.

It is not difficult to see why. These ex-offenders face a number of difficult challenges upon release. The unemployment rate among former inmates is as high as 60 percent; 15 to 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. This addiction and dependency often continues during incarceration.

Unless we address these problems, these individuals will commit hundreds of thousands of serious crimes after their release, and our communities will bear the human and economic cost. If we are going to reduce recidivism and crime, we simply have to make concerted, common- sense efforts now to help ex-offenders successfully reenter and reintegrate into their communities.

The Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act of 2007 confronts head-on the dire situation of prisoners reentering our communities with insufficient monitoring, little or no job skills, inadequate drug treatment, insufficient housing, lack of basic physical and mental health services, and deficient basic life skills. Through commonsense and cost-effective measures, the bill offers a second chance for ex- offenders, and the children and families that depend on them, and it strengthens our communities and ensures safe neighborhoods.

The Second Chance Act provides grants for the development and implementation of comprehensive substance abuse treatment programs, academic and vocational education programs, housing and job counseling programs, and mentoring for offenders who are approaching release and who have been released. To ensure accountability, the bill requires grantees to establish performance goals and benchmarks and report the results to Congress.

The bill authorizes $324 million over 2 years in competitive grant funding. These funds represent an investment in our future and an acknowledgement of the problem we face. 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. That is more than a 6-fold increase, and the costs keep going up.

A relatively modest investment in offender reentry efforts today is far more cost-effective than the alternative--building more prisons for these ex-offenders to return to if they can't reenter their communities and are convicted of further crimes. An ounce of prevention, as the saying goes, is worth a pound of cure.

I am proud today to witness the passage of the Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act, a bill that will transform offender reentry policy in this country. The safety of our neighbors, our children, and our communities depends on it. I urge the President to quickly sign this bill into law.

I would particularly like to thank Nancy Libin on my staff, Lisa Owings on Senator Specter's staff, LaRochelle Young on Senator Brownback's staff, and Noah Bookbinder on Senator Leahy's staff, all of whom worked tirelessly to get this bill passed.

Mr. President, on March 8 we will commemorate International Women's Day, which, since 1911, has given us an opportunity to pause and assess the status of women worldwide. Since that time, we have seen great achievements by women in many parts of the world. The last century began with women in the United States fighting for the right to vote, while today we see the first real chance that a woman will be elected President.

While substantial progress has been made here and in other countries, millions of women around the world continue to live in poverty and fear. Women are denied decent health care, denied economic opportunities, denied education, and denied security for themselves and their children. Women face epidemic levels of violence. One in three women worldwide will experience gender-based violence in her lifetime. In some countries, that is true for 70 percent of women. No country is immune. From the trafficking of women in Eastern Europe, to ``honor'' killings in the Middle East, to the use of rape as a weapon of war in Darfur and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, violence against women and girls crosses all borders and affects women in all social groups, religions and socioeconomic classes.

A recently released survey of 1,500 women in Iraq by Women for Women International indicates that women there are suffering high levels of violence. The survey found that 63.9 percent of those surveyed believe that violence against women is increasing for reasons including lack of respect for women's rights and a worsening economy. The report quotes a police chief in the southern city of Basra who says that ``[r]eligious vigilantes have killed at least 40 women this year . . . because of how they dressed, their mutilated bodies found with notes warning against `violating Islamic teachings.' ''

Violence has a profound impact on the health and development of countries worldwide. Violence against women and girls violates their basic human rights. It impedes women's full and active participation in their communities and societies. And it limits our effort to foster development around the world. Violence prevents girls from going to school, stops women from holding jobs, and limits access to critical health care for women and their children. We can't eradicate poverty and disease unless we prevent and respond to the violence women face in their own homes and communities. And we can't empower women to become active in civic life and promote peace, prosperity and democracy unless they personally are free from fear of violence. It is no surprise, then, that at this year's World Economic Forum, Secretary Rice stated that if she could focus on one thing in developing countries, it would be the empowerment of women.

Violence against women is a global health crisis, not just because so many women and girls are injured and die but also because the violence interferes with efforts to save the lives of pregnant women and babies. Rape increases vulnerability to HIV-AIDS transmission. In sub-Saharan Africa alone, women account for close to three-quarters of those living with HIV-AIDS between the ages 18 and 24.

The picture is grim and can be discouraging. But the good news is that local organizations are working in communities around the world with courage, sensitivity, and success to help women overcome violence at home, in school, and at work. Governments are bringing together all sectors of their country to try to prevent and end abuse. But they need our help.

We have made tremendous progress in reducing violence against women here in the United States since we passed the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, in 1994. It is time to throw our weight and leadership behind efforts to help women and their families worldwide lead safer, healthier lives. Stopping gender-based violence isn't just the moral thing to do; it is also smart diplomacy since violence contributes to the poverty, inequality, and instability that threaten our security.

Last fall, Senator Lugar and I introduced S. 2279, the International Violence Against Women Act. This groundbreaking, bipartisan legislation would ensure that our foreign assistance programs include efforts to end gender-based violence.

We would accomplish this goal in three ways:

First, we propose to reorganize and rejuvenate the gender-related efforts of the State Department by creating one central office--the Office for Women's Global Initiatives, directed by a Senate-confirmed Ambassador who reports directly to the Secretary of State. The coordinator will monitor and coordinate all U.S. resources, programs, and aid abroad that deal with women's issues, including gender-based violence. This centralization will ensure the most efficient use of taxpayer funds.

Second, we mandate a 5-year, comprehensive strategy to combat violence against women in 10 to 20 targeted countries. We would allocate $175 million a year to support programs dealing with violence against women in five areas: the criminal and civil justice system, health care, access to education and school safety, women's economic empowerment, and public awareness campaigns that change social norms.

