Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to acknowledge a very important deed this body has accomplished prior to the conclusion of the 109th Congress. Despite some incredible obstacles and limited time we have succeeded in protecting real health insurance coverage for low-income, working Americans. The State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, which I am proud to have helped establish in 1997, has made a difference in expanding health insurance coverage to low-income children around this country. In previous years, Congress has stood up for low-income children and produced the additional funding necessary to keep the SCHIP program running. A number of states are again facing urgent shortfalls in their SCHIP allotments in fiscal year 2007. I was deeply disappointed when the tax extenders package did not include, as expected, a modest proposal to help those states facing immediate shortfalls in their SCHIP budgets. Not so long ago, Rhode Island could proudly claim it had the lowest rate of uninsured children in the country. The latest Census Bureau report is now showing a different picture--the number of uninsured children rose a full percentage point, from 5.8 percent to 6.8 percent from 2004 to 2005. My state has worked hard over the past decade to build a children's health insurance program that has become a model for the nation. Yet, Rhode Island is anticipated to be the first of several states in a funding shortfall next year. Specifically, my state is facing a $43 million shortfall and will have only 32 percent of the funding necessary to sustain SCHIP in 2007. These dollars mean the difference between thousands of children, pregnant women, and families getting access to health care or not getting the care they need at all. Included with the reauthorization of the National Institutes of Health, NIH, is a modest bipartisan proposal to defer the shortfalls that would negatively impact the SCHIP program in my state as well as several others. This additional time is needed to work on a more permanent solution to the chronic shortfalls and other structural issues that should be addressed in the context of SCHIP reauthorization next year. I would be remiss if I did not extend my sincere gratitude to the Democratic leader, Senator Harry Reid, and his staff, particularly Kate Leone, for their understanding, tenacity, and tireless effort in making this possible. I would also like to thank my colleague from Montana, Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Max Baucus, and his staff for all of their hard work in putting together a carefully crafted stopgap measure, and I look forward to working with him on the equally challenging task of SCHIP reauthorization next year. In the waning hours of the 109th Congress, we have taken a small but important step to maintain our commitment to America's children.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have been a longtime supporter of these tax credits and I am pleased that they are extended by this long overdue bill before us tonight. The tax credits included in this bill are significant both for families and for businesses; these credits will help families send their children to college, encourage businesses to hire individuals working to get off welfare, and support research and development. The IRS indicates that 19 million taxpayers will benefit from this relief. Our economy benefits from these provisions and many taxpayers have grown to rely on them. And those who benefit from these provisions need certainty. I am disappointed, however, by critical omissions and the inclusion of some provisions about which I have serious concerns. For starters, this package does not address the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT; a tax provision that, with no Congressional intervention, will affect 37.1 million tax returns by 2010. Households are more likely to pay the AMT if they have children or live in a high-tax state because the AMT does not allow taxpayers to claim an exemption for dependents as an itemized deduction for state taxes. By 2010, nearly 90 percent of married couples with two or more children and incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 will pay the AMT. The AMT is complicated, unfair, and no longer meets its intended purpose. That is why in her 2003 annual report to Congress, National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson identified the AMT as the most serious problem encountered by taxpayers. According to Olson ``. . . that is how the AMT appears to function--randomly, no longer with any logical basis in sound tax administration or any connection with its original purpose of taxing the very wealthy who escape taxation. Congress must address the AMT before it bogs down tax administration and increases taxpayers' cynicism to such a level that overall compliance declines.'' Also, the bill includes many ill-conceived provisions. I strongly oppose the bill's inclusion of an expanded voucher program for the District of Columbia. There is no doubt that our nation's capital faces severe educational challenges. However, this expansion is an unnecessary action that subverts the program's original intent to serve solely low-income students, and continues federal government subsidization of private and religious schools at the expense of public education. This is another attempt by the President and Republican leadership to expand private school voucher programs, while reneging on our fundamental commitment to public schools, where 90 percent of American children receive their education. Instead of private school vouchers, we should spend the dollars necessary to make the No Child Left Behind reforms work. We should be focusing on educational issues that touch the lives of all American students, not just a select few. Also inserted in the bill is a considerable expansion of Health Savings Accounts, HSAs. The provisions, which were never given full consideration by either the Senate or House of Representatives, provide yet another mechanism for high income individuals to shelter taxable income under the guise of health care. An August Government Accountability Office, GAO, report on tax filers who reported making HSA contributions had an average income of $133,000 in 2004. The annual survey of health care consumers by the Employee Benefit Research Institute and the Commonwealth Fund found virtually no change in enrollment in HSAs, nor did they find any measurable impact on the rates of the uninsured in this country. While those who support these extensions, which will cost taxpayers close to a billion dollars over the next decade, will argue that they will help expand these insurance products to more Americans, in reality they will benefit only those Americans wealthy enough to take advantage of them. The bill does contain some essential health-related provisions. Specifically, it includes another temporary update in the reimbursement rate for physicians under Medicare. While this package reverses the projected 5.1 percent cut for 2007, this Congress must take action next year to bring greater stability and predictability to the Medicare physician payment formula than currently exists. Nevertheless, this provision ensures that elderly and disabled Medicare patients will continue to have access to their providers. While this bill provides a 1-year extension of the moratorium on Medicare therapy caps, many other needed Medicare and Medicaid provisions have been omitted. For instance, the bill does not include a moratorium on impending reductions in reimbursements for imaging services. However, I would commend the architects of the legislation for carving out unexpended monies available in the Medicare advantage stabilization fund to finance the provisions that were included instead of resorting to cuts in reimbursements to individual Medicare providers groups. I am further disappointed that this bill allows for exploration of the outer continental shelf. This provision will not provide energy security to the United States. Our nation needs a comprehensive energy policy that reduces dependency on fossil fuels through increased energy efficiency, greater investment in renewable energy, and development of alternative fuels to replace oil. This provision is also unsound fiscal policy. It would mandate that almost 38 percent of revenue from federal resources generated by new leases in the Gulf of Mexico be given to four states--Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. These are revenues that currently would be provided to the United States Treasury for the benefit of the Nation as a whole. Reducing revenue to the Treasury means that we, as a nation, will have fewer resources available in the future to respond to a call for help should there be another devastating natural disaster or terrorism attack. Unfortunately, the majority played political games to get us to this point. We should have passed this legislation long ago. Instead, we are now faced with passing a bill that contains important provisions but also a number of others that I would have opposed had they been offered on their own merits. Despite this bill's shortcomings, I will support it because it extends tax credits that will truly benefit countless Americans and contains an important physician reimbursement fix. I will work in the new Congress to address the bill's shortcomings.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at the conclusion of my remarks the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, be recognized.