Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Mark Paolicelli, a fellow on my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of consideration of the fiscal year 2008 Defense authorization bill.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, today I wish to speak on the Senate Armed Services Committee bill being considered by the Senate, S. 1547, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008. It is, I believe, a very good bill. I wish to commend the chairman, Senator Levin, and his ranking member, Senator Warner, for their efforts and particularly the staff and all the work they have done which has contributed to this product today. It was reported favorably to the floor of the Senate by a unanimous vote of the committee, which shows its bipartisan support. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have had the privilege of serving as the chairman of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, and I would like to share with my colleagues the highlights of our bill that originated in the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee. Before I describe those highlights, I also wish to commend and thank Senator Dole, the ranking member of my committee. It was a partnership and a pleasure to work together with her. She certainly gave valuable service, along with her staff, and I appreciate very much her personal contribution and her leadership on this issue. I would also like to thank staff for their great contribution and their great effort. By way of background, the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, also known as the ETC subcommittee, is responsible for looking at new and emerging threats and considering appropriate steps we should take to improve our capabilities to enhance our security in the light of these new emerging threats. Two of our committee markup objectives, in preparing the bill, were to improve the ability of the Armed Forces to meet nontraditional threats, including terrorism and weapons of mass destruction; second, to promote the transformation of the Armed Forces to meet the threats of the 21st century. In a nutshell, that is what the ETC subcommittee should be all about, and I hope this legislation represents the sum of all our efforts in that regard. This year, there are a number of issues, or themes, that the ETC subcommittee's portion of the bill addresses based on the emerging threats or challenges facing the United States and on capabilities we need to address these challenges. The first thing is the Defense Department's need for improved and alternate sources of energy. The Department is a massive consumer of energy, including for its military vehicles and platforms, and advanced technology may offer improved effectiveness at a reduced cost for our military in the area of energy conservation and energy demands. The second area relates to the language of cultural challenges facing our military forces operating overseas. We held a very fine hearing on this subject, and there is clearly a need to improve the language and cultural awareness capabilities of the military and to make use of improved technology in this area. This would improve our military effectiveness and our mission success. The third issue, or theme, is the threat from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the need to improve U.S. efforts to reduce this proliferation risk. We held an excellent hearing with the former Senator Sam Nunn and Senator Richard Lugar, as well as witnesses from the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy, on these nonproliferation programs, and I think we all must recognize the debt we collectively owe, not only ourselves but the Nation, to both Senators Nunn and Senator Lugar for their path-breaking work on limiting nuclear proliferation and we commend and thank them for that. Given the potentially catastrophic damage that could result from such proliferation, we must always look for ways to strengthen and improve our nonproliferation programs. The final and related theme and issue that we discussed is the threat of a terrorist incident within the United States involving a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive device, which is known by the acronym CBRNE, a CBRNE device. The challenge is to be prepared to manage the consequences of such a domestic CBRNE incident and for the Defense Department to have the right capabilities, plans, and equipment to provide support to the civil authorities, if requested. I will address the committee's action on these issues as I describe the highlights of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee's portion of the bill being considered by the Senate today. Let me start with the area of science and technology. The bill authorizes increased investment in science and technology programs by over $450 million. These programs perform cutting-edge research that is developing the capabilities that will ensure the effectiveness of our Armed Forces in the future, while strengthening the Nation's high-technology innovation sector. These additional S&T investments, which reflect military value and technical merit, are intended to enhance Defense Department activities in a number of areas--advanced and alternate energy technologies; new manufacturing capabilities; advanced medical technologies aimed at improving the care of combat casualties; and increased funding for defense-related university research that will provide the foundation for future military capability and, in fact, will probably contribute to our overall economy. The Armed Services Committee bill authorizes investments of nearly $75 million for advanced energy technologies, including programs to develop fuel cells, hybrid engines, build hydrogen infrastructure such as fueling stations at military bases, and explore the use of biofuels for military systems. These kind of technologies will save money and improve war-fighting capabilities, reduce America's dependency on foreign oil, and help DOD lead the way in the widespread droppings of alternative energy technologies. The bill includes a provision sponsored by Senator Pryor that would enhance the Department's nanotechnology research program to reflect the maturation of nanotechnology in industry and in universities. It would push the Department to have a greater emphasis on issues such as nanomanufacturing, moving nanotechnology into major defense systems, and monitoring international capabilities in nanotechnology. Following a recommendation of the Defense Science Board, the bill would require the Defense Department to produce a strategic plan for the development of manufacturing technologies. Advanced manufacturing processes are the key to ensuring that our defense industrial base can respond to the surge of production needs of our deployed forces for items such as body armor, vehicle armor, and jamming devices that are being used to defeat Improvised Explosive Devices. Manufacturing is also one of the keys to our overall global competitiveness. I am pleased to note the committee bill authorizes nearly $85 million in additional funds for the development of advanced manufacturing technologies to support critical defense production capabilities. In relation to the threat from proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the bill authorizes additional funding for important nonproliferation programs at the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. This additional funding includes $100 million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction--CTR--Program and $87 million for nonproliferation programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration. The bill also authorizes $50 million to support the International Atomic Energy Agency proposal for an international nuclear fuel bank. This promising idea, if successfully implemented, could remove the incentive for countries, such as Iran, to develop indigenous uranium enrichment programs for nuclear power reactor fuel. This would address the loophole in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that allows uranium enrichment for civilian power purposes to serve as a cover for uranium enrichment for weapons purposes. In addition, S. 1547 includes a provision that would finally repeal all the precertifications for the CTR Program. These conditions delay the program annually, waste program funds, and have long outlived any usefulness. Senator Lugar has worked for several years now to remove these restrictions, and I am pleased we have been able to include this provision in the bill. The additional funding for CTR would allow the program to accelerate and expand work into some biological materials and weapons areas that have become an increasing concern, and allow for the first time the CTR Program to address issues outside the former Soviet Union in a planned, nonemergency fashion. The National Nuclear Security Agency Program has a number of challenges with respect to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, materials, and technology, and much more needs to be done. The North Korea nuclear tests last October highlighted an area where we need a lot of additional work. That is the area of nuclear forensics and attribution. The bill authorizes additional funding to develop new technology to detect and identify the sources of nuclear material and to support the Department of Energy's Office of Intelligence efforts to develop a nuclear material forensic library. The real challenge we have that faces us, an existential challenge, is the threat that someday a terrorist--not a nation state but a terrorist--might detonate a nuclear device in the United States or in an allied country. They would get that material from some national source. If we can effectively trace materials, and we know and we can identify where such materials come from, that goes a long way in helping remove the incentives for any nation state to provide these types of materials to terrorists. I think this is important research, and I am particularly pleased that we have incorporated this language in the legislation. In the area of homeland defense there is a concern about the enormous challenge of dealing with the chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosives, the CBRNE incident in the United States. Such an incident could quickly overwhelm local and State emergency response capabilities. The bill contains a provision requiring an advisory panel to address the capabilities of the Department of Defense to provide support for civil authorities for consequence management of a domestic CBRNE incident. The panel would report to Congress with any findings and any particular recommendations. I thank particularly Senator Dole and her staff for leading the way on this issue. In the area of chemical and biological matters, the bill adds nearly $70 million for the Defense Department's chemical and biological defense program, including procurement of chemical agent detectives and monitors for the Army National Guard. These systems can be used for overseas deployments or for domestic consequence management initiatives. The bill also authorizes the restoration of $36 million for the chemical demilitarization program and includes a sense-of-Congress resolution that the United States should do everything practicable to meet our chemical weapons destruction obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention deadline of April 2012, or as soon as possible thereafter. This sense-of-Congress provision includes a number of recommendations made by the Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell. I thank him for his contribution. The sooner we destroy the stockpile, the sooner we will remove the risks to the communities around the stockpile sites throughout the United States. Let me turn also to the area of special operations forces, and in particular language issues. The bill contains additional funding for the Special Operations Command, SOCOM, to meet critical language and cultural awareness training requirements, and for various SOCOM technology and training programs. All told, the bill authorizes more than $20 million additional funding to improve the foreign language and cultural awareness capabilities of our military forces. The bill also contains a provision creating a National Foreign Language Coordination Council, an initiative proposed by Senator Akaka of Hawaii, and I thank him for this contribution. This council will ensure that the initial steps that the administration has taken will develop into an organized and concerted effort to improve the Nation's foreign language capabilities. S. 1547 includes, in addition, a provision that would require the Government Accountability Office to review the ongoing reorganization of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. The committee has expressed strong reservations about this reorganization, especially as it pertains to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict. The study would examine some of the specific committee concerns. The bill also authorizes an additional $124 million to cover unfunded requirements of the Special Operations Command to procure Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, or MRAP, vehicles. This is part of a committee-wide $4 billion increase to ensure that U.S. military personnel in Iraq receive the best protection available against improvised explosive devices, the primary cause of injury and death to our personnel. I might add, I just returned yesterday from Iraq. One of the points that was raised by Major General Mixon, Commander of the 25th Division, was the need for these MRAP vehicles. I communicated that directly to the Secretary of Defense. I must commend Secretary Gates for his aggressive leadership to ensure that these MRAP vehicles are being produced and being sent overseas to our forces, particularly our forces in Iraq. His leadership on this point is very much appreciated. Finally, in the area of counterterrorism and counterdrug policy, the committee took a number of actions. On counterterrorism, the committee authorized the Department of Defense to provide increased rewards for assistance in counterterrorist operations. This is intended to provide additional incentives for others to help us find and defeat terrorists. The committee also funded the Department's ``train and equip'' program to build the capacity of partner nations to conduct counterterrorism operations and to operate with U.S. forces in military or stability operations. The committee has authorized funding for this program, also known as section 1206, at the level authorized last year for fiscal years 2007 and 2008. Congress has given the Defense Department this authority as a pilot program to the end of this fiscal year, at which time Congress can evaluate the program's effectiveness. On counterdrug policy, the committee authorized the Department to provide counterdrug training and equipping assistance to Mexico and the Dominican Republic. This would expand a list of countries to which we provide such assistance to these neighbors who are facing serious drug challenges. With regard to funding, the committee authorized an additional $22.5 million to boost drug interdiction efforts, especially in the U.S. Southern Command's area of responsibility. Madam President, that is a summary of the highlights of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee portion of the Armed Services Committee bill. I urge the Senate to support the entire bill, as the subcommittee does. Now I would like to turn my attention to the matter pending before the Senate, and that is the amendment proposed by my colleague, Senator Webb of Virginia. I rise to commend him. I think this is an important amendment that underscores and highlights the strain that our troops are under, given the operational demands of efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan and many places in the world. No one in this Senate--and particularly in this caucus, this Democratic caucus--understands on a firsthand basis the strain that soldiers, marines, and airmen and sailors live under constantly more than our colleague from Virginia, Senator Webb, who is a distinguished and heroic