Third, we know through terrible experience that women and girls are especially vulnerable to violence in humanitarian crises and in conflict and postconflict situations. Reports of refugee women being raped while collecting firewood, soldiers sexually abusing girls through bribery with token food items, or women subjected to torture as a tool of war are horrific. The act requires training for workers and peacekeeping forces and establishes reporting mechanisms and other emergency measures.

The issue of violence against women and girls is complex, and our legislation is ambitious. We are mindful that no country has a perfect record or all the answers. Yet Congress has a long and proud history of tackling complex international problems, most recently the epidemic of HIV-AIDS and the crime of human trafficking.

Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said ``Violence against women is perhaps the most shameful human rights violation. And it is perhaps the most pervasive. It knows no boundaries of geography, culture or wealth. As long as it continues, we cannot claim to be making real progress towards equity, development and peace.'' We could not agree more. Our International Violence Against Women Act brings together, for the first time, coordinated American resources and leadership to this global issue.

We believe the time is now for the United States to get actively engaged in the fight for women's lives and girls' futures. There is no better way to commemorate International Women's Day.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senators Lugar, Kennedy, and Sununu in introducing legislation to reauthorize our Government's effort to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria overseas. Entitled the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008--in recognition of the great service to this issue by our recently departed friends from the House of Representatives--the bill would continue and expand the revolutionary public health program begun 5 years ago at the initiative of President Bush.

In his State of the Union address in 2003, the President announced a dramatic proposal--to spend $15 billion over 5 years to combat HIV/AIDS globally, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, which has been hardest hit by the pandemic. Congress responded promptly, authorizing the full amount requested by the President just a few months later.

In the last 5 years, the work of the U.S. Government and its implementing partners around the world has been nothing short of miraculous. Well over a million people have been saved from almost certain death by the provision of anti-retroviral drugs. Mr. President, 150,000 babies have been born without HIV because of efforts to prevent the transmission of the disease from mothers who were so infected. Millions of people suffering from AIDS have received treatment and care. Over two million orphans and vulnerable children have received care, education and support. Across Africa, in communities large and small, we have given millions of people hope for a better and longer life.

Even the most optimistic among us would not have predicted these dramatic results. History will record that this was President Bush's finest hour--he challenged our Government, and the governments in Africa, to respond to one of the most profound crises of our time. They have met and exceeded that challenge. While implementation of the program has not been problem-free, it has proceeded at a pace and scale that was unimaginable to most of us. The credit for this success goes to thousands of dedicated people serving here and abroad, and to the American people, for their generosity in supporting this program.

We cannot, however, rest on this success. We have made progress, but the disease is still winning. Thousands of new infections occur every day. For every person enrolled in a treatment program last year, six more became infected.

Last spring, the President challenged us again--to reauthorize the program at a level of $30 billion over the next 5 years. In the course of last summer and fall, the Committee on Foreign Relations has closely reviewed the President's request and the operation of our current programs. To review the programs in the field, teams of committee staff traveled to most of the 15 ``focus'' countries that have received the bulk of the funding. They visited dozens of clinics, hospitals, and care centers. They talked to hundreds of government officials, community members and health staff working against the disease, people living with HIV/AIDS, and children orphaned by the disease. We have learned what is working--and more important, what is not working. Last fall, the committee held formal hearings to take testimony from experts from within and without the Government. The committee has also closely reviewed numerous studies performed by government agencies and nongovernmental organizations working in this field.

The Congress is now ready to act, and we are ready to respond to the President's call. The bill that we introduce today will reauthorize the Global HIV/AIDS programs for the next 5 fiscal years. It will provide authorization of appropriations of $50 billion over this period, of which $9 billion is devoted to fighting malaria and tuberculosis, two diseases that are also major causes of death in the developing world. This higher figure is justified because the President's figure of $30 billion is too low--it will barely keep pace with inflation, as we are already funding current programs at a rate above $6 billion a year. Additionally, the President's request dealt only with HIV/AIDS, although the initial legislation in 2003 covered all three deadly diseases.

The bill that we introduce will keep the basic framework of the program intact, but makes important adjustments based on lessons learned over the past 5 years. First, the bill removes most earmarks in the original law that delineated the percentages that should be devoted to treatment, to care, and to prevention. A major, congressionally mandated study by the Institute of Medicine, as well as one by the Government Accountability Office, concluded that these earmarks unduly limit flexibility for the people implementing the programs. We need to lift these restrictions in order to let our Government and local officials tailor their responses to local conditions. The only earmark that is retained is a 10 percent allocation for orphans and vulnerable children, for which there appears to be universal support.

The bill also seeks to coordinate our HIV/AIDS programs with other health and development programs. The disease does not exist in a vacuum. Across the

developing world, people afflicted with HIV/AIDS face many other health and economic challenges. We need to better coordinate all of our health programs to promote efficiencies and expand the number of people we reach. Nutrition is the best example of how we could positively affect people's lives by improving our coordination. The bill promotes local health capacity--an enormous challenge in Africa in combating this disease. Further, the bill pushes the U.S. Government to plan for the long-term. We need to move from responding to an emergency toward building sustainability--so our local partners that have the resources can take over this effort, with our technical assistance.

Perhaps most important, this legislation attempts to put major emphasis on prevention. Simply put, we cannot win the fight against HIV/AIDS unless we expand and improve efforts to prevent its spread. Such efforts must include the so-called ``ABC'' approach--abstinence, being faithful, and proper use of condoms. But they must involve much more; in some places successful prevention will require major societal and cultural change that must be initiated and led by local governments and leaders.