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this is an opportunity to recognize the service of several of our colleagues who are departing from the Senate. To Senator Jeffords, Senator Frist, Senator DeWine, Senator Talent, Senator Santorum, Senator Burns, and Senator Allen, let me express my appreciation for their service to their States and their service to the Nation and wish them well. I particularly want to comment, though, on three colleagues with whom I have had the privilege of working very closely. Paul Sarbanes The first is my friend and my chairman, ranking member, Senator Paul Sarbanes of Maryland. Paul has had an extraordinarily distinguished career in the Senate, and he has been the chairman of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee and the Joint Economic Committee, and in both of those capacities he has made profound and important impacts on the banking system and the economy of the United States. Housing and urban affairs have also been improved dramatically by the efforts of Paul Sarbanes. When it comes to understanding complex financial matters there is no one more gifted and more knowledgeable than Paul Sarbanes. He has an extraordinary record of legislative achievements. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 stands as a testimony both to his skill as a thoughtful observer of the financial scene and as a legislator. It represented major reforms in corporate governance at a time when confidence in our markets was waning dramatically after the implosions of Enron and WorldCom. Through Paul's efforts, confidence was reestablished in a system of corporate governance which I think will stand the test of time. In addition, in 1999 he was instrumental in the Financial Modernization Act, also known as Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and was particularly concerned that the Community Reinvestment Act aspects of the legislation be maintained because he was always committed to serving people and giving them opportunities. He understood that the franchise to operate a financial institution with Federal Deposit Insurance required a concomitant commitment to serve the community, and Paul Sarbanes has done a remarkable job of maintaining that commitment to all the communities of America, particularly those that need an opportunity, need a chance to move forward. As chairman of the Joint Economic Committee in the late 1980s, he was a thoughtful and careful analyst, someone who I think led the way analytically to the changes in the 1990s that returned us to a balanced budget and a robust economy. Paul Sarbanes in many respects, through his work on the Joint Economic Committee, was the architect of those efforts in the 1990s. He has long had a concern about our role internationally in economic affairs. He was one of the first Members to raise concerns about Chinese currency and its impact on our trade, our productivity, and our manufacturing base. In the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, he mandated that the Treasury Department report semiannually to Congress about international economic and exchange rate policies. I think this is the lever that today is used to rally support, debate and attention to the issue of currency exchange rate policies. He has also, in his capacity as a leader on the Banking and Urban Affairs Committee, been active in promoting transit throughout the United States. He made sure that our transit systems are supported, and are able to provide greater accessibility, environmental benefits, while reducing the demand on foreign oil. His insights into transit, and his leadership, have benefitted everyone in the country, particularly the 14 million Americans who rely on mass transit every day. He has also been a champion for affordable housing. He has been the author of the Home Investment Partnerships Program, known as HOME. During the past 16 years it provided funding to our States and localities to improve affordable housing. He was one of the key legislators who offered the Market-to-Market Program, which preserved so much of our affordable housing, making sure low-income people have a chance to live in decent and affordable environments. He has had the able assistance of Steve Harris, Marty Gruenberg, Pat Mulloy, Johnathan Miller, Dean Shahinian, Sarah Kline, Aaron Klein, Lee Price, Patience Singleton, Jen Fogel-Bublick, Steve Kroll, and Lynsey Graham. I want to express my best wishes to Paul, to his wife Christine, and their family. His son, John, is now the new Representative for the United States House in the Third District of Maryland, so the Sarbanes tradition carries on. Let me conclude by saying there is a word in Greek for integrity and intelligence, and that word is Sarbanes. Paul, good luck. Lincoln Chafee Let me also recognize my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Lincoln Chafee. Senator Chafee is an individual both with character and sincere devotion to our State and Nation, an honest, decent man who is always respectful, thoughtful, and fair-minded. He is someone with whom we are all proud to have served. He is someone in this House respected for his integrity and for his determination. He came to the Senate upon the passing of his father, Senator John H. Chafee, and picked up that tradition of service from his father. He was a great model to emulate, and Senator Lincoln Chafee has done that. Like his father, he has concerned himself with issues of the environment through service on the Environment and Public Works Committee. He sought to improve our Nation's water and air quality standards. His pivotal work to provide for the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields is a commitment and accomplishment that I think will be recognized for many years to come. He has also tried to preserve our State of Rhode Island's industrial, natural, and cultural history, and he has done it persistently. Let me applaud him for his dedicated service and wish him and his family well in the days ahead. Mark Dayton Finally, let me say a word about my colleague and friend, Senator Mark Dayton. He is retiring after 6 years in the Senate. He began his public life much earlier, in 1990, as a public school teacher in New York City, and throughout his work he has dedicated himself to help the people of Minnesota and the people of this great Nation. He has placed himself on the front lines to provide better health care for seniors in Minnesota. He has worked closely on the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. He has a good head and a great heart and he served with distinction. I wish him well as he leaves the Senate. To all my colleagues who served and conclude their service, let me once again express deep appreciation for their friendship and for their service to the Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Florida has put his finger on a critical issue, perhaps the most critical. I believe Dr. Gates will give good, sound advice. He will listen. But the real question is, Will that advice be accepted by the President? And will the President be able to redefine policy in such a way that is realistic and achievable? And also, will he be able to articulate this policy and rally the support of the American public as we go forward-- and not only the American public but the international community? But my sense, my hope is that Dr. Gates will take that first important step of speaking truth to power, even though it is unpopular truth.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for Dr. Robert Gates to be the next Secretary of Defense. Dr. Gates is poised to take an extraordinarily difficult job at one of the most dangerous times in U.S. history. He will face a number of pressing problems. Clearly, the most pressing problem facing Dr. Gates is determining the next step of U.S. operations in Iraq. Today the Iraq Study Group released its report. It begins: The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating [and] there is no path that can guarantee success. The study group makes a series of recommendations that are strikingly similar to the Levin-Reed amendment that was offered last June. These recommendations include engaging Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria, encouraging the Iraqi Government to increase their efforts to bring security to their people, reconciliation and governance reforms to their nation, and the transition of the mission of our troops from combat operations to training; also, the recommendation that there be a complete redeployment of most of these combat forces by the beginning of 2008. These recommendations are realistic but they are also very difficult and, I presume, not well liked--at least initially--by this administration. Evaluating and implementing these recommendations will be the daunting but necessary task of Dr. Gates. Dr. Gates also needs to focus his attention on Afghanistan, the initial and proper focus on the war on terror. Reports make it increasingly clear that we are losing ground. The Taliban has regrouped and rearmed. This spring, they mounted the toughest resistance since 2001. Suicide attacks, which were once unknown in Afghanistan, have more than doubled this year. Lieutenant General Eikenberry, formerly the commanding general of Combined Forces Command Afghanistan, believes the fiercest fighting yet will be next spring. NATO'S International Security Assistance Force has assumed control of forces in Afghanistan, but this force is only at 85 percent strength. Almost 5 years after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, only