veteran of the conflict in Vietnam and someone to whom we look for his insight and leadership, particularly with respect to the welfare and the safekeeping of our military personnel. Since 2003, the United States has maintained an average of 138,700 troops in Iraq. Today we know we are at a level approaching 160,000. At the same time, there are approximately 25,500 military personnel in Afghanistan and an additional 175,000 military personnel performing missions in 130 countries around the world. Nearly every nondeployed combat brigade in the Active-Duty Army has reported that they are not ready to complete their assigned war missions. Let me repeat that. Nearly every nondeployed combat brigade, those not in Iraq and Afghanistan, are reporting they are not ready in terms of personnel or equipment to complete their assigned war missions. We all know if they are ordered to, they will go into the fight and they will do well. But they are not going in with the same level of personnel, equipment, and in many cases training that we expected of them just a few short years ago. This is as a result, a direct consequence of the strategy being pursued by the President in Afghanistan and Iraq and the size limitations on our military forces. Such a sustained operational demand has had a significant effect on our ground forces' ability to train, deploy, and conduct their missions effectively. The way we measure our military's ability to perform effectively is called their readiness. Readiness is composed of three elements: personnel, equipment, and training. First let's look at the personnel issues. Since 2002, 1.4 million military troops have served in Iraq or Afghanistan. The standard ratio the U.S. military likes to use for deployments is 1 to 2--meaning for every year deployed, 2 years back at the home duty station for recuperation, retraining--all those things you need to restore the professional skill and a high degree of spirit and morale necessary for successful military forces. Since the beginning of the Iraq war, however, Army brigade combat teams have been on a 1-to-1 ratio: 1 year deployed, 1 year back. That puts a huge strain on not only soldiers but the families of those soldiers. This ratio was further strained on April 11, 2007, when the Pentagon announced that all Active-Duty Army units in the Central Command area of responsibility, principally Iraq and Afghanistan, would be extended to 15-month tours. The Marine Corps has also moved to a 1- to-1 ratio: 7 months deployed, 7 months at home station. There is another aspect to this, and that is known as stop-loss. It has been imposed on 50,000 troops. What this means is that an individual is eligible, having served out their enlisted time, to leave the military forces, but they are involuntarily held behind in order to meet the missions of the Army because of this huge personnel crunch. That stop-loss is affecting 50,000 individuals who have served honorably and well, who have made plans to return to civilian life. Those plans are on hold now. That is another manifestation of this strain our land forces are under at this moment. The reality of this operational tempo is that many Active-Duty soldiers and marines are on their third or even fourth tour of duty in Afghanistan or Iraq. Of the Army's Active 44 combat brigades, all but the 1st Brigade of the Second Infantry Division, which is permanently based in South Korea, have served at least one term in Iraq or Afghanistan. Breaking that down further, 12 brigades of Army have had 1 tour, 20 have had to 2 tours, 9 have had 3 tours, and 2 brigades are on their fourth tour. This is an extraordinarily aggressive operational tempo to subject any force to. Although the deployment for our special operations forces are classified, it is known that the average weekly deployment for special operations forces was 61 percent higher in 2005 than in 2000. Every aspect of our Active Force and many of our Reserve components are being stressed with extraordinary contributions to the operations today that are worldwide. This strain extends to our National Guard and Reserve. More than 417,000 National Guard and Reserve, or about 80 percent of the members of the Guard and Reserve, have been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan with an average of 18 months per mobilization. Of these, more than 84,200, or 20 percent, have been deployed more than once. Presently, the Army National Guard has 34 brigades; 16 are considered an ``enhanced brigade,'' which means they are supposed to be fully manned, equipped, and able to deploy rapidly. Since 2001, every enhanced brigade has been deployed overseas at least once, and two have already been deployed twice. When the President announced the surge, the Pentagon was forced to recall to active duty several thousand Guard and Reserve personnel who had already served in Iraq and Afghanistan. In order to do this, the Pentagon had to revise its rules that limited the callup time of Guard members to no more than 24 months every 5 years. With respect to this decision, the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve recently concluded: Overall, if the reserve component, including the National Guard, continues its high operational tempo, current indicators cast considerable doubt on the future sustainability of recruiting and retention, even if financial incentives continue to increase. There is a real cost to this operational tempo. The cost is not only in the immediate near term but also in the longer one. Our current policies overseas have overstretched our military. The burdens of the past few years will have consequences for years to come. We risk rendering our military a weakened force, and we want to do all we can to avoid it. We are already seeing indications of the stress that is being borne by our military forces, and they are manifested in many different ways. Yesterday the U.S. Army announced it fell short of its active-duty recruiting goal by 15 percent. It is the second month in a row that the Army's enlistment efforts have fallen short. This is in the context of a belated attempt, I would argue, by the administration to increase the overall end strength in the Army. You have a situation now where the Army is under huge pressure. There is an attempt to increase the numbers overall. That attempt is being, at least seems to be being frustrated by the inability to recruit new personnel into the Army. The Army expressed concern but repeats the fact that the Army has met its recruiting goals for the past 2 years. Technically, that is true. But a closer look shows there are some disturbing trends that may have long-term negative consequences. In order to meet the demands of today, the Army is drawing heavily on its delayed entry program, or pool of future recruits, which will leave it empty handed in the future as they try to enlist more soldiers. The Army has also begun to lower standards in order to meet recruiting goals. The Army granted approximately 8,500 ``moral waivers'' to recruits in 2006, as compared to 2,260 of these moral waivers given in 1996. These waivers cover misconduct and minor criminal offenses. Again, the trend is not less but more in terms of trying to achieve recruiting goals by waiving some incidents that otherwise would disqualify a person from joining the Army. Waivers for recruits who committed felonies, for example, were up 30 percent in 2006 from the year before. Last year, 82 percent of Army recruits had high school diplomas. That is the lowest level since 1981. Only 61 percent of Army recruits scored above average on the service's aptitude test last year. That is the lowest score since 1985. Last year, the Army would not have met its recruiting goals without lowering its weight standards and increasing the acceptable recruiting age to 42 years old. Frankly, you know, thinking back, not long ago the idea of actually trying to recruit people who were 42 years old, might have physical problems, who might have minor criminal violations, was considered anathema by the military as they prided themselves on the ability with each succeeding quarter to indeed try to raise the standards. But the pressure on personnel has produced these results. Despite these lower standards, basic training graduation rates have increased from 82 percent in 2005 to 94 percent in 2006, leaving one to wonder whether the training program standards are also being modified so that these individuals can get through and get into the brigades that need support. That would have long-term, unfortunate consequences for the overall effectiveness of our military forces. The Army is also using some extraordinary means to maintain retention rates. There are problems recruiting, but also they are making special efforts to keep those soldiers they have. The biggest incentive, of course, for retention is providing financial compensation to those who decide to extend. However, the level of funding we are putting toward keeping soldiers simply cannot be sustained. In the past 4 years the Army has increased the amount spent on retention bonuses from $85 million to $735 million. At the same time, the cost of supporting each soldier has increased from $75,000 in 2001 to $120,000 in 2006, because of the inducements, pay benefits that are appropriate but very expensive, and again raise the question of: How long they can be sustained? Despite the increases in pay, the Army is still having difficulties with retention, particularly retaining officers. Last year the active Army was short 3,000 officers and it is projected this shortage will increase to 3,500 officers this year. The Guard and Reserve are facing a shortfall of almost 7,500 officers. Army reenlistment rates for mid-grade soldiers dropped 12 percent in the past 2 years. According to the New York Times, more than a third of the West Point class of 2000 left active duty at the earliest possible moment, after completing their 5-year obligations. For Special Forces, recruitment and retention are most difficult. For the past 6 years, 82 percent of the active-duty Special Forces specialties were underfilled, many with shortfalls over 10 percent. I had a chance to sit down and have lunch with three soldiers at a patrol base which had only been in operation for 3 weeks, just about 2 days ago in Iraq. All three of those soldiers were on their second or third tour. Two had already decided they were getting out, and a third had not yet decided. They have served their country magnificently. They have done it with great dedication, and for many different reasons are leaving. That is a very imprecise scientific sample, I would admit, but still it suggests that because of operational stress, because of the demands on soldiers who are performing magnificently, they are also thinking about their future and thinking about leaving the force rather than staying on for extended periods of time. The soldiers recruited today define the quality of our Army in the future. Focusing on filling slots today without regard for maintaining high standards can have dire consequences down the road. We have serious challenges before us as a nation. I have spent time talking about personnel because at the heart of Senator Webb's amendment is the recognition that ultimately a military force is about people--the soldiers, the marines, the sailors, the airmen, and their families. And if we keep this operational tempo, if we do not provide the respite, time for recuperation, what he is suggesting, at least an equal time out of the war zone as you spend in a war zone, then these personnel issues become more and more acute and become more damaging to the overall capability of our military force. There is another aspect, too, of readiness. That is equipment. In order to meet the equipment needs in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army requires that active and reserve units leave behind certain essential items that are in short supply, including up-armored humvees and long- range surveillance and communications systems. This system ensures that incoming soldiers can receive 100 percent of the equipment, and it reduces transportation costs. But there is a downside. As the GAO pointed out, while this equipment approach has helped meet current operational needs, it has continued the cycle of reducing the pool of equipment available to nondeployed forces for responding to contingencies and training. Forty percent of the marines' ground equipment has been deployed in Iraq over the past 3 years and is being used at nine times its planned rate. I can recall last year being in Iraq and was told just before we got on the helicopter that it was flying at many more times the number of hours that it was planned to fly in a peacetime environment. They assured us, of course--and they are right--that it was very well maintained. But the stress on the equipment is just as telling as the stress on personnel. We are using this equipment and overusing this equipment as we operate in all of those theatres of conflict. According to Lieutenant General Blum, the Army National Guard presently has on hand only 30 percent of its essential equipment here at home, while 88 percent of the Army National Guard that is in the U.S. is very poorly equipped. Nearly 9 out of every 10 Army National Guard units in Iraq and Afghanistan have less than half the equipment needed to respond to a domestic crisis, and less than 45 percent of the Air National Guard units have the equipment they need. Again, one of the other major missions of the National Guard is responding to domestic contingencies. They are severely constrained in that regard. Lieutenant General Blum, who is the chief of our National Guard, states: This is the first time such a shortfall in equipment readiness has occurred in the past 35 years. He estimates that the total cost of the shortfall is about $36 billion. In March 2007, the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves reported that nearly 90 percent of National Guard units are not ready to respond to crises at home or abroad. The chairman of the Commission on the National Guard summed it up: We cannot sustain the National Guard and Reserves on the course we are on. Again, the military is doing not only everything they are asked but much more. But we need to ensure that they have the opportunity to rest and to refit. We have to ensure they have equipment that is well maintained and not overly used. There is a huge shortfall in equipment. The Marine Corps has a $12 billion equipment shortfall in 2007. The Army estimates it will need $12 billion annually for as long as the Iraq war continues, and for 2 years thereafter. These significant costs will have to be borne, but the biggest cost, I believe, is the one that is being borne today for our soldiers, marines particularly, and the fact that they are operating in a war zone, coming back, and all too shortly thereafter being required to go back. There is another effect. It has an effect on training. We pride ourselves, as we should, as the best trained military force in the world, perhaps of all time. But that training cannot operate if there is insufficient time back at home station to do it. And that, I think, also is the heart of Senator Webb's amendment. He understands that one of the great factors that holds a unit together is the sense of skill, the sense that they not only know how to do the job, but they practice that job time and time again. They are ready for any contingency, any eventuality. That readiness, that sense of confidence does not come without spending the time at home station training. That, too, is being sacrificed. I commend Senator Webb. I think from his heart and from his essence as a marine, he understands that our soldiers, marines, airmen deserve the time to prepare, to train, to regroup before they go back again. At a minimum, his amendment is calling for equal time at home station that equates to time deployed in a war zone as the minimum that we should provide these brave young men and women. I hope we can support this amendment. I hope we can do it, get it back and send a message to our troops: We know what you are doing for us. We appreciate it. After serving with distinction with courage and great sacrifice, you deserve time to come home, to see family, to retrain, to rest, and to prepare again to defend the Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am joined by Mr. Cochran in introducing important legislation, the Strengthening Kids' Interest in Learning and Libraries, SKILLs, Act, to support our Nation's school libraries and librarians. This legislation is also being introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Grijalva and Representative Ehlers. The SKILLs Act enhances the value of school libraries by reauthorizing and strengthening the Improving Literacy through School Libraries program of the No Child Left Behind Act. The Department of Education found that the Improving Literacy through School Libraries program is successful in improving the quality of school libraries receiving grants and school libraries are a critical component in improving student literacy skills and academic achievement by giving students access to up-to-date library materials, including well- equipped and technologically advanced school library media centers. The SKILLs Act seeks to build on this success in several ways. It ensures that funds serve elementary, middle, and high school students. It encourages the hiring of highly qualified school library media specialists in our Nation's school libraries. Additionally, it expands professional development to include information literacy instruction appropriate for all grade levels, an assessment of student literacy needs, the coordination of reading and writing instruction across content areas, and training in literacy strategies. Today's librarians do so much more than catalogue collections and check out books, they are educators in every sense of the word. They provide tech support, guidance, and social services to patrons in need. They help teach our children how to safely and effectively navigate electronic media like the Internet and help instill a love of learning and reading in young students. In short, school libraries and librarians play an essential role in helping students get the skills they need to succeed in an increasingly competitive world and this legislation provide the necessary support for that endeavor. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am joined by Mr. Cochran in introducing important legislation, the Strengthening Kids' Interest in Learning and Libraries, SKILLs, Act, to support our Nation's school libraries and librarians. This legislation is also being introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Grijalva and Representative Ehlers. The SKILLs Act enhances the value of school libraries by reauthorizing and strengthening the Improving Literacy through School Libraries program of the No Child Left Behind Act. The Department of Education found that the Improving Literacy through School Libraries program is successful in improving the quality of school libraries receiving grants and school libraries are a critical component in improving student literacy skills and academic achievement by giving students access to up-to-date library materials, including well- equipped and technologically advanced school library media centers. The SKILLs Act seeks to build on this success in several ways. It ensures that funds serve elementary, middle, and high school students. It encourages the hiring of highly qualified school library media specialists in our Nation's school libraries. Additionally, it expands professional development to include information literacy instruction appropriate for all grade levels, an assessment of student literacy needs, the coordination of reading and writing instruction across content areas, and training in literacy strategies. Today's librarians do so much more than catalogue collections and check out books, they are educators in every sense of the word. They provide tech support, guidance, and social services to patrons in need. They help teach our children how to safely and effectively navigate electronic media like the Internet and help instill a love of learning and reading in young students. In short, school libraries and librarians play an essential role in helping students get the skills they need to succeed in an increasingly competitive world and this legislation provide the necessary support for that endeavor. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, energy is the lifeblood of our economy. It is fundamental to powering our homes, businesses, manufacturing, and the transportation of goods and services that are vital to America and the world economy. But the fossil fuels our country currently relies on are unsustainable. Our Nation's addiction to oil is threatening our national security and dramatically changing the climate in which we live. Setting America on a course of greater energy self-reliance is one of the most significant foreign policy, economic, and environmental challenges we face as a Nation. Senators Bingaman, Domenici, Inouye, and Stevens have put a great deal of effort in developing this Energy bill, and it is an excellent first step. The bill will improve our Nation's energy efficiency, protect consumers from price gouging, increase vehicle economy standards, and decrease our reliance on oil, especially from unstable regions of the world. President Bush admitted we are addicted to oil. But for the last 6 years, neither he nor the Congress was willing to take real action to change that fact. I commend Senator Harry Reid for bringing this legislation to the floor. For the first time in 30 years, the Senate is now poised to pass legislation to increase vehicle fuel standards. I commend particularly Senators Feinstein and Durbin and Snowe for their work on this issue. I was glad to be an original cosponsor of the ten-in-ten bill, which is the basis of the bipartisan compromise in the legislation we are considering today. The debate about fuel economy standards should be over. We have the technology to get well beyond 35 miles per gallon, and the American public supports an increase in fuel efficiency standards. The time for action is long overdue, and I hope my colleagues will resist efforts to weaken these standards. We have an opportunity to create a new energy future for the country. That future would strengthen our national security by making us more self-reliant and slow the impacts of global warming on our climate by investing in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and biofuels. I do not believe we can drill or mine our way to energy independence. Increasing the importation of foreign oil and natural gas is not the answer. Developing more nuclear power, given its price, legacy, cost, and safety threats, remains very problematic. Investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy is a win-win situation. These investments offer short-term and long-term solutions to strengthen our national security by reducing our energy consumption and making us less reliant on oil from unstable regions of the world. It enhances our economic competitiveness by creating American jobs in this new green economy, and it will protect our environment by reducing our carbon footprint. Sixty percent of the oil consumed by Americans comes from abroad. While Canada and Mexico are our top suppliers, OPEC nations hold the cards in a global oil market, and a portion of the money we spend on oil undoubtedly finds its way into the hands of unstable and unfriendly regimes. Two-thirds of the global oil reserves are in the Middle East, and more than 75 percent of global oil production is already in the hands of state-controlled oil companies. With growing global demand and limited remaining oil supply, many countries, including our allies and trading partners, will compete with us for finite oil supplies as their and our own economy rely more heavily on imports. This will inevitably stress the delicate balance that exists among national interests in the world, and it gives oil-rich nations disproportionate leverage in the international arena. Al-Qaida and other terrorist networks have openly called for and carried out attacks on oil infrastructure because they know oil is the economic lifeline of industrial economies, especially the United States. Today, we have an opportunity to shift the balance of power around the globe that is dictated by oil. Our first step is to strengthen our national security by increasing CAFE standards. Raising fuel economy standards is an essential insurance policy against the risk of oil dependence and global warming, which pose vital threats to our national security. Fuel economy standards have proven effective at reducing our demand for oil, but they have been stagnant for more than a decade, despite advances in vehicle technology. The fact that our industrial competitors are increasing mileage standards underscores how we have been lagging behind the world economy in terms of technology, in terms of applying that technology through increasing the standards for automobiles in our country. Achieving a 35-mile-per- gallon fuel economy over the next decade, the equivalent of the 4- percent-a-year improvement called for by President Bush, is achievable. Beginning in 2011, this bill requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to annually increase the nationwide average fleet fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks to achieve a standard of 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020. By 2020, the bill would reduce our Nation's oil dependence by approximately 1.3 million barrels per day, and in that year alone will save consumers $26 billion, and global warming emissions will be reduced by over 200 million metric tons. These savings will continue to increase each year, year after year. This is the best investment we can have, I believe, in both national security and improved environmental quality, not just for us but for the world. Strong mileage standards will also make us more competitive. According to the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, U.S. automakers could increase revenues by $2 billion and save between 15,000 and 35,000 jobs for autoworkers if we improve gas mileage. Higher fuel efficiency standards will help U.S. automobile manufacturers to better compete in the global marketplaces. The pricetag of our oil dependence is also not sustainable. According to a Department of Defense report: The United States bears many costs associated with the stability of the global oil market and infrastructure. The cost-- According to this report-- of securing Persian Gulf sources alone comes to $44.4 billion annually for the United States. We are literally policing the world oil market for the benefit of the world economy, with great cost in terms of dollars but also in terms of the huge pressure on our military forces and their families. We lose $25 billion from our economy every month, and oil imports now account for nearly a third of the national trade deficit because of our dependence on oil. The economy is exposed to oil price shocks and supply disruptions, and families are feeling the pinch of oil prices. High energy prices reduce consumer spending power and affect businesses' bottom lines. Millions of petrodollars are being exported out of U.S. cities and counties to pay for energy with a real effect on local economic vitality. In Rhode Island, my home State, gas prices have increased by $1.50 per gallon, an increase of 99 percent, since 2001. Households in Rhode Island are paying $1,430 more per year for gasoline than in 2001. So for the State economy, this means that families, businesses, and farmers in Rhode Island will spend $52.4 million more on gasoline in June 2007 than they spent in January 2001, and $600 million more will be spent on gasoline this year than was spent in 2001, if prices remain at current levels. Rhode Island residents, farmers, and businesses are on track to pay $1.2 billion for gasoline this year. That is an extraordinary drain on the economy of my State and on States throughout this great Nation. If we have a policy that increases CAFE standards and energy efficiency and makes sensible investments in renewable fuels, we will have more funds to invest in education, health care, public works, and business development. My State, like so many States, is struggling with a budget problem, a huge State budget problem. Some of that can be attributed directly to the higher cost of fuels to run schools, to run buses, to run the infrastructure of our State. We could take that money, save it, and invest it in education, in schools, and not simply ship it overseas through major international oil companies. Energy efficiency and renewable energy programs that improve technologies for our homes, our businesses, and our vehicles must be the ``first fuel'' in the race for secure, affordable, and clean energy. Energy efficiency is the Nation's greatest energy resource. We now save more energy each year from energy efficiency than we get from any single energy source, including oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power. We need to use energy in a way that saves money. It is much cheaper to conserve energy and increase efficiency than to build further energy infrastructure in the country. The Senate bill contains important provisions to support energy efficiency. First, it sets new energy benchmarks for appliances, including residential boilers, dishwashers, clothes washers, refrigerators, dehumidifiers, and electric motors. These seem like very mundane, trivial items, but if we can make even small increases in their efficiency, it has a huge macroeconomic effect on our society in terms of demand for energy, and this legislation will help us do that and point us in that direction. According to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, increasing these standards will give consumers more than $12 billion in benefits, save more than 50 billion kilowatt-hours per year in electricity, or enough to power 4.8 million typical American households. The bill also strengthens energy requirements for the Federal Government. Today, the Federal Government spends more than $14 billion a year on energy. Increasing efficiency will save energy and taxpayer dollars. That is something we have to begin ourselves, leading by example at the Federal level. The bill also increases the authorization level for the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program. The State Energy Program improves the energy efficiency of schools, hospitals, small businesses, farms, and industries to make our economy more efficient. The Weatherization Assistance Program helps low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled by improving energy efficiency of low-income housing. Weatherization can cut energy bills by 20 to 40 percent in each assisted home. This represents savings that families can use to pay for other necessities, while reducing the Nation's energy demand by the equivalent of 15 million barrels of oil each year. It lowers our national demand for energy, helps individual families, which is another win-win program we must support more vigorously. The program weatherizes approximately 100,000 homes each year. Since its inception, the program has weatherized over 5.6 million homes. Weatherization has also grown an energy efficiency industry for residential housing that, according to the Department of Energy, employs 8,000 people who work in low-income weatherization alone. This has been a great success. Again, lowering the cost to families, lowering the national demand, and putting people to work is a good formula for our economy today. Unfortunately, the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2007 spending plan cut funding to the weatherization program, and the administration, unfortunately, has a situation in which efficiency funding has fallen alarmingly since 2002. Adjusting for inflation, funding for energy efficiency has been cut by one-third. We have to do better. In the face of soaring prices, in the face of international threats posed by oil powers, we are cutting programs that are efficient, effective, and help families, and that is not only wrong, but it is terribly wrongheaded. A strong renewable electricity standard is also needed to diversify our fuel supply, clean our air, and better protect our consumers from electricity price shocks. I am glad to join Senator Bingaman in supporting an amendment to the bill to require a 15-percent renewable electricity standard by 2020. This amendment will promote domestically produced clean energy, reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, reduce energy costs for American consumers and businesses, and create American jobs. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a 15-percent RES would save the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors $16.3 billion in electricity and natural gas costs. These savings are particularly critical for energy-intensive industries such as manufacturing. The RES will also create jobs in manufacturing. A recent study by the Apollo Alliance and the Urban Habitat found that renewable electricity creates American manufacturing, construction, and maintenance jobs. For every megawatt of solar photovoltaic electricity generated, about 22 jobs are created, which is their projection. Geothermal energy creates 10.5 jobs per megawatt, and wind energy creates 6.4 jobs per megawatt. American energy-intensive industries that are saving $5 billion through 2023 will be more competitive in the global market. Using clean, domestically produced power will also help stabilize prices, allowing businesses to more accurately budget for energy costs. This RES, the proposal of Senator Bingaman, will also lower U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 2 million tons per year by 2020. Finally, the RES is important to our national security. In July 2006, the National Security Task Force on Energy published a report recommending several measures to improve energy security in the 21st century, including a national RES of 10 to 25 percent. Consumption of natural gas is growing at a faster rate than for any other primary energy source, and it is growing in all sectors of the economy. Families heat their homes with natural gas, businesses use natural gas to produce products, natural gas vehicles are becoming more common, and power producers generate cleaner energy with natural gas. Similar to oil, demand is growing faster than available supplies can be delivered, and the tightening in supply and demand is resulting in dramatic price volatility. One way to increase the natural gas supply in the United States is through liquefied natural gas, known as LNG. Again, however, we would do well to learn from our lessons with oil. One-third of the world's proven reserves of natural gas are in the Middle East, nearly two-fifths are in Russia and its former satellites, and Nigeria and Algeria also have significant reserves. Political stability and terrorism are very real threats to these countries being a reliable source for natural gas. Russia is trying to create an OPEC-style cartel for natural gas, which could manipulate natural gas prices and supply, and that would be a very unfortunate development. For over 30 years, through four different administrations, Americans have been promised that our Government would end the national security threat created by our dependence on foreign oil. As a country, we need to move in a new direction toward a clean and secure energy future. This effort must include greater investment in energy efficiency, a strong renewable electricity standard, and increased vehicle fuel economy standards. Also, as we dramatically increase biofuel production, we must ensure that it does not cause harm to the environment and public health. Energy security starts with using the fuels we have more efficiently. Smart energy use is a resource not vulnerable to terrorism or world politics, and I think this legislation is a step forward for smart energy use. I commend Chairman Bingaman for his leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Yes.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I introduce, along with Senators Allard, Mikulski, Bond, Durbin, Collins, Schumer, Akaka, Clinton, Whitehouse, Levin, Brown, and Boxer, the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act of 2007, CPEHA. This legislation would reauthorize and amend the housing titles of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. Specifically, our bill would realign the incentives behind the Department of Housing and Urban Development's homelessness assistance programs to accomplish the goals of preventing and ending homelessness. According to the Homelessness Research Institute at the National Alliance to End Homelessness, as many as 3.5 million Americans experience homelessness each year. On any one night, approximately 744,000 men, women, and children are without homes. Many of these people have served our country in uniform. According to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, nearly 200,000 veterans of the United States armed forces are homeless on any given night, and about one-third of homeless men are veterans. Statistics regarding the number of children who experience homelessness are especially troubling. Each year, it is estimated that at least 1.35 million children experience homelessness. Over 900,000 homeless children and youth were identified and enrolled in public schools in the 2005-2006 school year. However, this Department of Education count does not include preschool children, and over 40 percent of homeless children are under the age of five. Whatever their age, we know that children who are homeless are in poorer health, have developmental delays, and suffer academically. In addition, many of those who are homeless have a disability. According to the Homelessness Research Institute, about 23 percent of homeless people were found to be ``chronically homeless,'' which according to the current HUD definition means that they are homeless for long periods of time or homeless repeatedly, and they have a disability. For many of these individuals and families, housing alone, without some attached services, may not be enough. Finally, as rents have soared and affordable housing units have disappeared from the market during the past several years, even more working Americans have been left unable to afford housing. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition's most recent ``Out of Reach'' report, nowhere in the country can a minimum wage earner afford a one-bedroom home. Eighty-eight percent of renters in cities live in areas where they cannot afford the fair market rent for a two-bedroom rental even with two minimum wage jobs. Low income renters who live paycheck to paycheck are in precarious circumstances and sometimes must make tough choices between paying rent and buying food, prescription drugs, or other necessities. If one unforeseen event occurs in their lives, they can end up homeless. So why should the Federal Government work to help prevent and end homelessness? Simply put, we cannot afford not to address this problem. Homelessness leads to untold costs, including expenses for emergency rooms, jails, shelters, foster care, detoxification, and emergency mental health treatment. According to a number of studies, it costs just as much, if not more in overall expenditures, to allow men, women, and children to remain homeless as it does to provide them with assistance and get them back on the road to self-sufficiency. It has been 20 years since the enactment of the Steward B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, and we have learned a lot about the problem of homelessness since then. At the time of its adoption in 1987, this legislation was viewed as an emergency response to a national crisis, and was to be followed by measures to prevent homelessness and to create more systemic solutions to the problem. It is now time to take what we have learned during the past 20 years, and put those best practices and proposals into action. First and foremost, our bill would consolidate HUD's three main competitive homelessness programs, Supportive Housing Program, Shelter Plus Care, and Moderate Rehabilitation/Single Room Occupancy, into one program called the Community Homeless Assistance Program. The consolidation would reduce the administrative burden on communities caused by different program requirements. It also would allow funding to be used for an array of eligible activities maximizing flexibility, creativity, and local-decision making. Second, the bill would create a new prevention title that would allow communities to apply for funding to prevent homelessness. This would allow them to serve people who move frequently for economic reasons, are doubled up, are about to be evicted, live in severely overcrowded housing, or otherwise live in an unstable situation that puts them at risk of homelessness. The program could fund short- to medium-term housing assistance, housing relocation and stabilization, and supportive services. The program would be authorized for up to $250 million in fiscal year 2008. Third, the bill would create a more flexible set of requirements for rural communities by modifying HUD's long-dormant Rural Homelessness Grant Program. Under the new requirements, a rural community could use funds for homelessness prevention and housing stabilization, in addition to transitional housing, permanent housing, and supportive services. The application process for these funds would be streamlined to be more consistent with the capacities of rural homelessness programs. Fourth, HUD would be required to provide incentives for communities to use proven strategies to end homelessness. These strategies would include permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless people, rapid rehousing programs for homeless families, and other research- based strategies that HUD, after public comment, determines are effective. Fifth, thirty percent of total funds available nationally would be allocated for permanent housing for individuals with disabilities or families headed by a person with disabilities. At least 10 percent of overall funds would be allocated for permanently housing families with children. Sixth, communities that demonstrate results, reducing the number of people who become homeless, the length of time people are homeless, and recidivism back into homelessness--would be allowed to use their homeless assistance funding more flexibly and to serve groups that are at risk of becoming homeless. Finally, leasing, rental assistance, and operating costs of permanent housing programs would be renewed for 1 year at a time through the section 8 housing voucher account, provided that the applicant demonstrates need and compliance with appropriate standards. There is a growing consensus on ways to help communities break the cycle of repeated and prolonged homelessness. If we combine Federal dollars with the right incentives to local communities, we can prevent and end long-term homelessness. This bipartisan legislation seeks to do just that. It will reward communities for initiatives that prevent and end homelessness. Groups that are endorsing the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act include: The National Alliance to End Homelessness; the U.S. Conference of Mayors; the National Association of Counties; National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies; National Community Development Association; the National Housing Conference; the Corporation for Supportive Housing; National Alliance on Mental Illness; Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities Housing Task Force; Habitat for Humanity; Technical Assistance Collaborative; and the Housing Assistance Council. The Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act will set us on the path to meeting an important national goal. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this bill and other homelessness prevention efforts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I introduce, along with Senators Allard, Mikulski, Bond, Durbin, Collins, Schumer, Akaka, Clinton, Whitehouse, Levin, Brown, and Boxer, the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act of 2007, CPEHA. This legislation would reauthorize and amend the housing titles of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. Specifically, our bill would realign the incentives behind the Department of Housing and Urban Development's homelessness assistance programs to accomplish the goals of preventing and ending homelessness. According to the Homelessness Research Institute at the National Alliance to End Homelessness, as many as 3.5 million Americans experience homelessness each year. On any one night, approximately 744,000 men, women, and children are without homes. Many of these people have served our country in uniform. According to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, nearly 200,000 veterans of the United States armed forces are homeless on any given night, and about one-third of homeless men are veterans. Statistics regarding the number of children who experience homelessness are especially troubling. Each year, it is estimated that at least 1.35 million children experience homelessness. Over 900,000 homeless children and youth were identified and enrolled in public schools in the 2005-2006 school year. However, this Department of Education count does not include preschool children, and over 40 percent of homeless children are under the age of five. Whatever their age, we know that children who are homeless are in poorer health, have developmental delays, and suffer academically. In addition, many of those who are homeless have a disability. According to the Homelessness Research Institute, about 23 percent of homeless people were found to be ``chronically homeless,'' which according to the current HUD definition means that they are homeless for long periods of time or homeless repeatedly, and they have a disability. For many of these individuals and families, housing alone, without some attached services, may not be enough. Finally, as rents have soared and affordable housing units have disappeared from the market during the past several years, even more working Americans have been left unable to afford housing. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition's most recent ``Out of Reach'' report, nowhere in the country can a minimum wage earner afford a one-bedroom home. Eighty-eight percent of renters in cities live in areas where they cannot afford the fair market rent for a two-bedroom rental even with two minimum wage jobs. Low income renters who live paycheck to paycheck are in precarious circumstances and sometimes must make tough choices between paying rent and buying food, prescription drugs, or other necessities. If one unforeseen event occurs in their lives, they can end up homeless. So why should the Federal Government work to help prevent and end homelessness? Simply put, we cannot afford not to address this problem. Homelessness leads to untold costs, including expenses for emergency rooms, jails, shelters, foster care, detoxification, and emergency mental health treatment. According to a number of studies, it costs just as much, if not more in overall expenditures, to allow men, women, and children to remain homeless as it does to provide them with assistance and get them back on the road to self-sufficiency. It has been 20 years since the enactment of the Steward B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, and we have learned a lot about the problem of homelessness since then. At the time of its adoption in 1987, this legislation was viewed as an emergency response to a national crisis, and was to be followed by measures to prevent homelessness and to create more systemic solutions to the problem. It is now time to take what we have learned during the past 20 years, and put those best practices and proposals into action. First and foremost, our bill would consolidate HUD's three main competitive homelessness programs, Supportive Housing Program, Shelter Plus Care, and Moderate Rehabilitation/Single Room Occupancy, into one program called the Community Homeless Assistance Program. The consolidation would reduce the administrative burden on communities caused by different program requirements. It also would allow funding to be used for an array of eligible activities maximizing flexibility, creativity, and local-decision making. Second, the bill would create a new prevention title that would allow communities to apply for funding to prevent homelessness. This would allow them to serve people who move frequently for economic reasons, are doubled up, are about to be evicted, live in severely overcrowded housing, or otherwise live in an unstable situation that puts them at risk of homelessness. The program could fund short- to medium-term housing assistance, housing relocation and stabilization, and supportive services. The program would be authorized for up to $250 million in fiscal year 2008. Third, the bill would create a more flexible set of requirements for rural communities by modifying HUD's long-dormant Rural Homelessness Grant Program. Under the new requirements, a rural community could use funds for homelessness prevention and housing stabilization, in addition to transitional housing, permanent housing, and supportive services. The application process for these funds would be streamlined to be more consistent with the capacities of rural homelessness programs. Fourth, HUD would be required to provide incentives for communities to use proven strategies to end homelessness. These strategies would include permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless people, rapid rehousing programs for homeless families, and other research- based strategies that HUD, after public comment, determines are effective. Fifth, thirty percent of total funds available nationally would be allocated for permanent housing for individuals with disabilities or families headed by a person with disabilities. At least 10 percent of overall funds would be allocated for permanently housing families with children. Sixth, communities that demonstrate results, reducing the number of people who become homeless, the length of time people are homeless, and recidivism back into homelessness--would be allowed to use their homeless assistance funding more flexibly and to serve groups that are at risk of becoming homeless. Finally, leasing, rental assistance, and operating costs of permanent housing programs would be renewed for 1 year at a time through the section 8 housing voucher account, provided that the applicant demonstrates need and compliance with appropriate standards. There is a growing consensus on ways to help communities break the cycle of repeated and prolonged homelessness. If we combine Federal dollars with the right incentives to local communities, we can prevent and end long-term homelessness. This bipartisan legislation seeks to do just that. It will reward communities for initiatives that prevent and end homelessness. Groups that are endorsing the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act include: The National Alliance to End Homelessness; the U.S. Conference of Mayors; the National Association of Counties; National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies; National Community Development Association; the National Housing Conference; the Corporation for Supportive Housing; National Alliance on Mental Illness; Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities Housing Task Force; Habitat for Humanity; Technical Assistance Collaborative; and the Housing Assistance Council. The Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act will set us on the path to meeting an important national goal. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this bill and other homelessness prevention efforts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, on April 16, 2007, our Nation faced a terrible tragedy, the deadliest shooting in the history of our Nation. I want to express my sympathy to the victims of this senseless violence, one of whom was Daniel O'Neil, a 22-year-old Virginia Tech graduate student from Lincoln, RI. The unfortunate truth is that this unspeakable event could have happened on any campus, anywhere. It highlighted how vulnerable our Nation's university and college campuses can be to this type of attack. Today, I am reintroducing the Equity in Law Enforcement Act, to extend Federal benefits to law enforcement officers who serve private institutions of higher education and rail carriers, including line-of- duty death benefits under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program, and eligibility for bulletproof vest partnership grants through the Department of Justice. This legislation would give sworn, licensed, or certified police officers serving private institutions of higher education and rail carriers the same Federal benefits that apply to law enforcement officers serving units of State and local government. The Public Safety Officers' Benefits, PSOB, Act of 1976 was enacted to aid in the recruitment and retention of law enforcement officers and firefighters by providing a one-time financial benefit to the eligible survivors of public safety officers whose deaths are the direct result of traumatic injury sustained in the line of duty. Specifically, this law addresses concerns that the hazards inherent in law enforcement and fire suppression, and the low level of State and local death benefits, might discourage qualified individuals from seeking careers in these fields. The same risks also apply to police officers protecting our private universities and railways. Unfortunately, the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act omitted coverage to sworn officers who are privately employed, even though they enforce the law and have arrest powers within their jurisdiction. These brave officers, who protect our college and university campuses and railways every day and receive the same training as their government counterparts, are thus excluded from receiving the same line-of-duty Federal death benefits as law enforcement officers serving units of State and local governments. According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 25 college or university officers have been killed in the line of duty since September 20, 1963. The names of these 25 officers, including Officer Joseph Francis Doyle, who was killed in the line of duty at Brown University in 1988, as well as 59 railway officers who have been killed in the line-of-duty are inscribed on the Memorial. Since September 2004, three sworn campus police officers have been killed in the line-of-duty. Two of these officers were from public universities: the University of Florida and the University of Mississippi, whose sworn officers are covered by the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act. The third, however, was Butler University Police Department Officer James L. Davis, Jr., who was shot and killed in the line of duty on September 24, 2004, while responding to a campus disturbance. Because Butler University is a private university, Officer Davis was not eligible for the same Federal benefits as his counterparts at the University of Florida or the University of Mississippi. I am pleased that Senators Leahy and Cornyn have joined me in introducing this legislation to help remedy this discrepancy in death benefit payments for law enforcement officers and ensure that these public safety officers have access to the protective equipment they need. The bill would apply only to sworn peace officers who receive State certification or licensing, and is supported by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, IACP, and the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, IACLEA. Indeed, the benefits of this legislation far outweigh the costs. A 2004 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office found that there would be no significant budget impact by its enactment. I urge my colleagues to join me, and Senators Leahy and Cornyn, in cosponsoring and passing the Equity in Law Enforcement Act, to ensure that the brave officers that serve and protect our private college and university campuses and railways receive the benefits that they deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, on April 16, 2007, our Nation faced a terrible tragedy, the deadliest shooting in the history of our Nation. I want to express my sympathy to the victims of this senseless violence, one of whom was Daniel O'Neil, a 22-year-old Virginia Tech graduate student from Lincoln, RI. The unfortunate truth is that this unspeakable event could have happened on any campus, anywhere. It highlighted how vulnerable our Nation's university and college campuses can be to this type of attack. Today, I am reintroducing the Equity in Law Enforcement Act, to extend Federal benefits to law enforcement officers who serve private institutions of higher education and rail carriers, including line-of- duty death benefits under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program, and eligibility for bulletproof vest partnership grants through the Department of Justice. This legislation would give sworn, licensed, or certified police officers serving private institutions of higher education and rail carriers the same Federal benefits that apply to law enforcement officers serving units of State and local government. The Public Safety Officers' Benefits, PSOB, Act of 1976 was enacted to aid in the recruitment and retention of law enforcement officers and firefighters by providing a one-time financial benefit to the eligible survivors of public safety officers whose deaths are the direct result of traumatic injury sustained in the line of duty. Specifically, this law addresses concerns that the hazards inherent in law enforcement and fire suppression, and the low level of State and local death benefits, might discourage qualified individuals from seeking careers in these fields. The same risks also apply to police officers protecting our private universities and railways. Unfortunately, the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act omitted coverage to sworn officers who are privately employed, even though they enforce the law and have arrest powers within their jurisdiction. These brave officers, who protect our college and university campuses and railways every day and receive the same training as their government counterparts, are thus excluded from receiving the same line-of-duty Federal death benefits as law enforcement officers serving units of State and local governments. According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 25 college or university officers have been killed in the line of duty since September 20, 1963. The names of these 25 officers, including Officer Joseph Francis Doyle, who was killed in the line of duty at Brown University in 1988, as well as 59 railway officers who have been killed in the line-of-duty are inscribed on the Memorial. Since September 2004, three sworn campus police officers have been killed in the line-of-duty. Two of these officers were from public universities: the University of Florida and the University of Mississippi, whose sworn officers are covered by the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act. The third, however, was Butler University Police Department Officer James L. Davis, Jr., who was shot and killed in the line of duty on September 24, 2004, while responding to a campus disturbance. Because Butler University is a private university, Officer Davis was not eligible for the same Federal benefits as his counterparts at the University of Florida or the University of Mississippi. I am pleased that Senators Leahy and Cornyn have joined me in introducing this legislation to help remedy this discrepancy in death benefit payments for law enforcement officers and ensure that these public safety officers have access to the protective equipment they need. The bill would apply only to sworn peace officers who receive State certification or licensing, and is supported by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, IACP, and the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, IACLEA. Indeed, the benefits of this legislation far outweigh the costs. A 2004 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office found that there would be no significant budget impact by its enactment. I urge my colleagues to join me, and Senators Leahy and Cornyn, in cosponsoring and passing the Equity in Law Enforcement Act, to ensure that the brave officers that serve and protect our private college and university campuses and railways receive the benefits that they deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Homeownership Protection and Enhancement Act of 2007, HOPE Act. This legislation would reauthorize and amend Section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, so that we can improve on Federal efforts to support and sustain homeownership. As we all know, during the past several years, housing prices in cities and States around the country have far outpaced any increase in wages. Families have been stretching themselves financially to get into homeownership, and many families have started using alternative or exotic mortgages loan products to purchase their homes. According to First American Loan Performance, in 2006, in my own State of Rhode Island, nearly 16 percent of all home-purchase loans were ``interest only.'' However, as home prices have declined, many people who took out these exotic loans are now finding they owe more than the value of their property. The Center for Responsible Lending estimates that nationally one in five subprime loans originated during the prior 2 years will end in foreclosure, costing homeowners $164 billion, mostly in lost equity. `It appears that we are just at the beginning of what could be a perfect storm, as many credit-stressed borrowers still face resets of these exotic adjustable-rate and payment option loans. There were 1.2 million foreclosures reported nationwide last year, up 42 percent from 2005, according to RealtyTrac, a database of foreclosed properties. RealtyTrac also reports 430,000 foreclosure filings in the first quarter of 2007, a 35 percent jump over the same period in 2006. The increasing rate of foreclosures across the country is troubling. Not only are individual families losing their homes and their financial nest eggs, but there is a negative ripple effect across communities and the economy. That is why I am introducing the Homeownership Protection and Enhancement Act, or HOPE Act. This bill seeks to help States establish and enhance outreach programs to proactively find homeowners at risk of losing their homes and help them avoid foreclosure. States will be rewarded for having set up effective programs to help curtail foreclosures with additional funding and resources. An incentive is provided for more States to follow suit and reach out to delinquent borrowers, offer them access to financial counseling, and, when appropriate, help them negotiate a plan to restructure their debt. In particular, the HOPE Act provides $50 million for the creation and operation of State Homeownership Protection Centers. The centers can serve as a one-stop resource, offering consumers a broad range of services and assistance, such as financial assessments, counseling, or referrals to families in need. It authorizes $260 million in competitive grants to States who operate State Homeownership Protection Centers for revolving loan funds to offer one-time grants or subsidized loans to qualified families. It increases funding to $300 million for effective HUD-approved counseling agencies. Finally, it sets aside $5 million for the creation of a Federal database on defaults and foreclosures to improve oversight of public and private efforts to sustain homeownership. In addition, to help prevent future borrowers from taking on unsustainable mortgages and falling into foreclosure, the HOPE Act would create an affirmative duty for lenders and servicers to engage in reasonable loss mitigation prior to foreclosure. It would also require notifications by lenders and servicers to borrowers regarding the full array of counseling services available in their State at every critical step, at application, at closing, and upon delinquency. Finally, if a State has a State Homeownership Protection Center, lenders and servicers would be required to refer borrowers who are 60 days or more delinquent to the center so that it can proactively attempt to reach distressed borrowers. I am introducing the HOPE Act because when homes get foreclosed on, it is not just the borrowers and lenders who pay the price, whole neighborhoods suffer. Housing industry experts estimate that for every foreclosure within an eighth of a mile of a house, two and a half city blocks in every direction, the property value of surrounding homes drops by about 1 percent. I believe that the Federal Government has a responsibility to step in and ensure that millions of Americans, including neighbors who never took out a risky loan and have scrimped and saved to pay their bills on time, are not adversely affected by the subprime foreclosure crisis. This legislation is targeted relief that will help more families keep their homes and save communities nationwide millions of dollars. We need to act swiftly before personal financial tragedies turn into a full blown national financial crisis. The HOPE Act will set us on the path to meeting an important national goal, creating sustainable homeownership. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and other foreclosure prevention efforts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Homeownership Protection and Enhancement Act of 2007, HOPE Act. This legislation would reauthorize and amend Section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, so that we can improve on Federal efforts to support and sustain homeownership. As we all know, during the past several years, housing prices in cities and States around the country have far outpaced any increase in wages. Families have been stretching themselves financially to get into homeownership, and many families have started using alternative or exotic mortgages loan products to purchase their homes. According to First American Loan Performance, in 2006, in my own State of Rhode Island, nearly 16 percent of all home-purchase loans were ``interest only.'' However, as home prices have declined, many people who took out these exotic loans are now finding they owe more than the value of their property. The Center for Responsible Lending estimates that nationally one in five subprime loans originated during the prior 2 years will end in foreclosure, costing homeowners $164 billion, mostly in lost equity. `It appears that we are just at the beginning of what could be a perfect storm, as many credit-stressed borrowers still face resets of these exotic adjustable-rate and payment option loans. There were 1.2 million foreclosures reported nationwide last year, up 42 percent from 2005, according to RealtyTrac, a database of foreclosed properties. RealtyTrac also reports 430,000 foreclosure filings in the first quarter of 2007, a 35 percent jump over the same period in 2006. The increasing rate of foreclosures across the country is troubling. Not only are individual families losing their homes and their financial nest eggs, but there is a negative ripple effect across communities and the economy. That is why I am introducing the Homeownership Protection and Enhancement Act, or HOPE Act. This bill seeks to help States establish and enhance outreach programs to proactively find homeowners at risk of losing their homes and help them avoid foreclosure. States will be rewarded for having set up effective programs to help curtail foreclosures with additional funding and resources. An incentive is provided for more States to follow suit and reach out to delinquent borrowers, offer them access to financial counseling, and, when appropriate, help them negotiate a plan to restructure their debt. In particular, the HOPE Act provides $50 million for the creation and operation of State Homeownership Protection Centers. The centers can serve as a one-stop resource, offering consumers a broad range of services and assistance, such as financial assessments, counseling, or referrals to families in need. It authorizes $260 million in competitive grants to States who operate State Homeownership Protection Centers for revolving loan funds to offer one-time grants or subsidized loans to qualified families. It increases funding to $300 million for effective HUD-approved counseling agencies. Finally, it sets aside $5 million for the creation of a Federal database on defaults and foreclosures to improve oversight of public and private efforts to sustain homeownership. In addition, to help prevent future borrowers from taking on unsustainable mortgages and falling into foreclosure, the HOPE Act would create an affirmative duty for lenders and servicers to engage in reasonable loss mitigation prior to foreclosure. It would also require notifications by lenders and servicers to borrowers regarding the full array of counseling services available in their State at every critical step, at application, at closing, and upon delinquency. Finally, if a State has a State Homeownership Protection Center, lenders and servicers would be required to refer borrowers who are 60 days or more delinquent to the center so that it can proactively attempt to reach distressed borrowers. I am introducing the HOPE Act because when homes get foreclosed on, it is not just the borrowers and lenders who pay the price, whole neighborhoods suffer. Housing industry experts estimate that for every foreclosure within an eighth of a mile of a house, two and a half city blocks in every direction, the property value of surrounding homes drops by about 1 percent. I believe that the Federal Government has a responsibility to step in and ensure that millions of Americans, including neighbors who never took out a risky loan and have scrimped and saved to pay their bills on time, are not adversely affected by the subprime foreclosure crisis. This legislation is targeted relief that will help more families keep their homes and save communities nationwide millions of dollars. We need to act swiftly before personal financial tragedies turn into a full blown national financial crisis. The HOPE Act will set us on the path to meeting an important national goal, creating sustainable homeownership. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and other foreclosure prevention efforts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, due to my flight from Rhode Island being delayed, I was unavoidably absent for vote No. 151, the Cochran second- degree amendment No. 1010 to the Dorgan amendment No. 990. Had I been present, I would have opposed the Cochran amendment. While I have supported the Cochran amendment in the past, the amendment this time seeks to amend a different and vastly strengthened Dorgan reimportation proposal. Senators Dorgan and Snowe have acknowledged the safety concerns that have been raised in the past and have sought to address them. Specifically, their amendment establishes a framework for the registration and regulation of exporting pharmacies and wholesalers. It also directs the FDA to initiate a process to approve identical medications as FDA-approved products in the United States. The amendment also requires clear labeling and documentation of the drug from the point of origin to the point of sale. I believe these series of measures greatly improve the Dorgan amendment, reduce the risk of counterfeit products entering the domestic drug supply chain, and assure the safety of reimported drugs. The Dorgan-Snowe proposal also meets the second test set forth in the Cochran second degree amendment--cost savings. According to Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates, implementation of prescription drug importation provisions would lead to $50 million in direct savings. However, the CBO also found that imposing the Cochran amendment would reduce those potential savings to zero. The time has come for Congress to move forward with a thoughtful and responsible framework for drug reimportation. In a free market economy such as ours, it seems unfair that we have permitted a system that only allows the manufacturers to reimport drug products. It is essential that we find ways to reduce drug prices for Americans and one approach is by allowing drug reimportation. As such, we can and should, with the appropriate safeguards, allow a more open prescription drug reimportation regime to take hold in this country. The Dorgan-Snowe proposal offers a reasonable and responsible framework for such an endeavor to begin.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Kerry, in introducing the Reinsure America's Businesses Act of 2007. This legislation represents a critical step forward in bringing affordable health care to the uninsured and lowering the ever increasing costs of health care for families and businesses. The bill that we are introducing today proposes that the Federal Government assume responsibility for the most burdensome risk for employers, and in doing so helps to provide greater access to lower priced health care. Under our legislation, the Federal Government will reimburse employers for a significant portion of the costs of their most ill employees--75 percent of medical bills in excess of $50,000. In exchange, employers agree to offer all of their workers preventative care and quality coverage. At the heart of this bill lies the fact that 1 percent of patients account for 25 percent of health care costs, and 20 percent of the population that is catastrophically ill accounts for 80 percent of the costs. Planning for the unfortunate chance that one falls into one of these categories is precisely why individuals have health insurance. Yet it is also the primary reason why many employers, particularly small businesses where one critically ill individual can have a tremendous influence on the overall cost, do not offer their employees health insurance. Through reinsurance, the Federal Government has an opportunity to absorb a large portion of this risk and encourage more affordable and meaningful employer sponsored health coverage. This legislation also eases the burden on health insurance companies by making rate determinations more predictable. Federal reinsurance is an efficient use of Federal dollars because it spreads the burden across employers, the Federal Government, and employees, thereby lowering costs and increasing access to quality health care. Reinsurance reduces health insurance premiums for everyone; some estimates suggest as much as 10 percent. Actions to decrease the cost of health care and improve access to care are crucial if we are to combat ever-rising health care costs in this country. In Rhode Island, from 2000 to 2006, premiums increased 75 percent while median earnings went up only 23 percent. Uninsured rates have also grown in Rhode Island with more than 13 percent of residents under age 65 with no health insurance, up from 8.1 percent in 1999. Rhode Island is not unique; the entire country bears the burden of high health care costs and increasingly declining access. This legislation lays the groundwork for achieving our goal of making health care more affordable and more accessible to every American. I am pleased to join with my colleague in introducing this important initiative and hope the Senate will give it prompt consideration.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Kerry, in introducing the Reinsure America's Businesses Act of 2007. This legislation represents a critical step forward in bringing affordable health care to the uninsured and lowering the ever increasing costs of health care for families and businesses. The bill that we are introducing today proposes that the Federal Government assume responsibility for the most burdensome risk for employers, and in doing so helps to provide greater access to lower priced health care. Under our legislation, the Federal Government will reimburse employers for a significant portion of the costs of their most ill employees--75 percent of medical bills in excess of $50,000. In exchange, employers agree to offer all of their workers preventative care and quality coverage. At the heart of this bill lies the fact that 1 percent of patients account for 25 percent of health care costs, and 20 percent of the population that is catastrophically ill accounts for 80 percent of the costs. Planning for the unfortunate chance that one falls into one of these categories is precisely why individuals have health insurance. Yet it is also the primary reason why many employers, particularly small businesses where one critically ill individual can have a tremendous influence on the overall cost, do not offer their employees health insurance. Through reinsurance, the Federal Government has an opportunity to absorb a large portion of this risk and encourage more affordable and meaningful employer sponsored health coverage. This legislation also eases the burden on health insurance companies by making rate determinations more predictable. Federal reinsurance is an efficient use of Federal dollars because it spreads the burden across employers, the Federal Government, and employees, thereby lowering costs and increasing access to quality health care. Reinsurance reduces health insurance premiums for everyone; some estimates suggest as much as 10 percent. Actions to decrease the cost of health care and improve access to care are crucial if we are to combat ever-rising health care costs in this country. In Rhode Island, from 2000 to 2006, premiums increased 75 percent while median earnings went up only 23 percent. Uninsured rates have also grown in Rhode Island with more than 13 percent of residents under age 65 with no health insurance, up from 8.1 percent in 1999. Rhode Island is not unique; the entire country bears the burden of high health care costs and increasingly declining access. This legislation lays the groundwork for achieving our goal of making health care more affordable and more accessible to every American. I am pleased to join with my colleague in introducing this important initiative and hope the Senate will give it prompt consideration.