Last week, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs approved a reauthorization bill on a bipartisan basis. The legislation was sponsored by the acting chairman, Mr. Berman, and the ranking member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. It is endorsed by the President, who, having just returned from visiting Africa, personally urged several of us to act quickly on the reauthorization bill. The bill that we introduce today mirrors the compromise in the House in several major respects, which will facilitate a prompt conference with the other body.

In partnership with Senator Lugar, who chaired our committee when the original legislation was approved in 2003, I have scheduled a markup in the Committee on Foreign Relations next week. I am hopeful of strong support to report the bill, and that the full Senate will act on the bill soon after the Easter recess.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senators Lugar, Kennedy, and Sununu in introducing legislation to reauthorize our Government's effort to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria overseas. Entitled the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008--in recognition of the great service to this issue by our recently departed friends from the House of Representatives--the bill would continue and expand the revolutionary public health program begun 5 years ago at the initiative of President Bush.

In his State of the Union address in 2003, the President announced a dramatic proposal--to spend $15 billion over 5 years to combat HIV/AIDS globally, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, which has been hardest hit by the pandemic. Congress responded promptly, authorizing the full amount requested by the President just a few months later.

In the last 5 years, the work of the U.S. Government and its implementing partners around the world has been nothing short of miraculous. Well over a million people have been saved from almost certain death by the provision of anti-retroviral drugs. Mr. President, 150,000 babies have been born without HIV because of efforts to prevent the transmission of the disease from mothers who were so infected. Millions of people suffering from AIDS have received treatment and care. Over two million orphans and vulnerable children have received care, education and support. Across Africa, in communities large and small, we have given millions of people hope for a better and longer life.

Even the most optimistic among us would not have predicted these dramatic results. History will record that this was President Bush's finest hour--he challenged our Government, and the governments in Africa, to respond to one of the most profound crises of our time. They have met and exceeded that challenge. While implementation of the program has not been problem-free, it has proceeded at a pace and scale that was unimaginable to most of us. The credit for this success goes to thousands of dedicated people serving here and abroad, and to the American people, for their generosity in supporting this program.

We cannot, however, rest on this success. We have made progress, but the disease is still winning. Thousands of new infections occur every day. For every person enrolled in a treatment program last year, six more became infected.

Last spring, the President challenged us again--to reauthorize the program at a level of $30 billion over the next 5 years. In the course of last summer and fall, the Committee on Foreign Relations has closely reviewed the President's request and the operation of our current programs. To review the programs in the field, teams of committee staff traveled to most of the 15 ``focus'' countries that have received the bulk of the funding. They visited dozens of clinics, hospitals, and care centers. They talked to hundreds of government officials, community members and health staff working against the disease, people living with HIV/AIDS, and children orphaned by the disease. We have learned what is working--and more important, what is not working. Last fall, the committee held formal hearings to take testimony from experts from within and without the Government. The committee has also closely reviewed numerous studies performed by government agencies and nongovernmental organizations working in this field.

The Congress is now ready to act, and we are ready to respond to the President's call. The bill that we introduce today will reauthorize the Global HIV/AIDS programs for the next 5 fiscal years. It will provide authorization of appropriations of $50 billion over this period, of which $9 billion is devoted to fighting malaria and tuberculosis, two diseases that are also major causes of death in the developing world. This higher figure is justified because the President's figure of $30 billion is too low--it will barely keep pace with inflation, as we are already funding current programs at a rate above $6 billion a year. Additionally, the President's request dealt only with HIV/AIDS, although the initial legislation in 2003 covered all three deadly diseases.

The bill that we introduce will keep the basic framework of the program intact, but makes important adjustments based on lessons learned over the past 5 years. First, the bill removes most earmarks in the original law that delineated the percentages that should be devoted to treatment, to care, and to prevention. A major, congressionally mandated study by the Institute of Medicine, as well as one by the Government Accountability Office, concluded that these earmarks unduly limit flexibility for the people implementing the programs. We need to lift these restrictions in order to let our Government and local officials tailor their responses to local conditions. The only earmark that is retained is a 10 percent allocation for orphans and vulnerable children, for which there appears to be universal support.

The bill also seeks to coordinate our HIV/AIDS programs with other health and development programs. The disease does not exist in a vacuum. Across the

developing world, people afflicted with HIV/AIDS face many other health and economic challenges. We need to better coordinate all of our health programs to promote efficiencies and expand the number of people we reach. Nutrition is the best example of how we could positively affect people's lives by improving our coordination. The bill promotes local health capacity--an enormous challenge in Africa in combating this disease. Further, the bill pushes the U.S. Government to plan for the long-term. We need to move from responding to an emergency toward building sustainability--so our local partners that have the resources can take over this effort, with our technical assistance.

Perhaps most important, this legislation attempts to put major emphasis on prevention. Simply put, we cannot win the fight against HIV/AIDS unless we expand and improve efforts to prevent its spread. Such efforts must include the so-called ``ABC'' approach--abstinence, being faithful, and proper use of condoms. But they must involve much more; in some places successful prevention will require major societal and cultural change that must be initiated and led by local governments and leaders.

Last week, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs approved a reauthorization bill on a bipartisan basis. The legislation was sponsored by the acting chairman, Mr. Berman, and the ranking member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. It is endorsed by the President, who, having just returned from visiting Africa, personally urged several of us to act quickly on the reauthorization bill. The bill that we introduce today mirrors the compromise in the House in several major respects, which will facilitate a prompt conference with the other body.

In partnership with Senator Lugar, who chaired our committee when the original legislation was approved in 2003, I have scheduled a markup in the Committee on Foreign Relations next week. I am hopeful of strong support to report the bill, and that the full Senate will act on the bill soon after the Easter recess.

Madam President, today I wish to remember the Honorable W. Laird Stabler, Jr., a devoted public servant and a gentleman in the truest sense of the word. It is clear from the ways in which Delawareans from all political persuasions and all walks of life have mourned his death this week that all that knew him understand this part. He was a decent man, a man who viewed public service as a duty and a trust.