half of the money pledged by the international community to rebuild Afghanistan has been delivered and spent. Sixty percent of the country is still without electricity, 80 percent without potable water, and the unemployment rate is 40 percent. Without viable alternatives, residents of Afghanistan return to what ensures they will survive and, unfortunately, in many cases, that is growing poppies. Last week, the U.N. and World Bank released a report stating that poppy cultivation increased 59 percent and opium production by 49 percent over the last year. It concludes that international efforts to combat opium production, which includes $400 million in U.S. counternarcotics funding, have failed. Dr. Gates will have to pay immediate attention to these issues in Afghanistan, a linchpin in our war against terror. One of the unintended consequences of U.S. operations in Iraq is the enhanced strategic position of Iran. With the election of Iranian President Ahmadinezhad, the nation has become increasingly belligerent to the United States and Israel, a key ally of the United States. The Iranians continue to press for what they describe as a nonmilitary nuclear program. Despite the threat of international sanctions, they are developing their ability to enrich uranium, a necessary step for both a civilian nuclear program and a military weapon. The fear, which I believe is justified, is that with access to enriched uranium in the context of a nuclear power program, the Iranians would be unable or unwilling to avoid the temptation to use this material to construct a nuclear device. Then there is North Korea, the actions of which have also become increasingly belligerent over the last 2 years. They have walked away from the agreed upon framework, ejected international inspectors, and now likely have enough plutonium to build 10 nuclear weapons. On the 4th of July they provocatively tested a long-range missile. The test was a failure, but it underscored their determination to challenge the international community. Finally, on October 9, they tested a nuclear device. I argue that Iranian and North Korean nuclear aspirations raise the most serious strategic issues we face today. If these countries are not checked, then there is a significant probability of a regional arms race. All of these international engagements, all of these international challenges, are creating enormous strains on our military, particularly our ground forces. Recent studies have shown that two-thirds of our Active-Duty Army and more than two-thirds of the National Guard are rated as ``nondeployable'' ``noncombat ready'' principally because of equipment shortages. This is a shocking and scandalous record. This administration has allowed two-thirds of our Army forces to essentially be denied the equipment--in some cases, the personnel--to be fully represented for combat. Virtually every active brigade not currently deployed is not prepared to meet its mission if called upon. One of the reasons these brigades are not ready is because of equipment shortages. Over a year ago, the Army estimated that in order to reset equipment being used in theaters of operation, it will require approximately $12 billion in funding every year of ongoing operations until 2 years after operations cease in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Marines have been slowly coming back from a $16 billion reset, but they still need $3 billion to draw even and will still incur annual operating costs. Besides equipment, the Army and Marines must worry about their personnel. The present Active-Duty Army end strength is approximately 504,000. About 400,000 soldiers have done one tour of combat duty, and a third have deployed twice. In order to meet recruiting goals, the Army has increased the maximum age for enlistment and lowered the physical, academic, and ethical standards. To meet retention goals, the Army has implemented stop loss measures and offered increasingly large reenlistment bonuses. There are presently 184,952 Active and Reserve Marines on duty. Over the past 4 years, 169,558 have been deployed, a significant number of Active and Reserve Marines. This operational tempo simply cannot be sustained. Again, Dr. Gates will have to address this issue or risk the future health of the Army and Marine Corps. Dr. Gates also faces extraordinary budget challenges. The fiscal year 2007 Defense Appropriations Act was $366 billion, the largest Defense bill in history. Still, it is not enough. The Army's share of the fiscal year 2007 budget was $98.2 billion. Secretary Rumsfeld set the Army's fiscal year 2008 budget at $114 billion, an increase but insufficient. In response, Army Chief of Staff GEN Peter Schoomaker took the unprecedented step of refusing to submit the 2008 budget plan by the August 15 deadline. General Schoomaker has determined in fiscal year 2008 the Army needs $138.8 billion just to continue to operate. Again, it is an unprecedented step in which a Chief of Staff, a uniformed officer, would not submit his budget to the Secretary of Defense. The Navy, which is not significantly involved in the Iraqi and Afghanistan theaters, is still key to our foreign presence around the world. Today's Navy fleet numbers 278 ships. The Chief of Naval Operations' 5-year shipbuilding plan calls for new ship construction with necessary funding of $14.1 billion beginning in fiscal year 2008 and rising to $19.1 billion in fiscal year 2012. This is a huge number, but without this critical funding our fleet will be in jeopardy. And, again, the Secretary of Defense has to respond to this request by the Chief of Naval Operations. All of this is in the context of the regular budget. But as we all know, we have been funding operations in Afghanistan and in Iraq through supplementals. To date, $495 billion has been appropriated through these supplementals for our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Press reports indicate that the Pentagon is preparing a new supplemental. The request is in the range of $127 to $150 billion just for an additional year of operations in these theaters of war. There are several problems with these supplementals. They contribute directly to our Nation's deficit, which is $248 trillion. They do not allow the military to effectively and efficiently plan for the maintenance of troops, equipment, and operations because none of this spending can be counted upon in terms of the exact number and the timing of the passage of the supplemental. The supplementals, as large as they are, still are insufficient. The Army, even with supplementals, is citing billions of dollars in shortfalls, particularly with respect to equipment resets. They will not last forever, since I can anticipate, we all can anticipate, the reaction of the American public to another request for $100 billion or more. Finally, when the supplementals do cease, either totally or in significant numbers of dollars, the Army and Marine Corps will still have troops and equipment in the field, with no funding. They will face a precipice, if you will: They still have a responsibility, they still have the personnel, they still have the equipment, but where is the funding? These are extraordinary problems that Dr. Gates is facing, most of them a direct result of poor decisions made by the administration and the Department of Defense. Most of these issues were raised with Dr. Gates in yesterday's confirmation hearing. Although there were some issues that Dr. Gates did not yet have in-depth knowledge of, he was frank in his responses and open to the ideas and open to the advice of all who asked him questions. For months, I and many of my colleagues have called for a change in our course in Iraq and in the rest of our foreign policy. I believe that Dr. Gates is a signal of that change. I do not believe that he is invested in the decisions, many of them bad, that have been made in the Department of Defense over the last 5 years. I also believe he will have a completely different management style from Secretary Rumsfeld, allowing civilians and military personnel to speak more freely. I believe these differences will allow honest, albeit difficult, discussions to take place and changes to be made. I have had the opportunity to get to know Dr. Gates over the past 5 years. I have found that he is a thoughtful, experienced, and realistic voice on foreign policy. He is a good listener, and I think he will draw on a cross-section of views when making decisions. I commend him for leaving private life and a job he clearly loved to take on a very public job that will be thanklessly demanding. Perhaps the most difficult task that Dr. Gates faces is bringing unvarnished reports of bad news to a President and inner circle who do not like to hear such things. However, I believe that Dr. Gates has the stature and the wherewithal and the will to do what needs to be done. The months ahead are going to be difficult, not only for Bob Gates but also for our military. However, I have confidence that Dr. Gates will be an able leader and, therefore, I will support his nomination and wish him well in a very daunting task. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. I have always been impressed by the fact that Bob Gates evaluates the quality of the idea, not just the source of the idea. I got to know Bob Gates in that same context of bipartisan foreign policy deliberation at the Aspen Strategy Group with a group of individuals. Some of our colleagues were there, including Senator Feinstein and others. But it is chaired by Brent Scowcroft, who was the National Security Adviser for President George Herbert Walker Bush, and cochaired by Joe Nye, who was in the Clinton administration. Bob Gates is someone who brings to the foreign policy arena this sense of reaching out to both sides. In fact, as he pointed out yesterday--and I think the Senator heard--one of the tasks he sees that he must perform is to create a bipartisan consensus to sustain the long war against terror beyond Iraq, beyond the current dilemmas we are facing. He will do that by reaching out, by listening, again, ultimately, by evaluating the ideas, not simply the source of those ideas.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent a fellow from my office, Kenyon Kilber, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of today's session.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today the Senate is undertaking an important debate on the India Agreement for Civil Nuclear Cooperation. On July 18, 2005, President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed an agreement to resume full civilian nuclear cooperation for the first time since India conducted its initial nuclear test in 1974. Such an agreement will require changes to U.S. law and accommodations with the international community. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 assures the proper management of source, special nuclear, and byproduct material. Several sections of the AEA are at issue in this agreement, so I would like to take a moment to explain the pertinent provisions. Section 123 of the AEA limits the ability of the United States to enter into agreements with nonweapons states unless the agreement meets a minimum of nine criteria, including a requirement that the recipient country has in place an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, to safeguard in perpetuity nuclear material, equipment, and technology so that it will not be diverted for weapons use. This type of agreement is known as a ``full-scope safeguards'' agreement. A 123 Agreement is the precursor to any export license for the nuclear materials, equipment and technology. Section 128 requires that any export license for nuclear materials, technology or equipment contain a requirement that the recipient nonnuclear weapons state maintain IAEA safeguards. Section 129 of the AEA requires that any 123 Agreement or export license be terminated if the nonnuclear weapons state recipient detonates a nuclear explosive device, terminates, abrogates, or violates IAEA safeguards, or engages in activities that support development of a nuclear explosive device. Section 129 would also prohibit entrance into a section 123 Agreement with any nonnuclear weapons state that detonated a nuclear explosive device after 1978. S. 3709, the bill we are considering today, establishes a mechanism whereby the President may submit a 123 Agreement for civil nuclear cooperation with India, a nonweapons state under the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, to Congress for approval. However, this bill would allow the President to waive certain requirements of section 123, section 128, and portions of section 129, as long as the President makes certain determinations that are set out in the bill. India is the largest democracy in the world. Its economy is growing by 8 percent annually. Since the beginning of this century, United States-India relations on issues from trade to defense have been growing stronger each year. The United States also benefits from a large Indian-American population. Rhode Island is home to a vibrant Indian community who contribute greatly to the State. I believe that the United States should do all that it can to assist India and further strengthen the partnership between the two countries. However, this agreement does raise significant concerns. I believe that proliferation of nuclear material is the greatest threat facing our country today. North Korea recently conducted its first nuclear test. Iran seems intent on pursuing a nuclear program. Even efforts to reduce the overall size of the U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles have stalled. While there has been some small progress in reducing the number of deployed nuclear warheads there has been no progress in reducing the overall size of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. There is great concern, therefore, that this agreement strikes a blow to what remains of the international nuclear nonproliferation regime. I, too, would share that concern, if the Senate had adopted the bill the administration proposed. However, I believe that the Foreign Relations Committee, under the leadership of Senators Lugar and Biden, who are certainly experts on these matters, have crafted a bill which, I believe, has sufficient safeguards. I think that they are trying to adapt the nonproliferation regime, not destroy it. First, section 105 of this bill sets out a series of determinations the President must make in writing when he submits the 123 Agreement. I believe these determinations will both provide a reasonable equivalent of full-scope safeguards and address several other concerns with respect to the Indian nuclear program, including concerns that the agreement not facilitate or assist the Indian nuclear weapons program. For the most part, the determinations reflect what India has committed to do in the July 2005 joint statement. Probably the most important of the determinations in section 105 is the fifth, which states, ``India is working with the United States to conclude a multilateral treaty on the cessation of the production of fissile materials.'' This determination breathes new life into efforts to achieve a Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty, even driving the United States back to the negotiating table. Determination number 5 is the one single element in this bill that could prevent further growth in India's nuclear weapons stockpile and could lead to real reductions. In addition, this certification may also work to eliminate the impasse between India and Pakistan whereby neither wants to be the first to adopt a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. Section 106 of S. 3709 would prohibit the export of equipment, materials and technologies related to uranium enrichment, spent nuclear fuel reprocessing, and the production of heavy water, unless the user is a multinational facility participating in IAEA approved reactor fuel program or the President ``determines that the export or reexport will not improve India's ability to produce nuclear weapons or fissile material for military uses.'' On several occasions administration witnesses clearly stated to the Foreign Relations Committee that the U.S. would not provide such technologies to India. As a result, it is not anticipated that the presidential exemption will be used. Section 107 of the bill requires a program, which would include end- use monitoring conditions as appropriate, to maintain accountability with respect to nuclear materials, equipment, and technology sold, leased and exported, or re-exported to India. This provision would enhance confidence in India's efforts to ensure separation of its civilian and military nuclear programs, facilities, materials and personnel and also further ensure U.S. compliance with Article I of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. S. 3709 also requires the President to provide the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House International Relations Committee with updated information regarding India's compliance with nonproliferation commitments. Specifically, it would require the President to keep these committees informed of any material violation of India's nuclear nonproliferation commitments, the construction of any nuclear facilities in India, any significant changes in India's production of nuclear weapons or fissile materials, or changes in the purpose or status of India's non-declared facilities. The bill also requires the President to submit an annual report on the implementation of civil nuclear commerce, India's compliance with its nonproliferation commitments, and U.S. efforts and progress toward achieving India's full participation in the Proliferation Security Initiative and adherence to the guidelines and policies of the Australia Group and the Wassenaar Arrangement. It is important that this bill would waive section 129 applicability for any actions taken before July 18, 2005. If India detonated a nuclear device after the date of enactment the waiver authority would cease to be effective and the exports would be prohibited. Another vitally important provision of S. 3709 is that it follows current law and requires Congress to have a vote to approve any final 123 Agreement. The House bill also has an approval process, but it is not clear if that process requires a vote. The administration had proposed that a 123 Agreement with India would only require congressional notification and a waiting period. Because of the provisions I have just discussed, I believe I can support this bill. I would also note that passage of this bill is simply the first step on a long road. If this bill passes the Senate, it must be conferenced with the House bill, which has different provisions. If the conference report comes back with the Senate provisions weakened, or absent, I may be obligated to vote against that report. Much more important is the substance of the 123 statement the President ultimately submits. I understand that this is an attempt to adapt the nonproliferation regime to a changing world. I will carefully examine any 123 Agreement to ensure that it adequately addresses vital proliferation concerns. But at this first step, I have hope that this agreement will lead to greater cooperation on nonproliferation rather than less. With that hope, I will support S. 3709.