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I believe the Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act before us today raises and addresses issues that are critically important to the public's health and well-being. Congress has a historic opportunity to strengthen and increase knowledge about drug safety and effectiveness, bring more transparency to the process of drug approval and surveillance, as well as reassess the goals of the prescription drug and medical device user fee programs, and fortify and expand essential safety programs for children. The FDA Revitalization Act strikes a careful balance between these many important priorities and objectives. Recent serious adverse drug events related to several widely used drugs on the market underscore the urgency with which we should address and improve drug safety in this country. Moreover, as the population ages and science inevitably advances, more and more drugs will come to market, presenting potentially groundbreaking health benefits to the public, but simultaneously increasing the need for sophisticated mechanisms for monitoring and assuring drug safety. The FDA Revitalization Act is an opportunity to improve our current system of drug approval and drug monitoring, but it also adeptly anticipates changes in the future of prescription drugs and consumer safety brought about by advances in science and an ever expanding market for prescription drugs. The primary mechanism this bill uses to strengthen drug safety is to strengthen and rearticulate the FDA's authority. The bill clarifies, and in some cases fortifies, the FDA's authority with regard to drug safety. Currently, if the FDA detects a problem, or a potential problem with a drug post approval, they have few options beyond what is often referred to as the ``nuclear option.'' That is, pulling a drug from the market. While the FDA's authority to pull a drug from the marketplace is a powerful tool, it is a blunt instrument. In order to prevent problems from spiraling into major public health crises, the FDA needs intermediary authority. The FDA's reluctance to pull a drug, potentially a drug upon which millions of Americans depend to manage an illness, unless it is overwhelmingly certain that the action is necessary, is understandable. However, prescription drug users suffer as a result since the ``nuclear option'' offers a forceful, but ultimately limited response. Pulling a drug from the market potentially delays action and places individuals at major health risks in the interim. On the flip side, pulling a drug prematurely may needlessly deny patients important, and in some cases, singular, treatments for their health needs. This bill offers what I believe is a good solution to this paradox; one that considers input from patients rights organizations, industry representatives, and the FDA, but ultimately places patients at the top of the list. The risk evaluation and mitigation, REMS, system, the primary tool in the drug safety title of this bill, bolsters the FDA's intermediary authority to require drug manufacturers to monitor and provide important information regarding their products. By so doing, the FDA can actively require drug companies to provide information about the medications millions of Americans are taking and not just passively request drug companies to comply. Most importantly, the REMS system focuses the FDA's efforts and resources on postmarket surveillance. Increased drug user fees would be used to review REMS as well as for general drug safety surveillance. User fee revenue will increase by $50 million to fund drug safety activities, of which $30 million is authorized for the routine drug surveillance once they are marketed. Many of us would like to eliminate the need for industry paid user fees, but this arrangement, agreed on by industry and the FDA, offers the best workable solution in this strained budget environment. Another important objective of the FDA Revitalization Act is to improve the integrity of the agency and to enhance transparency on its actions. I am pleased that this bill improves the public's access to information about clinical trials and, more importantly, the results of those trials. The bill enhances patient enrollment in trials by requiring late phase II, as well as phase III and phase IV clinical trials on drugs are registered in a publicly available database. This will improve the public's knowledge of important and potentially life saving clinical studies. The bill also creates a publicly available database of the results of those trials. This means, for instance, that a parent who wishes to understand why a much-talked about treatment for juvenile diabetes failed to advance past a clinical trial stage can track the progress of a treatment using this database. It is important that we empower patients and consumers to gather information from primary sources so that they can engage in treatment decisions and make informed choices regarding their family's health care needs. I am also pleased to see efforts to increase research on pediatric drug safety, pediatric clinical trials, and pediatric medical devices in title IV of the FDA Revitalization Act. The bill includes reauthorizations of the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, BPCA, championed by my colleague, Senator Dodd, which I have cosponsored, and the Pediatric Research Improvement Act, PRIA, championed by my colleague, Senator Clinton, which have been particularly successful at increasing the availability of pediatric specific data on drug products, as well as greatly expanding the number of treatments that have been tested and labeled for use in pediatric populations. The bill also includes a new proposal to expand the collection and availability of pediatric data on medical devices, an area of the medical device market that remains seriously underdeveloped, and as a result places infants and children at risk for inferior or inadequate care at best, and tragic and needless loss of life at worst. Moreover, BPCA also includes a new provision on patent exclusivity for blockbuster drugs that strikes a sound compromise between creating an appropriate financial incentive for drug companies to conduct much needed research, while also providing the FDA with important information about pediatric drugs. Mr. President, the FDA is responsible for overseeing the safety of a wide range of products consumed by millions of Americans each and every day. We can and must ensure that this critical agency has the tools and resources it needs to perform the myriad of tasks under its purview. We need to get this right for the millions of Americans who rely on the FDA to approve the drugs that they take to treat serious illnesses. The FDA Revitalization Act creates an opportunity to improve science at the FDA, strengthen drug safety by devoting resources to postmarket surveillance, and ``revitalize'' the FDA's authority. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jessica Gerrity, a fellow in my office, be accorded the privilege of the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we must change the mission of our military forces in Iraq. We have to concentrate on training Iraqi forces so they can assume the burden of this hostility. We have to continue our efforts in counterterrorism to strike those international terrorists wherever they may be. And we have to protect our forces at all times. But we cannot continue an open-ended commitment and involvement in a civil war. That is essentially what the President is urging us to do. This appropriations bill provides more resources for our military than was requested. It also funds extremely important domestic concerns, including the Veterans' Administration, so we can keep faith with those veterans who have served and will continue to serve; and also, as my colleague from Louisiana pointed out, we have to begin to reconstruct our gulf coast. It is ironic that we are pouring billions into Baghdad, helping them build all sorts of utilities, and still Americans languish along the gulf coast. It also includes the Murtha standards of readiness on our forces as they deploy, to ensure that no American unit goes into the war zone without proper equipment, proper training, and appropriate personnel. The President has the ability to waive this under certain circumstances, so we are not unduly constricting his ability as Commander in Chief. Then, of course, this legislation has benchmarks so that the Iraqi Government can stand up to their task. I think the one common theme that I have heard in this body is, ultimately, this is a political struggle and, ultimately, the Iraqi Government will make the decisions that are so important to the success of their efforts, which will allow us to begin a phased redeployment. But their record is very discouraging when it comes to their government. Leon Panetta published an editorial a few days ago in the New York Times. He points out the Iraqis promised to achieve by the end of last year and the beginning of this year the approval of a provincial election law but, so far, no progress; approval of a law to regulate the oil industry and share revenues, and a draft is circulating, but it has not been approved by the parliament; approval of a debaathification law to reintegrate officials of the former regime and have a reconciliation, but there has been no progress; approval of a law to rein in sectarian militias, but no progress there either. By March, the Government promised to hold a referendum on constitutional amendments. No progress. By May, the Prime Minister committed to putting in place the law controlling militias, with no progress; the approval of the amnesty agreement, with no progress; and the completion of all reconciliation efforts. No progress. If the Iraqi Government is unwilling to stand up to the demands they must face, then I think we can legitimately--and, indeed, we must--tell them very strongly that we will not support an open-ended commitment to that Government, that we will change our mission and refocus our resources. It is interesting to me that our Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, those who travel to Baghdad, stand up and say this: Tell them what we are doing here is important, critical, and will happen, unless the Iraqis change. But in Washington, we are criticized for doing this. I think the reality in Baghdad has to be the same as here. We have to move forward with this legislation to change the course, protect our soldiers in the field, and to allow a chance for success in Iraq. I think we are all committed, we hope, to a policy that will lead us and the people of Iraq to a much better day. I believe supporting this initiative will do that.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Preparing, Recruiting, and Retaining Education Professionals (PRREP) Act to improve education and student achievement through high-quality preparation, induction, and professional development for teachers, early childhood education providers, principals, and administrators. Improving teacher quality is the single most effective measure we can take to increase student achievement. As Congress turns to the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we must ensure that educators receive the training and support necessary to thrive in our nation's early childhood programs, elementary schools, and secondary schools. We have an opportunity to support the development of educators so they not only have the credentials to be considered a ``highly qualified teacher'' under the No Child Left Behind Act, but also the skills and training to be truly effective in the classroom. By strengthening the teacher preparation grants in Title II of the Higher Education Act, my legislation will accomplish both of these important goals. Teacher attrition undermines teacher quality and creates teacher shortages. According to the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, one-third of beginning teachers leave the profession within three years, and nearly one-half leave within five years. In high poverty schools turnover rates are even worse--approximately one- third higher than the rate for all teachers. The PRREP Act would create a year-long clinical learning experience for prospective teachers, and establish a comprehensive induction program, including high quality mentoring, for new teachers in at least their first two years of teaching. Research consistently shows that induction programs reduce the number of teachers who leave their schools or the profession. Comprehensive induction programs can cut that number by half or more. Additionally, my legislation strengthens teacher preparation programs so that teachers will reach their maximum potential to positively affect student achievement. A focus on scientific knowledge of effective teaching skills and methods of student learning will equip teachers to understand and respond to diverse student populations, including students with disabilities, limited-English proficient students, and students with different learning styles or special learning needs. The legislation also seeks to ensure that teachers have the ability to integrate technology into the classroom, use assessments to improve instructional practices and curriculum, and communicate with and involve parents in their children's education. My legislation further focuses on teaching skills and learning strategies by including in the partnership grants academic departments such as psychology, human development, or one with comparable expertise in the disciplines of teaching, learning, and child and adolescent development. The PRREP Act also would include early childhood educators for the first time in teacher preparation programs. Teacher preparation grants under Title II of the Higher Education Act are currently funded at only $60 million a year--far too small of an investment for this critical enterprise. The stakes are too high, not just in terms of meeting the highly qualified requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, but also for real students in real classrooms. My bill significantly boosts this funding, authorizing $500 million for these vital programs. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work for its inclusion in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Preparing, Recruiting, and Retaining Education Professionals (PRREP) Act to improve education and student achievement through high-quality preparation, induction, and professional development for teachers, early childhood education providers, principals, and administrators. Improving teacher quality is the single most effective measure we can take to increase student achievement. As Congress turns to the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we must ensure that educators receive the training and support necessary to thrive in our nation's early childhood programs, elementary schools, and secondary schools. We have an opportunity to support the development of educators so they not only have the credentials to be considered a ``highly qualified teacher'' under the No Child Left Behind Act, but also the skills and training to be truly effective in the classroom. By strengthening the teacher preparation grants in Title II of the Higher Education Act, my legislation will accomplish both of these important goals. Teacher attrition undermines teacher quality and creates teacher shortages. According to the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, one-third of beginning teachers leave the profession within three years, and nearly one-half leave within five years. In high poverty schools turnover rates are even worse--approximately one- third higher than the rate for all teachers. The PRREP Act would create a year-long clinical learning experience for prospective teachers, and establish a comprehensive induction program, including high quality mentoring, for new teachers in at least their first two years of teaching. Research consistently shows that induction programs reduce the number of teachers who leave their schools or the profession. Comprehensive induction programs can cut that number by half or more. Additionally, my legislation strengthens teacher preparation programs so that teachers will reach their maximum potential to positively affect student achievement. A focus on scientific knowledge of effective teaching skills and methods of student learning will equip teachers to understand and respond to diverse student populations, including students with disabilities, limited-English proficient students, and students with different learning styles or special learning needs. The legislation also seeks to ensure that teachers have the ability to integrate technology into the classroom, use assessments to improve instructional practices and curriculum, and communicate with and involve parents in their children's education. My legislation further focuses on teaching skills and learning strategies by including in the partnership grants academic departments such as psychology, human development, or one with comparable expertise in the disciplines of teaching, learning, and child and adolescent development. The PRREP Act also would include early childhood educators for the first time in teacher preparation programs. Teacher preparation grants under Title II of the Higher Education Act are currently funded at only $60 million a year--far too small of an investment for this critical enterprise. The stakes are too high, not just in terms of meeting the highly qualified requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, but also for real students in real classrooms. My bill significantly boosts this funding, authorizing $500 million for these vital programs. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work for its inclusion in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, on behalf of the Armenian population of Rhode Island, and Armenians around the world, I wish to recognize the 92nd anniversary of the Armenian genocide. On April 24, 1915, nationalists in the Ottoman Empire rounded up, deported, and executed 200 Armenian community leaders, writers, thinkers, and professionals in Constantinople, present day Istanbul. Also on that day in Constantinople, 5,000 of the poorest Armenians were massacred in the streets and in their homes. These events sparked an 8- year campaign of tyranny that impacted the lives of every Armenian in Asia Minor. By 1923, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were murdered, and another 500,000 were exiled. The U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morganthau, Sr., unsuccessfully pleaded President Wilson for intervention. Unfortunately, the United States and the world tragically failed to intervene on behalf of the Armenian people. Ambassador Morganthau would later write in his memoir, ``The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915.'' Today, as a proud supporter of S. Res 106, legislation officially recognizing the Armenian genocide, I urge the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the U.S. record relating to the Armenian genocide. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., stated over 50 years after the Armenian genocide that: ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere . . . Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.'' The time has come to officially recognize the Armenian genocide. The United States is proud to have Armenia as an ally in the rebuilding and reconstruction of Iraq. For the past 4 years, Armenian soldiers have supported American and multinational force efforts in Iraq. As part of the Polish-led multinational division in south-central Iraq, Armenians have worked as truckdrivers, bomb detonators, and doctors. Armenia has proclaimed their fight by not allowing others to be left helpless as they were nearly a century ago. We must study and remember the events of our past in order to be better citizens of tomorrow. In instances such as the Armenian genocide, I call on all nations, not just the United States, to educate their youth to stand against hatred and prejudice of others in order to deter future atrocities against humanity. We should be prepared to take a vigilant stand against similar atrocities, such as the current situation in Darfur, to not let history repeat itself. We must honor the victims of the Armenian genocide by vowing to never allow the world to stand idle to atrocities against humanity again. Menk panav chenk mornar. We will never forget.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am joined by Mr. Cochran in introducing important legislation, the Librarian Incentive to Boost Recruitment and Retention in Areas of Need (LIBRARIAN) Act, to support our Nation's librarians. This legislation is also being introduced in the other body by Representative Becerra, along with Representatives Grijalva, Ehlers, and Shimkus. Public libraries and schools across the Nation are experiencing a shortage of librarians. Approximately 25 percent of America's school libraries do not have a State certified library media specialist on staff and with more than three in five librarians becoming eligible for retirement in the next decade this shortage is anticipated to only worsen. The LIBRARIAN Act amends the Higher Education Act to provide for Perkins loan forgiveness to individuals with master's degrees in library science who become librarians in low-income schools and public libraries. Librarians working full-time in low-income areas would qualify for up to 100 percent Perkins loan forgiveness depending on the number of years they serve. Libraries and librarians play an essential role in our schools and communities; this legislation aims to provide the same support to librarians as other public service workers receive, including teachers working in low-income schools, Head Start staff, law enforcement officials, and nurses or medical technicians. Today we celebrate National Library Workers Day, a day to recognize the valuable contributions made by librarians and others who work in libraries. With this legislation, we have an opportunity to encourage more individuals to pursue the field of library science and retain those skilled librarians who are already serving in our low-income schools and communities. I was pleased that the text of this bill was included in the Higher Education Act reauthorization bill approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee last Congress. I will again press for its inclusion in the reauthorization bill the Committee is currently working to develop. I urge my colleagues to join us in this endeavor by cosponsoring the LIBRARIAN Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am joined by Mr. Cochran in introducing important legislation, the Librarian Incentive to Boost Recruitment and Retention in Areas of Need (LIBRARIAN) Act, to support our Nation's librarians. This legislation is also being introduced in the other body by Representative Becerra, along with Representatives Grijalva, Ehlers, and Shimkus. Public libraries and schools across the Nation are experiencing a shortage of librarians. Approximately 25 percent of America's school libraries do not have a State certified library media specialist on staff and with more than three in five librarians becoming eligible for retirement in the next decade this shortage is anticipated to only worsen. The LIBRARIAN Act amends the Higher Education Act to provide for Perkins loan forgiveness to individuals with master's degrees in library science who become librarians in low-income schools and public libraries. Librarians working full-time in low-income areas would qualify for up to 100 percent Perkins loan forgiveness depending on the number of years they serve. Libraries and librarians play an essential role in our schools and communities; this legislation aims to provide the same support to librarians as other public service workers receive, including teachers working in low-income schools, Head Start staff, law enforcement officials, and nurses or medical technicians. Today we celebrate National Library Workers Day, a day to recognize the valuable contributions made by librarians and others who work in libraries. With this legislation, we have an opportunity to encourage more individuals to pursue the field of library science and retain those skilled librarians who are already serving in our low-income schools and communities. I was pleased that the text of this bill was included in the Higher Education Act reauthorization bill approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee last Congress. I will again press for its inclusion in the reauthorization bill the Committee is currently working to develop. I urge my colleagues to join us in this endeavor by cosponsoring the LIBRARIAN Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that upon completion of my remarks, Senator Alexander of Tennessee be recognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, the emergency appropriations bill passed by the Senate this morning is urgently needed for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, for our wounded veterans, and for scores of Americans facing natural disasters on the homefront. I commend Chairman Byrd and Senator Cochran for their hard work and close collaboration. As the acting chairman of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I also wish to thank Senator Hutchison and her able staff, along with my committee staff, for the help they gave in crafting the portions of the supplemental which dealt with military construction and veterans affairs. The total for military construction and veterans affairs in this supplemental is $6.548 billion. It includes in title I $1.644 billion for military construction. Also contained in this section is a proviso restricting the obligation of $280 million until the Secretary of Defense certifies that none of the funds will be used for the purpose of establishing permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. I think that is an important point to clarify. Title II of the recommendation includes a total of $4.9 billion for military construction and also for activities at the Department of Veterans Affairs. This includes $3.137 billion to restore funding for BRAC, which is very important to reset our forces as they are returned from overseas and to help reconfigure all of the services. This fully funds the request of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2007 for this account and will keep the BRAC process on track. Because the costs of the war are not associated strictly with activities on the battlefield, the recommendation includes $1.767 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs. In crafting the VA portion of this bill, we targeted the funding specifically for purposes of building capacity to deal with the influx of OEF and OIF veterans, hiring claims adjudicators and leveraging technology to expedite benefit claims, and upgrading existing VA facilities. The VA health care system is one of the best in the world. It has specialties in a number of areas, including spinal cord injury and blind rehabilitation. Because of these specialties, the VA has become a great resource for the treatment of troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, due to the nature of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with the advances in battlefield medicine, both the DOD health care system and the VA health care system are treating more military personnel with complex and multiple wounds and particularly traumatic brain injuries. In response to this, in 2005, the Congress provided funding to the Department of Veterans Affairs to establish polytrauma centers. The funding contained in this bill builds on the success of these centers by providing a total of over $163 million in polytrauma care for services ranging from establishing more level 1 comprehensive polytrauma centers to creating polytrauma residential transition rehabilitation programs, to upgrading the entire polytrauma network system. The bill also adds $150 million for enhancements to readjustment counseling, substance abuse programs, and mental health treatment capacity. These are specialty areas that the VA will need to continue to expand to deal with readjustment issues facing veterans returning from the war zone. In order to begin making progress toward deficiencies identified by the VA's facilities condition assessment and to prevent a possible Walter Reed Building 18 situation, the recommendation includes $550 million in nonrecurring maintenance and $356 million in minor construction. In addition to funding provided to the Department, the supplemental also includes a general provision directing the National Academy of Public Administration to conduct an independent analysis of the management, structure, and processes that are in place at the VA with regard to providing health care to active duty and veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as providing benefits to veterans of these conflicts. This study will assist the VA and Congress in identifying the cumbersome bureaucratic redtape that far too many of our soldiers go through in their transition to the VA. The bill also includes a provision requiring the Congressional Budget Office to conduct a budget study of the current and future long-term budget impacts of OEF and OIF on the Department of Veterans Affairs. We know with a number of these young men and women who have been severely injured--many with brain injuries and likely lifespans of 50 or 60 more years--that we will have to provide long-term, consistent, robust funding. We should identify that number now and provide that continuing support for the next several decades. This supplemental marks the continuing high priority the Senate places on ensuring that yesterday's, today's, and tomorrow's soldiers are cared for in the highest manner once they have done their duty and once they have come home to America. Let me make one other point. I was somewhat disappointed in this bill because I was attempting to include an amendment to rehabilitate a levee system in Woonsocket, RI, to ensure it is up to Federal standards. This amendment would have provided $3.25 million for the city of Woonsocket to rehabilitate the levee, including replacing important gate cables. The present cables are about 40 years old. According to the Army Corps of Engineers, failure of a cable during operation could result in an uncontrolled discharge downstream of the dam. Woonsocket is an old industrial city, densely populated, and these levees protect that city. The Woonsocket project was built between December 1963 and April 1967 by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps estimates that cumulative flood control benefits for the Blackstone Valley project are more than $82 million. This project in place protects at least $82 million worth of property. Given the importance of this flood protection to Woonsocket and communities on the Blackstone River, I believe Federal assistance is warranted to protect life and property. These deficiencies were discovered as a direct result of Katrina. We learned in Katrina there were projects, levees that were unsatisfactory. They failed and they caused billions of dollars of damages. Being forewarned--I hope we are forewarned--that having studied these problems, I hope we can now come together in Congress to provide the resources and help these local communities, many of which do not have the resources to sustain this kind of immediate and rapid expenditure. A recent assessment by the Corps found that the Woonsocket levee and dam is in need of repairs. The Corps has given the city until February 2008 to make these repairs, otherwise the project will no longer be eligible for Federal construction funding through the Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, if these repairs are not made, the Federal Emergency Management Agency could, and likely will, determine the levee no longer offers adequate flood protection and could require residents to buy flood insurance, which is a very expensive proposition. The city of Woonsocket is economically distressed. It needs Federal assistance. There are other communities around the country that might be in a similar situation. The devastation wrought by Katrina in New Orleans shows us what could happen. Now we have the knowledge--the foreknowledge--and now we have to act. I am disappointed we did not act in this situation to protect this complex of levees. I will continue to bring this issue to the attention of my colleagues again and again because I believe that with this knowledge, action is required--prompt, appropriate action--to ensure this community is protected. I wish to make a final point because my colleague has been very patient and very considerate in allowing me to go ahead. We have included in this supplemental language with respect to our policy in Iraq which I think is important, indeed, perhaps historical. It recognizes that we should begin a phased redeployment of our forces. It recognizes that we also must maintain certain missions in Iraq-- counterterrorism operations, training Iraqi security forces, and protecting our forces. But it does emphasize we should begin on a date certain going forward to take out our forces at a pace and a level decided by operational commanders. There is a goal--not a fixed deadline--but a goal that our combat forces--those not performing these residual missions--should be out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. This is a solution proposed essentially by the Iraq Study Group. It has been recommended, endorsed by the public sentiment of the American people by a wide margin. It allows us to continue missions that are critical to the safety and security of not only ourselves but of the region, but it does, we hope, disengage us from a potential and sometimes very real civil war in Iraq. I hope that in the deliberations with the House, we can come up with a measure that combines the best elements of both versions of the spending bill. I hope we can bring this to the President and discuss it with him. It does represent, I think, the sentiment of the American people. It does represent not only the sentiment that we change course in Iraq, but, as this budget does, we fully fund our forces in Iraq. I am hopeful we can make progress and that we can send to the President a bill, after discussing it with him, that could be signed rather than vetoed. That is my hope at this moment. I yield the floor.