I first met Laird in 1969, when he was the house majority Leader in Dover and I was a young public defender. Despite only having served for 3 years, he had already gained a reputation as a fair and thoughtful man. In 1970, when I first sought public office as a county councilman, the people of Delaware recognized Laird's sterling character and integrity by entrusting him with the office of attorney general. He later served as U.S. attorney for the State of Delaware and, for 20 years, as Delaware's Republican National Committeeman. It seems incredible today that a man who in Delaware was literally synonymous with the Republican Party endeared himself to a generation of Democrats.

No matter where he was in his career, or whom he was representing, every decision Laird made was guided by his two most redeeming qualities: honor and integrity. As the British songwriter, Charles Dibdin, wrote: ``If honour gives greatness, [he] was great as a king.''

Laird's exceptional sense for others earned him the respect of nearly everyone he knew, from U.S. Presidents to his neighbors. His fierce devotion to his Scottish ancestry and his unending sense of humor were legendary.

Laird was that rare breed of politician who could lead with very few words. For all his commitment and knowledge, Laird led with a calm and steady hand. The universal outpouring of mourning expressed by Delawareans from every corner of the State is a testimony to his quiet dignity and nobility.

As Shakespeare wrote in ``Hamlet:'' ``He was a man, take him for all in all, I shall not look upon his like again.''

Knowing Laird Stabler, I am certain he did not judge his life based upon how others viewed him or even his great contributions to the state and country. I believe Laird would prefer to be judged based on those he loved most and those who loved him--his family. For me, it was hard to tell where Laird ended and where Peggy, his beautiful wife, began. At least from my perspective, they seemed to be a matched pair in terms of effortless grace, genuine empathy and devotion to one another. They produced a family that is a genuine reflection of their collective virtues. I know Laird III the best, and he is every bit his family. Their daughter Margaretta and son Ramsay are a genuine reflection of their parents' decency.

As a Delawarean and a Democrat, I feel privileged today to pay tribute to a Delawarean and a Republican whose life reflected what all of us strive to achieve.

Mr. President, I rise today to say farewell and thank you to my chief of staff, Alan Hoffman. As many of you know, I was fortunate enough to have had Alan leading my office from 1998 to 2003, and then had my fortunes upped when Alan made the tremendous personal sacrifice, at my request, to leave California and resume his position in 2006. While I am sorry to see him go, it is certainly understandable that Alan is now returning to the west coast, rejoining his wife in their home in Santa Monica, and taking on a major position in the University of California system.

I am indebted to Alan's invaluable leadership, wise counsel, and unwavering loyalty. The entire Biden family has come to respect and care for Alan. We all recognized right away that Alan is a thoroughly decent human being, and he quickly earned my trust. I never once doubted the judgment Alan exercised as my chief of staff. Never once.

Alan arrived at my office in 1998 having served as an assistant U.S. attorney in Philadelphia after having worked in the White House and the Department of Justice. Actually, the first time I met Alan was supposed to be for a courtesy interview as he was being considered for a high- level position with Attorney General Reno. I was so impressed with his intellect, his temperament, his passion, and his values that I thought, I want this guy to work for me. I felt it was quite the coup when he accepted my offer.

Alan brought the smarts and experience to quickly grasp the salient points of any issue, and a deft hand on how to advance policy initiatives. I have benefited enormously from Alan's excellent sensibilities. He has sharp political sense, a keen sense of timing, a sense of what makes people tick, and a sense of humor. Alan has tremendous awe and respect for the work being done by the United States Senate, and yet, at the same time, he has an underlying sense of humility. Alan never forgets that the work of the Congress is the people's business.

Alan oversaw many proud legislative achievements during his tenure in my office, ranging from improvements to port and rail security, to passage of the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 to championing criminal justice reforms and strengthening the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. He has continued to work, until his last hour on my staff, for policies that further the well-being and security of all Americans. Alan's leadership and unwavering sense of justice have been the catalysts for alliances that have a real chance of remedying the disparity in sentences received by those convicted of crack cocaine, as opposed to powder cocaine, offenses.

Though young when he first arrived in 1998, Alan quickly proved able to manage my diverse staff, ranging from bookish lawyers, to foreign policy specialists to caseworkers in my Delaware office. Alan motivated, challenged, and inspired the staff. He always set the highest example for all who worked with him and has earned their unqualified respect and admiration. And Alan provided the solid leadership and needed guidance to staff when the nation was attacked on September 11, 2001, and again, when the Senate suffered the anthrax attack which forced my Judiciary Committee staff out of their Hart Building offices and landed Senator Carper's staff in our own conference room.

Alan has unlimited patience to hear all sides of an issue whether from staff, divergent interest groups, or constituents. He understands complexity and yet is always ready with a commonsense and principled recommendation that was easily explainable to both people inside, and more importantly, outside the beltway. Importantly, he is also a trusted and respected ally to so many of my colleagues; they know they can call Alan when I am not reachable and they can always count on him to follow through.

Mr. President, this is one of those moments when saying thank you simply seems inadequate. Alan Hoffman left his then-fiancee, now wife, a high-level position at the RAND Corporation, and a settled life in California to return to my office in 2006. That kind of loyalty, dedication, and sacrifice are rare.

I understand completely that Alan is ready to go home. I wish him and his wife Lizzie all the best. I have no doubt that he will prove to be just as talented and invaluable in his new position. But the fact remains that Alan Hoffman will be deeply missed, and his work and leadership leave an enduring imprint both in Washington and in Delaware.