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, for an immigration measure to be effective, two aspects are necessary. One aspect is enforcement and the other is addressing the status of millions of undocumented immigrants who are living in the United States. The Senate spent several weeks earlier this year debating a comprehensive immigration bill which struck an acceptable balance between enforcement and legalization. We passed that bill but House and Senate Republicans have been unable, despite months of negotiations, to come up with a final bill. This is irresponsible at best. The secure fence bill only addresses enforcement but worse, it only addresses a small part of enforcement. This bill builds a wall. A wall that will cost as much as $9 billion. And a wall that will be ineffective. As Governor Napolitano of Arizona said, ``You show me a 50-foot wall and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder at the border. That's the way the border works.'' Apprehending individuals illegally crossing the border only partially solves the problem. First, half of the undocumented immigrants in this country came here legally and then overstayed their visas. A fence will not solve that problem. Second, the reason so many try to enter this country is the search for jobs. We must work to cut off the supply of jobs by making it too costly for employers to hire the undocumented. There are laws on the books that do this, but these laws have rarely been enforced by this administration. Furthermore, no immigration law that we pass will be effective if we do not negotiate and sign bilateral agreements with other countries on numerous issues including taking back aliens removed from the United States, document forgery, smuggling, human trafficking, and gang membership. Immigration is one of the most important issues Congress has to address. But we did address it in March. It was thorough and thoughtful yet tough, and it is the conference report for that bill that we should be passing tonight, instead of this ineffective enforcement bill.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, most American families have lost ground in the Bush economy and are working harder than ever to keep up with rising living expenses. The administration is trying to paint a rosy picture of the economy, but the American people know better. They know that the President's policies are not working for them. Despite 4 years of economic expansion, job growth has been modest, wages are failing to keep pace with inflation, real incomes are falling, household debt is rising, employer-provided health insurance coverage is declining, and private pensions are in jeopardy. Slow job growth and stagnant wages during the Bush administration have depressed families' incomes. Adjusted for inflation, median household income in 2005 was 2.7 percent lower than it was in 2000 a loss of nearly $1,300 during President Bush's time in office. Strong productivity growth has translated into higher profits for businesses, but not more take-home pay for average workers. Wages, the most important source of income for most families, have not kept pace with skyrocketing costs for many living expenses and many households are sending more family members to work in order to maintain their current living standards. This trend is likely to continue, since workers may find it even harder to get pay raises now that economic growth and job creation have begun to slow. Indeed, as a recent Washington Post editorial observed: ``[T]he recent phenomenon of wages falling even during good times is disturbing and exceptional.'' Mr. President, I would like to enter the entire Washington Post editorial from September 4, 2006, into the Record, and note that the editorial goes on to say: ``So whereas past presidents could declare that a rising tide lifted all boats, Mr. Bush cannot honestly do so.'' Higher prices for gasoline, college education, and medical care are squeezing the take-home pay of workers. College tuition is up 44 percent; health insurance premiums are up 87 percent; and the price of gasoline was only $1.45 per gallon when the President took office. A recent survey by Lake Research found that 3 out of 10 workers have taken on debt for necessities like food, utility costs, and gasoline. That is shocking on its face, but not surprising when you learn that household debt hit a record high this year. Average household debt has increased by more than $26,000 since 2000, from about $75,400 to $101,700 per household. For the first time since the Great Depression, the Nation registered a negative personal savings rate last year. Far too many Americans are forced to spend more than they earn just to get by. Sadly, the administration has made no real progress against the rising tide of poverty in America. Nearly 5\1/2\ and a half million more Americans have fallen into poverty since President Bush took office--37 million Americans are now living in poverty, including 13 million children. We are the richest Nation in the world and yet more than 1 in 6 American children lives in poverty. The number of poor children has increased by more than 11 percent during the first 5 years of the Bush administration, but the number of children receiving temporary assistance for needy families, TANF, has declined by 15.5 percent over the same time period, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. So while the President stumps for more tax cuts for people who don't need them, the basic needs of millions of children go unmet. Even after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita put the spotlight on this shameful problem, Americans are slipping into poverty much more easily than before and finding it so much harder to escape once they are there. What must the American people think about this Congress's priorities when the Republican majority is more interested in finding a way to repeal the estate tax than in finding a way to reduce poverty? As Senator Grassley, chairman of the Finance Committee, put it last year after the hurricanes, ``It's a little unseemly to be talking about eliminating the estate tax at a time when people are suffering.'' The majority in Congress has thwarted efforts to address the needs of people living in poverty but twice tried to roll back the estate tax this year. Ninety-nine percent of estates pay no estate tax at all and those who do are multimillion-dollar estates. Far from being a ``death tax,'' the estate tax falls on heirs who seldom had any real role in earning the wealth built up by the estate holder. The minimum wage--which hasn't been raised in 9 years is an important policy tool to lift low-income families out of poverty, but the majority in Congress won't let us have an up-or-down vote without poison pills like the estate tax. No one who works full time should have to live in poverty, but the current minimum wage isn't enough to bring even a single parent with one child over the poverty line--even if the parent works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. The average minimum wage worker brings home more than half of their family's weekly earnings, and 80 percent of those who would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage are adult workers, The policy priorities of the administration and the majority in Congress are truly misplaced. The ranks of those without health insurance have also grown by nearly 7 million on President Bush's watch. The number of uninsured increased to a record high 46.6 million in 2005--1.3 million more than in 2004. More Americans are now without health insurance than at any point since the Census Bureau began collecting comparable data nearly 20 years ago. Soaring health care costs have contributed to the decline of employer-sponsored health insurance, which is the largest component of the U.S. health insurance system. The percentage of Americans with employment-based health insurance fell to 59.5 percent in 2005, which is the lowest it has been since 1993. If you are lucky enough to have health insurance, you are paying a lot more for it. Health insurance premiums for the average family have soared by 87 percent--a stunning $5,325 jump, from $6,155 in 2000 to $11,480 in 2006. At the same time that earnings are stagnating and costs are rising, the average worker's retirement prospects are more uncertain than ever. The number of workers employed by firms that sponsored some type of retirement plan fell by 3.7 million since President Bush took office-- from 56 million in 2000 to 53 million in 2005. This reversed a trend of positive growth in employer-sponsored retirement plans in the previous 5 years. Twenty years ago, most workers with a pension plan could expect to receive a defined benefit based on years of service and salary. Today, defined contribution plans--which shift most of the investment risk and responsibility onto workers--have become the dominant form of pension coverage. As a result of this increased risk and responsibility, average workers may end up with inadequate retirement savings. In fact, the weakness of traditional pensions underscores the importance of the current Social Security Program. For over 60 years, Social Security has provided a dependable and predictable stream of