Mr. President, I wish today to commend someone whom I have admired for my entire time in this body, a man who has committed his life to helping society's most vulnerable. Joe Dell'Olio, who is retiring after 35 years at Child, Incorporated, is a dedicated public servant in the true sense of the word.

Joe started at Child, Inc., of Wilmington after spending his early career fighting to reduce Delaware's crime rate. In 1972, after just 2 years as the executive director of the Delaware Agency to Reduce Crime, we saw the crime rate cut by 7 percent. As the head of the agency responsible for leading that fight, perhaps no one was due more credit than Joe.

Joe then joined Child, Inc. in 1973, the same year I was sworn in to the Senate. As executive vice president, he was responsible for the development and administration of a wide range of advocacy and service programs for victims of domestic violence and their families. Joe and I grew together as we fought to empower and protect victims of domestic violence in our community.

While I labored in the Senate to write and pass the Violence Against Women Act, Joe Dell'Olio was on the front lines in our battle. He was the one on the street or in the counseling room. He was the one securing legal help when victims could not afford it. And he was the one who made sure someone was there when a victim had nowhere to go.

I consider the Violence Against Women Act my proudest legislative accomplishment. But the Joe Dell'Olios of the world are the ones who deserve the credit for our progress. Joe has received several awards, including some from the U.S. Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services.

Throughout my career, I have been privileged to work with some of the finest public servants our Nation has ever known, those who committed their lives to the greater good. None have been more unwaveringly focused on a worthy cause than has Joe Dell'Olio, even as he raised a loving family of his own. Joe's tireless sense of duty and his unrelenting service never cease to amaze me.

I wish him the best in all his future endeavors.

Madam President, today, the Senate considers S. Res. 432, a bipartisan resolution on Darfur cosponsored by myself, Senator Lugar, and a number of other colleagues. This resolution urges the members of the international community, including the United States, to step up to fill a critical need in equipping the joint United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force, namely, 24 tactical and utility helicopters.

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has termed these aerial vehicles indispensable to allow the peacekeepers to carry out their mission to protect civilians. I am pleased to see that several countries may now be volunteering to begin to fill this gap. According to press reports, the governments of Ethiopia and Bangladesh are discussing the matter with the United Nations, and I hope that their contributions can be used to help meet this urgent need.

While I want to acknowledge these potential contributions, I would also emphasize that other countries must do the same: the peacekeepers in Darfur need the full complement of 24 helicopters. Darfur is the size of Texas. These aerial assets are critical. Our resolution urges President Bush to personally contact other heads of state on this matter. I have been told that senior officials at the White House and State Department are continuing to engage in high-level outreach on this issue. I respectfully suggest that this outreach should be elevated to conversations among chiefs of state. The United States has led the world in efforts to provide assistance to the people of Darfur. Personally, I believe that we should also lead the world now in providing the equipment or personnel that are needed to ensure the success of the peacekeeping mission. Certainly, collectively, members of the United Nations should do so.

Mr. President, it has been a month--almost to the day-- that former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated.

She was murdered barely a mile from the site where her own father, also a prime minister, had been executed by a military strongman nearly two decades earlier.

She was killed by a terrorist attack in the very same park where, over half a century ago, Pakistan's very first prime minister was gunned down under circumstances that to this day remain clouded in mystery.

The death of Ms. Bhutto was not the first time a Pakistani leader met a violent end. But never has the loss been greater--for Pakistan, and for friends of democracy the world over.

Never has the danger posed by such a loss been more serious--for Pakistan, and for the U.S. as well.

For many Members of this body, the loss of Ms. Bhutto comes as a personal shock. Some of us knew Benazir during her tenure in office, others had met her during her years of exile.

Anyone who encountered the prime minister can understand the sadness experienced by Pakistanis of all political outlooks.

The murder of Ms. Bhutto was a human tragedy, but one with potentially dire political and national security repercussions. In the wake of this shocking act of terrorism, Pakistani democracy remains seriously threatened.

This is not merely a matter of concern to Pakistan, but to the U.S. as well. Until the political crisis in Pakistan is resolved, no government in Islamabad will have the focus, the will, or the military and intelligence resources necessary to combat the threat of al-Qaeda terrorism and Taliban insurgency effectively.

The resolution I offer expresses condolences on the murder of Ms. Bhutto and condemns the cowardly terrorists who cut short the life of a brave and brilliant woman.

It calls for a genuinely independent inquiry, to clear up the mysteries surrounding this crime--an attack not only on one leader, but on Pakistani democracy itself.

It calls upon the government of Pakistan to return to the democratic path by insuring free and fair elections without further delays; by releasing all political detainees; by revoking restrictions on the press and free speech; and by restoring a genuinely independent judiciary.

It also calls on the President of the review all U.S. aid to Pakistan--as he promised to do immediately after Pakistan's current leader suspended the constitution and declared a State of Emergency in November.

The White House review found--to nobody's surprise--that no significant change in policy was required. The resolution I offer calls for a more targeted and more open-eyed approach.

It calls on the President to ensure that all assistance furthers the common goals shared by the people of Pakistan and the U.S., with specific reference to combating violent radicalism and promoting a free and democratic Pakistan; and

It calls on the President, if he cannot make such a declaration, to suspend the transfer of weapons systems primarily designed and manufactured for combat against a rival state rather than counterterrorism or counterinsurgency.

What does this mean?

In simple language, it calls upon President Bush to match his words with deeds. For the good of the Pakistani people, and for the national security interests of the United States.

The President has often said that a democratic Pakistan will be our best partner in the battle against radical theocrats and bloodthirsty terrorists.

I wholeheartedly agree--and urge the President to demonstrate that his words are something more than empty rhetoric.

Specifically, I urge the President to let the Pakistani military establishment know that the $10 billion we have provided in assistance over the past 6 years--the vast bulk of it security assistance--is not a blank check.

The American people and the Pakistani people, have a right to insist that their money is being well spent.

At a time when Pakistani soldiers and paramilitary troop are sent to fight the Taliban without bulletproof vests, without sufficient ammunition, sometimes marching through the snow in sandals rather than combat boots.

At such a time, does it make sense to spend $500 million on high- tech, highcost, nuclear-capable fighter aircraft?

Does it make sense to spend hundreds of millions on P-3 naval surveillance aircraft specifically designed to hunt submarines?

So far as I know, al-Qaeda has not yet developed a submarine navy.

The White House claims that weapons systems like these are indeed counterterrorism tools, but such a claim is an insult to common sense.

Yes, it is possible to drop a bomb on a terrorist from a supersonic jet--and our pilots sometimes do so.

Yes, it is possible to use P-3s to track fishing boats rather than submarines--and our pilots may do that too. But let us get real here.

The primary use of these weapons has nothing to do with counterterrorism--using them for this purpose is like swatting flies with a sledgehammer.

Moreover, this resolution doesn't even mandate that such weapons transfers be terminated. It merely urges that they be suspended: temporarily put on hold, until the current political crisis has passed.

Why is this necessary? For starters, because the administration has consistently failed to apply a common-sense approach to its Pakistan policy--and shows no sign of starting to do so now. I'll give just one example, but I could select from dozens.

A few days after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, just as Pakistani President Musharraf was deliberating over whether or not to postpone elections in which Bhutto's party was nearly certain to prevail, the Pentagon awarded a contract for fighter jets worth $498 million.

Despite a direct Congressional inquiry several weeks earlier, no member of the Foreign Relations Committee--or any other committee, so far as I know--was alerted to this sale.

The administration claims this was merely a coincidence, that the deal had been in the works for a long time, that no policy-maker had any say in the timing of the announcement.

Perhaps that is true. If so, all the more reason for Congress to lay down a marker.

I first suggested putting noncounterterrorism security aid on the table on November 4--the morning after President Musharraf effectively declared a coup d'etat against his own government.

I did so moments after speaking by phone with Benazir Bhutto, who had just returned to Pakistan from 8 years in exile, and who had narrowly escaped a bomb blast on her convoy that left 140 of her supporters dead.

I urged President Musharraf to step back from the brink of disaster, to revoke an order that could destroy his country's democracy.

I urged President Bush to use U.S. military aid as a carefully calibrated lever, in order to make sure our arms and our money helped make Pakistan more free, and the U.S more safe.

Later that week, I unveiled a comprehensive plan for long-term engagement with pakistan--or moving our strategy from a ``Musharraf policy'' to a ``Pakistan policy.'' In broad strokes, the basic elements of this plan are:

Triple non-security aid, to $1.5 billion annually. For at least a decade. This aid would be unconditional: it is our pledge to the Pakistani people.

Instead of funding military hardware, it would build schools, clinics, and roads.

Condition security aid on performance. We should base our security aid on clear results.

We are now spending well over $1 billion annually, and it is not clear we are getting our money's worth.

We should be willing to spend more if we get better returns--and less if we don't.

Help Pakistan enjoy a ``democracy dividend.'' The first year of genuine democratic rule should bring an additional $1 billion, above the $1.5 billion non-security aid baseline, with future non-security aid calibrated, again, above the guaranteed baseline, to Pakistan's institutionalization of democratic and good-governance norms.

We have got to help moderate, secular political leaders show the Pakistani people that they can deliver the goods.

Engage the Pakistani people, not just their rulers. We need a broad- based engagement, not just government to government.

This will involve everything from improved public diplomacy to reviewing visa procedures and textile quotas to reversing this administration's shameful torture policies and shutting the prison at Gitmo.

Today is not the day to delve into the specifics of long-term strategy; I will come to the floor at a later date and sketch out this comprehensive plan in greater detail.

Today is a time for all of us to come together in support of a resolution which, I would hope, expresses the sentiments of every Member here.

All of us, surely, send our condolences on the death of Benazir Bhutto, and condemn her bloodthirsty assassins.

All of us, surely, want to see her murderers--and those who arranged her murder--brought to justice.

All of us, surely, want to see Pakistan set firmly back on the democratic path.

All of us, surely, want to make certain that the billions of dollars we send to Pakistan in aid genuinely serve the purposes for which it is intended--that it bolsters a stable, moderate, democratic state, and that it supports the battle against the violent terrorist groups who have declared war on the U.S. and Pakistan alike.

Mr. President, today I introduce a resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate regarding the strong alliance that has been forged between the U.S. and the Republic of Korea, ROK, and congratulating Myung-Bak Lee on his election to the presidency of the

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a few words of appreciation and to say ``Farewell'' to one of the Senate's finest public servants, Marty Paone.

For our visitors in the gallery, and for our viewers on C-SPAN, it may look like Senators are running this place. Mr. President, we know better. We trust dedicated, professional staff like Marty Paone to make sure things get done.

As all of my colleagues know, Marty is the secretary for the majority, and when we were fewer Democrats around here, he was our secretary for the minority. He has held this position for the past 13 years. Before that, he served as the assistant secretary, worked as floor staff and in the cloakroom, going back nearly three decades. In short, Marty has spent close to his entire adult life here on the Senate floor, getting Senators where they need to be, when they are supposed to be there.

To do his job, Marty has to be a combination of traffic cop, diplomat, and parliamentarian--and he has to have the trust of the Senators who follow his direction. Marty has that trust, because he has earned that trust, and because he has all those other skills, too.

I have been here 35 years; it is hard for me to remember a time when Marty wasn't here. And I don't just mean year in and year out. I mean any hour of the day and night. Whenever this place is open for business, Marty has been here, helping to maintain order and to get things done. We are indebted to his many personal sacrifices, when he was here instead of home with his family.