income to retired or disabled workers, their dependents, and their survivors. Forty-eight million men, women, and children rely on Social Security benefits each month to help them live with dignity. Social Security benefits are protected from inflation and you can't outlive them. Yet the President supports privatizing Social Security, putting the guaranteed benefits of retirees, survivors, and the disabled at risk. We need to strengthen Social Security and improve our pensions system to ensure that Americans who work their entire lives have the financial security they deserve and worked so hard for when they retire. And although we recently enacted a pension bill, this should not be viewed as mission accomplished. The President's deficits will only exacerbate the economic problems of middle- and low-income families. A $5.6 trillion 10-year projected surplus from 2002 to 2011 has turned into a deficit of $2.7 trillion, based on actual deficits so far and on CBO baseline projections for the remaining years. Realistically, the 10-year deficit is probably much higher than that because this administration has a history of leaving out big-ticket items such as war costs or fixing the alternative minimum tax in its projection of future budget deficits. Irresponsible budget policies pursued over the past 5 years by the Bush administration and the Republican Congress have mortgaged our future to foreign investors and foreign governments and damaged our international competitiveness. A little over a decade ago, the Clinton administration stepped in to stabilize the Mexican economy in the midst of a currency crisis, and today Mexico is the 10th largest holder of U.S. Treasury debt. In this year's global competitiveness report from the World Economic Forum, the United States fell from first place last year to sixth place as high budget deficits and record trade imbalances have begun to seriously erode this country's international competitiveness. Instead of sound budget policies aimed at preparing for the imminent retirement of the baby-boom generation, the Bush administration and the majority in Congress have refused to adopt the kinds of budget enforcement rules that helped achieve fiscal discipline in the 1990s; have pursued an open-ended commitment to rebuilding Iraq that relies on supplemental appropriations rather than the normal budget process; and have remained committed to extending irresponsible tax cuts that will add further to the budget deficit. All of this comes at the cost of destroying greater economic opportunities for most American families. That, of course, is not what we are hearing from the administration and its supporters, who keep telling us that the economy is doing well, that their tax cuts are an important reason why, and that everyone is benefiting. It should not be surprising that this is not a message that resonates with the American people because, in fact, the current economic recovery has been weaker than the typical business-cycle recovery since the end of World War II, and large numbers of Americans are still waiting to benefit from any economic growth. This administration touts its tax cuts, but these cuts haven't made a dent in the pocket books of most American families. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that this year's tax cut will only save middle-income families about $55--about what it now costs to fill the gas tank of their minivan. But taxpayers making over $1 million will receive a cut of nearly $38,000--enough to buy a new Mercedes. Middle and lower income families are paying the price for the President's tax cuts for the wealthiest, as investments in programs that promote greater economic prosperity for ordinary Americans have become candidates for budget cutting. Regrettably, it is not surprising how under the Republican leadership, low-income families have been abandoned but what is surprising is how the administration and Republican majority in Congress have also squeezed the middle class. The President has proposed cuts to elementary and secondary education, student aid and loan assistance for higher education, job training for displaced workers, childcare assistance so that parents can go to work, and community development grants aimed at expanding small businesses. The President is also shortchanging investments in research and technologies that will create the high-wage jobs of the future. Unfortunately, the rising tide is no longer lifting all boats. The benefits of this economic recovery are simply not going to ordinary Americans. Most Americans are concerned that this is as good as economic conditions will get under the Bush economic policies. Our focus should be on strengthening the safety net for American families-- whether it is raising the minimum wage or preserving Social Security, pensions, and health insurance coverage. That is why we need a new direction for America--one that focuses on creating greater economic opportunities for all families. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Washington Post editorial dated September 4, 2006.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, tonight the Senate is voting on the port security conference report. While the conference report contains important provisions to secure our Nation's ports, I am disappointed that the House of Representatives refused to accept the Senate bill's transit and rail security provisions. This is particularly troubling in light of the inclusion in the conference report of extraneous matter not debated by the full Senate and not related to our nation's security. While our Nation acted quickly after 9/11 to secure our airports and airplanes, major vulnerabilities remain in maritime and surface transportation. As the 9/11 Commission concluded ``opportunities to do harm are as great, or greater, in maritime and surface transportation'' as in commercial aviation. Unfortunately, this conference report will leave our surface transportation system vulnerable. Transit agencies around the country have identified in excess of $6 billion in transit security needs--$5.2 billion in security-related capital investment and $800 million to support personnel and related operation security measures to ensure transit security and readiness. The Senate-passed port security bill contained a provision I coauthored with Banking Committee Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Sarbanes, and Senator Allard that authorized a needs-based grant program within the Department of Homeland Security to identify and address the vulnerabilities of our Nation's transit systems. The Senate bill provided $3.5 billion over the next 3 years to transit agencies for projects designed to resist and deter terrorist attacks, including surveillance technologies, tunnel protection, chemical, biological, radiological, and explosive detection systems, perimeter protection, training, the establishment of redundant critical operations control systems, and other security improvements. Transit is the most common, and most vulnerable, target of terrorists worldwide, whether it is Madrid, London, Moscow, Tokyo, Israel, or Mumbai. According to a Brookings Institution study, 42 percent of all terrorist attacks between 1991 and 2001 were directed at mass transit systems. Transit is vital to providing mobility for millions of Americans and offers tremendous economic benefits to our Nation. In the United States, people use public transportation over 32 million each weekday compared to two million passengers who fly daily. Paradoxically, it is the very openness of the system that makes it vulnerable to terrorism. When one considers this and the fact that roughly $9 per passenger is invested in aviation security, but less than one cent is invested in the security of each transit passenger, the need for an authorized transit security program is clear. Transit agencies and the women and men who operate them have been doing a tremendous job to increase security in a post 9/11 world, but there is only so much they can do with the very limited resources at their disposal. Our Nation's 6,000 transit agencies face a difficult balancing act as they attempt to tighten security and continue to move people from home to work, school, shopping, or other locations efficiently and affordably. This conference report should have provided for these workers and transit riders' safety and it did not. With energy prices taking a larger chunk out of consumers' pocketbooks, public transit offers a solution to our national energy crisis and dependence on foreign oil. But, more Americans will not use transit unless they feel safe. When it comes to protecting our homeland against a terrorist attack, we can and must do more to fortify our ports, our transit systems, and our rail system. Our priorities must be to ensure that we are doing all we can to protect our most important asset our--citizens. Unfortunately, this conference report falls short by failing to include rail and transit security, and once again the Republican-led Congress has missed an important opportunity.