Indeed, it has been hard to get much done around here without relying on Marty's expertise on Senate process. I don't know how he has managed to juggle all the demands on him. He is the ``go to guy'' for help on moving amendments, overcoming objections, getting a place in line for debate, complying with Senate rules, strategizing passing or defeating a measure. If you want to know what is happening ``behind the scenes,'' Marty is the person to look to. There isn't a vote that happens, there isn't a negotiation that takes place, there isn't a unanimous consent agreement--which is what makes this place function--that Marty hasn't helped to piece together or made sure it's done correctly.

And Marty works for each of us. While, technically, he works for the Democrats, I know that many of my Republican colleagues have turned to Marty for guidance. He is known for always being candid and straightforward. He has served us all with his honest counsel--you could always count on him for a straight answer. And, remarkably, he has never lost patience with any of us--no matter what we ask or how often we call.

It is hard to describe to those who haven't spent much time in the Senate how very important Marty Paone has been to the Senate, day-to- day life and historic moments. Mr. President, this is the end of an era. We all hope it will be the beginning of a new one for Marty, away from the heavy responsibilities he has met so well for so long. We wish him well. He will be missed very much.

Mr. President, the Federal Law Enforcement Congressional Badge of Bravery Act of 2007 establishes an award to honor exceptional acts of bravery in the line of duty by Federal law enforcement officers. This bipartisan bill is cosponsored by Senators Arlen Specter and John Sununu and it is supported by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association along with other law enforcement groups.

An ``ABC Nightly News'' series last November reported that 2007 may turn out to be one of the deadliest years in history for law enforcement officers. That sour prediction has come to pass. The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund--which commemorates the service and sacrifice of law enforcement officers and helps promote law enforcement safety--found that officer deaths were up sharply nationwide last year. There were 194 fatalities--34 percent more than the year before.

Unfortunately, with crime on the rise around the country the increase in fallen officers should be no surprise. The FBI's Uniform Crime Report for 2006--the gold standard of crime reports in our country-- must be taken seriously. Murders were up 1.9 percent on top of the previous year's increases--these were the largest increases in 15 years. What's more, violent crime rose 1.9 percent.

Clearly, our Federal law enforcement officers are doing their jobs in an environment more fraught with danger than ever. Police departments around the country are scrambling in an arms race to match the firepower of the bad guys. In my view, we should give special recognition to those Federal law enforcement officers who are going above and beyond to protect us in this kind of environment.

With this bill Congress can continue its support of the brave men and women law enforcement officers who risk their lives every day making sure our communities are safe. I hope this bill will be accepted by the full Senate.

Mr. President, the Federal Law Enforcement Congressional Badge of Bravery Act of 2007 establishes an award to honor exceptional acts of bravery in the line of duty by Federal law enforcement officers. This bipartisan bill is cosponsored by Senators Arlen Specter and John Sununu and it is supported by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association along with other law enforcement groups.

An ``ABC Nightly News'' series last November reported that 2007 may turn out to be one of the deadliest years in history for law enforcement officers. That sour prediction has come to pass. The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund--which commemorates the service and sacrifice of law enforcement officers and helps promote law enforcement safety--found that officer deaths were up sharply nationwide last year. There were 194 fatalities--34 percent more than the year before.

Unfortunately, with crime on the rise around the country the increase in fallen officers should be no surprise. The FBI's Uniform Crime Report for 2006--the gold standard of crime reports in our country-- must be taken seriously. Murders were up 1.9 percent on top of the previous year's increases--these were the largest increases in 15 years. What's more, violent crime rose 1.9 percent.

Clearly, our Federal law enforcement officers are doing their jobs in an environment more fraught with danger than ever. Police departments around the country are scrambling in an arms race to match the firepower of the bad guys. In my view, we should give special recognition to those Federal law enforcement officers who are going above and beyond to protect us in this kind of environment.

With this bill Congress can continue its support of the brave men and women law enforcement officers who risk their lives every day making sure our communities are safe. I hope this bill will be accepted by the full Senate.

Mr. President. Today I rise to introduce an important resolution designating the week of February 10-16, 2008 as National Drug Prevention and Education Week. While we have made progress in curbing the rate of illegal drug use among teens in this country, there remains a great deal of work to be done. Key components of staying on top of emerging drug threats and lowering the overall rate of drug use in this country are prevention and education. These efforts start at the local level and this resolution encourages communities, schools, parents, and youth to engage in and carry out community-based prevention and education activities and programs to reduce and stop drug use before it starts.

We have come a long way in combating drug use in this country, in large part because of the good work of so many talented professionals in the prevention and treatment fields. However, the rates of illegal drug use among teens and adults remains too high. The overall rate of current illegal drug use among persons aged 12 or older is 8.3 percent, which has remained stable since 2002. Moreover, the well-known Monitoring the Future survey found ``a clear pattern of gradually rising use [of ecstasy] in the upper grades'' over the past couple of years. Thus, as the data shows, clearly we have got a lot of work left to do.

The threat of illegal drugs is not our only concern. Newly released data shows that abuse of prescription and over-the-counter medicines is a huge problem that has not declined in recent years. One in ten 12th graders has reported non-medical use of the powerful painkiller Vicodin within the past year and abuse rates of other powerful narcotics are similarly troubling.

Abuse of over-the-counter drugs has also become concerning, with nearly 6 percent of 12th graders having used over-the-counter cough and cold medications in the past year for the purpose of getting high. These problems don't simply pose serious health risks, but they are also closely linked to low educational achievement and increased risk of illegal activity and crime.

One critical component of stemming drug use is prevention. Over 20 years of research has demonstrated that prevention intervention, designed and tested to reduce risk and enhance protective factors, can help children at every step along their developmental path, from early childhood into young adulthood. The more successful we are at general prevention of drug use in younger adolescents, the less we will have to deal with the concomitant economic and societal consequences of their use-including the more than $500 billion in societal costs associated with drug and alcohol use. Community anti-drug coalitions provide the flexibility needed to effectively address the local needs of their communities.

Coalitions of local leaders, including parents, teachers, religious leaders, local law enforcement officials, youth, and business leaders have the power to reduce the demand for drugs, and we must support their efforts and applaud them for their outstanding work on these issues.

During the week of February 10-16, thousands of community anti-drug coalition leaders and community based substance abuse prevention, treatment, and education specialists will come to Washington, DC to receive state-of-the-art technical assistance, training, and education on drug prevention at the Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America's Annual National Leadership Forum. I applaud these community leaders-- and prevention and treatment professionals around the Nation--for their tireless efforts to curb drug use in our country and, in recognition of these efforts I have introduced this resolution to designate the week of February 10-16, 2008 as National Drug Prevention and Education Week.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Intelligence Committee's version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2007. It is without question that I support giving the administration the surveillance tools it needs to keep us safe. But Congress has both a duty to keep the American people safe and uphold the Constitution.

It is therefore incumbent upon us in the Senate to craft clear legislation that protects both our national security and our civil liberties. We can do that by passing the Judiciary Committee substitute, which gives the administration the tools it needs to collect foreign intelligence and protects innocent Americans by ensuring that the FISA Court, and not the Attorney General, decides whether surveillance of a U.S. person is proper.

One of the defining challenges of our age is to combat international terrorism while maintaining our national values and our commitment to the rule of law and individual rights. These two obligations are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, they reinforce one another. Unfortunately, the President's national security policies have operated at the expense of our civil liberties. The examples are legion, but the issue that prompted the legislation before us today is one of the most notorious-- his secret program of eavesdropping on Americans without congressional authorization or a judge's approval.

After insisting for a year that the President was not bound by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's clear prohibition on warrantless surveillance of Americans, the administration subjected its surveillance program to FISA Court review in January of last year.

Then, last August, citing operational difficulties and heightened threats that required changes to FISA, the administration passed the Protect America Act--over my objection and that of many of my colleagues. The Protect America Act, which sunsets at the end of this month, amended FISA to allow warrantless surveillance, even when that surveillance intercepts the communications of innocent American citizens inside the United States.

The administration identified two problems it faced in conducting electronic surveillance under FISA. First, the administration wanted clarification that it did not need to obtain a FISA warrant in order to conduct surveillance of calls between two parties when both of those parties are overseas. Because of the way global communications are now transmitted, many communications between people all of whom are overseas are nonetheless routed through switching stations inside the United States. In other words, when someone in Islamabad, Pakistan, calls someone in London, that call is likely to be routed through communications switching stations right here in the United States. Congress did not intend FISA to apply to such calls, and I support a legislative fix to clarify that point.

The second problem the administration identified is more difficult. Even assuming that the government does not need a FISA warrant to tap into switching stations here in the United States in order to intercept calls between two people who are abroad--between Pakistan and England, for example--if the target in Pakistan calls someone inside the United States, FISA requires the government to get a warrant, even though the government is ``targeting'' the caller in Pakistan.

The administration wants the flexibility to begin electronic surveillance of a ``target'' abroad without having to get a FISA warrant to account for the possibility that the ``foreign target'' might contact someone in the United States. I agree with the administration's assessment of the problem, but I don't support its solution.

The administration's proposal, which is reflected in the Intelligence Committee's version of the FISA Amendments Act, would significantly expand the scope of surveillance permitted under FISA by exempting entirely any calls to or from the United States, as long as the government is ``targeting'' someone reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.

The government could acquire these communications regardless of whether either party is suspected of any wrongdoing. The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence would make the determination about whom to target on their own, and they would merely certify, after-the-fact, to the FISA Court that they had reason to believe the target was outside the United States, regardless of how many calls to innocent American citizens inside the United States were intercepted in the process.

This Intelligence Committee bill authorizes surveillance that is broader than what is necessary to protect national security and that is why I oppose it.

The Intelligence Committee bill offers no protection for the innocent Americans who communicate with overseas relatives, business partners, or friends. Indeed, it allows the government unfettered access to these innocent Americans' communications. And once the government collects these communications, it can share them with other agencies throughout the government.

The Judiciary Committee substitute--which authorizes much broader surveillance powers than the government had under FISA before the Protect America Act became law--offers several significant protections. I will mention a few: First, the Judiciary Substitute protects against the ``bulk collection'' of communications by requiring the government to target a specific person or phone number abroad, rather than allowing the acquisition in bulk the millions of communications going into and out of the United States. Second, it requires the government to obtain an individualized warrant from the FISA Court if the government's acquisition of a person inside the United States becomes a significant purpose of its surveillance of the foreign target. Third, it provides for much more robust and meaningful congressional oversight. And fourth, it does not provide retroactive immunity for the telecommunications carriers.

I oppose granting retroactive immunity because if the carriers violated clearly stated Federal law, they should be held accountable. Cases against the carriers are already making their way through the courts. Retroactive immunity would undermine the judiciary's role as an independent branch of government. Furthermore, the provision that holds carrier liable for violations of the act is an important enforcement mechanism. It is fundamental to securing the privacy rights that FISA was meant to protect.

When the Senate passed FISA, after extensive hearings, 30 years ago by a strong bipartisan vote of 95 to 1, I stated that it ``was a reaffirmation of the principle that it is possible to protect national security and at the same time the Bill of Rights.'' I still believe that's possible, but not if we enact the Intelligence Committee bill.

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