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. We have to follow Common Article 3. However, the bill we are considering today authorizes the President to interpret the Geneva Conventions and provides that such interpretations ``shall be authoritative . . . as a matter of U.S. law, in the same manner as other administrative regulations.'' I think we are verging on a situation where the President, by definition, by clarification, and by regulation, could eviscerate these Common Article 3 protections. As I mentioned before, Secretary Powell and others have stated this is the core ideal, principle, we have to use in dealing with all of these individuals. Let me simply conclude, there is, I think, the presumption here that if we do not establish procedures that basically make it a slam dunk case, that we somehow are going to see these terrorists walk away, snub their noses at us, and start actively conspiring against us again. They will never see the light of day. No President will release these individuals. And no President will be forced under any international law to do so. But we will be judged whether, when we impose punishment--not detention, punishment--on these individuals, we have done it according to our principles that we can argue before the world and the American people represent our values; and we can insist that other nations that may hold our forces or civilians abide by the same principles. That is the issue here today. That is why I support Senator Levin's substitute amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are engaged in a very important debate about the way we will bring to justice very heinous individuals who committed terrorism. I will put in context first what I think the situation is. First, our most essential mission in the war on terror is to find these individuals, to attempt to capture them, and if they have refused to be captured, to take extreme measures to eliminate them as terrorist threats to the United States. If they are in our hands as detainees or in any capacity, we have an obligation to interrogate them and we have to be consistent with international norms while also recognizing that as we treat people in our custody we can expect if our military personnel fall in the hands of a military power, they will be similarly treated. We must be very conscious of this. But an important point that is often overlooked in the entire debate, all of the individuals we are talking about today--the 14 detainees at Guantanamo Bay and others--are enemy combatants. Under international law, they can be held indefinitely. There is a big difference between an individual who is an enemy combatant and someone who is in a criminal justice situation someplace else. Even if these individuals are acquitted of their crimes, they are still in the custody of the United States and still will remain in the custody of the United States. So as we debate this issue of military tribunals, we have to recognize what we are talking about is not allowing people to walk out the door because our procedures are inadequate, because some clever attorney can take advantage of the rules of evidence. They will never walk out the door. What we are talking about is whether we will have legitimacy to impose the most difficult sanction on an individual, the most severe sanction. To be consistent with our value as a nation, I believe we have to have procedures that are procedurally legitimate, that are fair and are perceived that way. There is another issue here, not just in terms of our moral standing. It is a very practical one. I have suggested it before. How we treat these people will be the standard with which our military personnel will be treated overseas. We will surrender the right to condemn those people who may in the future hold our soldiers if they choose to use procedural gimmicks, if they want to stage show trials rather than real trials, if they want to punish an American fighting man or woman without any regard for the principles and practices of international law. That is, I think, the issue before us today. The substitute Senator Levin has offered today is one we supported on a bipartisan basis in the committee. It was a strong, good bill. It represented not only our best principles, but it recognized that these principles could also and would also be applied in the future--we hope not--but certainly we have to recognize the possibility that American military personnel will be in the hands of hostile forces in the future. The bill we had in the Armed Services Committee did things this legislation before us undoes. For example, the committee bill prohibited the admission of statements obtained through cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The bill before us prohibits the admission of statements obtained after December 30, 2005, through ``cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,'' but it contains no prohibition against using statements so obtained prior to December 30, 2005. I do not think the Geneva Conventions were in abeyance up until December 30, 2005. I do not think the standards we should insist upon did not exist there. And very practically speaking, ask yourself, would we accept the response from a foreign power who said: Oh, of course, we are going to follow the Geneva Conventions. Of course we are not going to use abusive treatment to obtain a confession, prior to December 30, 2020 or 2015? I think this seriously weakens not only the legitimacy of this approach but also our ability to argue with compelling legal and moral force in the future that other nations have to play by the rules. There are other provisions here in this bill, and there are many of them that I think alter dramatically what we accomplished on a bipartisan basis, what was applauded by General Powell and General Vessey and others. For example, the committee bill provided that evidence seized outside of the United States shall not be excluded from trial by military commissions on the grounds the evidence was not seized pursuant to a search warrant. That was a very practical provision. We are not going to require a soldier, a special forces operator who is running through the woods of some foreign land, to produce a search warrant when he picks up valuable intelligence material. But the bill before us deletes the limitation to evidence seized outside the United States. As a result, the bill authorizes the use of evidence that is seized inside the United States without a search warrant. This provision is not limited to evidence seized from enemy combatants. It does not even preclude the seizure of evidence without a warrant when that evidence is seized from United States citizens. If you want an invitation to irresponsible conduct within the United States, disregarding our principles of justice and the Constitution of the United States, it might be found here because, frankly, we have the obligation to establish rules we can live with. No one is arguing with trying to create some type of situation in which a soldier has to pull out his Black's Law Dictionary and have his warrant and do all these things, but it is quite a bit different from police authorities here in the United States. Additional problems with this bill: The committee bill, the one we supported in the Armed Services Committee, provided that the procedures and rules of evidence applicable in trials by general courts martial would apply in trials by military commissions, subject to such exceptions as the Secretary of Defense determines to be ``required by the unique circumstances of the conduct of military and intelligence operations during hostilities or by other practical need.'' Establish a rule saying: Listen, we are going to use the procedures for courts martial except if the Secretary says there is some expedient circumstance. Because of hostilities, we have to make changes. This approach is consistent with Hamdan and the Supreme Court. The bill before us reverses the presumption. Instead of starting with the rules applicable in trials by courts martial as the governing provision, and then establishing exceptions, the Secretary of Defense is required to make trials by commission consistent with those rules only when he considers it is practical. The exception has swallowed up the rule. As one observer has pointed out, this provision is now so vaguely worded that it could even be read to authorize the administration to abandon the presumption of innocence in trials by military commissions, with the claim that military expedience requires a determination that the individual is guilty, and then he or she may prove their innocence. That, I think, is a significant retreat from the standards we established. There is another major issue here that is so important, and it is often confused; and that is with respect to Common Article 3. In Hamdan, the Supreme Court held that Common Article 3 applies to all members of al-Qaida, terrorists, anyone who comes into our control, not only in the areas of fair trials, but also in the areas of treatment. But I want to clarify this because this is often, I think, distorted and perhaps deliberately so. Many opponents of this legislation have stated that ``terrorists should not be given the same rights as our military personnel.'' What they are, I think, imprecisely but deliberately, perhaps, suggesting is that we are attempting to treat these individual terrorists as prisoners of war. And that is not the case. There are four Geneva Conventions. The first two protect sick and injured soldiers. The fourth protects civilians in areas of hostilities. The third convention--not the third Common Article--the third Geneva Convention deals with prisoners of war, our soldiers who fall into the hands of hostile forces. These provisions are very clear about how POWs must be treated. You only have to give your name, rank, and serial number. That is it. Beyond that, there is no question. You cannot have any mental or physical coercion. ``[P]risoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.'' That is the way soldiers should be treated--all of our soldiers. But the Supreme Court never said that is the way we have to treat these terrorists. What they said is Common Article 3, which is in every Convention. It establishes a general baseline of the treatment of individuals. POWs are treated at a much higher status because of their uniformed participation in armed conflict, because of their discipline, because of the fact that we expect them to follow rules, too. But people who fall into our hands who are enemy combatants do not deserve that treatment. They are not going to get it here. But they have to be afforded Common Article 3 protection. It has been described as ``a convention within a convention.'' Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions mandates that all persons taking no active part in hostilities, including those who have laid down their arms or been incapacitated by capture or injury, are to be treated humanely and protected from ``violence to life and person,'' and any ``outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.'' Anyone in our custody has to be afforded the protections of Common Article 3.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I know there are others who wish to speak. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes to simply summarize.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask for 12 minutes from the time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I understand I have 14 minutes with respect to postcloture debate. I ask unanimous consent to speak beyond those 14 minutes.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my deep concerns about the Medicare Part D Program. The ``D'' was supposed to stand for a new prescription drug benefit, but now seniors are finding that ``D'' really stands for doughnut hole. Unlike most other types of health insurance, the Medicare drug benefit was intentionally designed with a coverage gap or doughnut hole that requires beneficiaries to pay for all yearly prescription drug spending between $2,250 and $5,100. Let me explain. It is baffling to most people that the Part D Program was designed so that beneficiaries paying premiums each month receive support for their drug costs until they have spent $2,250, and suddenly the insurance goes away. The premium stays, but the insurance goes away until you reach $5,100. That is an unusual insurance program, to say the least. Seniors will experience this lapse in coverage once their drug costs have exceeded $2,250. When they are in the doughnut hole, they have to pay for all the drugs out of pocket, as well as paying the monthly premium. That does not sound like a sensible insurance program. That is, in effect, what this Part D Program involves. According to one estimate published in the journal Health Affairs, the average Part D beneficiary will spend almost $3,100 this year on prescription drugs. So the President's idea of cost containment is not to drive pharmaceutical manufacturers to rein in prices but to just cut off seniors' benefits when they most need the coverage. Many Medicare beneficiaries with high drug expenses already have begun to fall into the doughnut hole and are struggling to pay for their medications or are unable to fill their prescriptions at all. It has been reported that average Medicare Part D beneficiaries will also begin falling into the doughnut hole this week. It almost sounds like ``Alice in Wonderland,'' where suddenly you are swept into a new world as you go through the hole. A world that requires seniors to come up with their the resources to pay for these premiums as well as their prescription drugs. I am hearing from many seniors in my State facing problems with Medicare Part D. I know I am not alone. I think every Member of this Senate, when they go home and talk to seniors, is hearing it. We will hear it with more frequency as their expenses increase and their experience with the doughnut hole increases. In one case, an individual sent a letter to the Rhode Island attorney general and copied me on it because they thought a crime was being committed. They literally thought they were being robbed because one day they got help with the prescriptions, and the next day there is no help at all. Now ``D,'' besides standing for doughnut hole, stands for dire circumstances. These are the circumstances in which seniors will find themselves unless we do something to fix this problem because the doughnut hole will only get bigger and bigger year after year. Today, over 38 million Americans on Medicare have some form of prescription drug coverage. Of these beneficiaries, 10 million have coverage through a standard Part D prescription drug plan, and up to 7 million could be subject to the doughnut hole between now and the end of the year. The numbers will only grow in the coming years if the administration allows drug prices to continue to escalate. What trips seniors into the doughnut hole is the cumulative spending on drugs. If drug prices go up, seniors very quickly reach that threshold where the doughnut hole kicks in. Tragically, many beneficiaries are unaware that this coverage gap exists and only learn about this lapse after they have fallen into the hole. To add insult to injury, these beneficiaries are expected to continue paying monthly premiums through their drug plans even though they receive absolutely no coverage in return. This is a very unusual health care plan, to be paying a monthly premium but not be eligible for coverage. When we pay health care premiums, we hope we don't have to use any of the coverage, that we are healthy and well, but we all have in the back of our minds the knowledge: If something happens that month, I am eligible, I can get the help. Not so in the doughnut hole. Seniors keep paying the monthly premium, and then they pay, out of pocket, the full cost of the prescription. I didn't support the Medicare Modernization Act which created Part D because I believed the benefit was insufficient and the emphasis on a privately administered program made it excessively complex. By relying on over 40 private plans in each region, each with a different benefit structure, many beneficiaries are confused about the plan offerings and which plan may suit them best. Moreover, a recent General Accounting Office report finds an alarming number of private Part D plans are providing inaccurate or incomplete information to Medicare beneficiaries about the coverage and benefits provided under the various plans. No doubt, there are some people who have benefited from this new program, but for too many Part D enrollees with complex medical conditions, the benefit has largely been a source of great confusion and concern. We could have done it differently. We could have done it more simply. We could have done it more efficiently. Many of the problems we are seeing today could have been averted if the Administration had not made the program needlessly complicated and if they had done a better job of preparing the public. Despite all of the serious shortcomings of Medicare Part D, the program has taken effect. It is now incumbent upon us to work together to turn things around and improve the situation. In an effort to provide some modest short-term relief to seniors, I am working with Senators Dorgan and Bingaman on the Prescription Fairness Act. This bill has a simple premise: beneficiaries should not have to continue paying monthly premiums when they have no drug coverage. The bill waives the Medicare Part D premium for any month that a senior falls into the doughnut hole. During this time, the Secretary of Health and Human Services would be responsible for offsetting these monthly premium costs. It seems only fair to me. We are making seniors pay premiums, yet they do not qualify for the benefit. If they don't qualify for the benefit, let's absolve them of the premiums until they do, once again, qualify for the coverage. There is another aspect of the doughnut hole that needs to be addressed. That is the fact that expenditures by other drug subsidiary programs do not count against beneficiaries' true out-of-pocket costs-- this is an acronym, TrOOP: true out-of-pocket costs--during this lapse in Part D coverage. Medicare beneficiaries on fixed incomes should not be penalized for seeking assistance from other programs that provide prescription drugs or drug assistance. Here is the problem: You go into the doughnut hole. You are desperate for your prescriptions. The expenditures have to come out of your pocket to qualify again. You cannot go to a State agency, perhaps, that has a program because that spending will not be counted. I think that is another problem we have to address. The Helping Fill the Prescription Gap Act--another proposal which I have cosponsored--would allow costs incurred by federally qualified health centers and patient assistance programs to count toward a beneficiary's annual out-of-pocket threshold. If they can get the help, qualify for the help, it should be counted, as they try to extricate themselves from the doughnut hole. While these two bills are designed to help ease the burden of Medicare beneficiaries in the doughnut hole, serious structural problems of the program must also be addressed. ``D'' also stands for--besides ``doughnut hole,'' ``dire circumstances''--for the dubious claims the Administration has made about the plan's costs and the savings they would deliver for consumers. The Administration's original cost estimates for the program were woefully inaccurate, and the benefit is now expected to top $700 billion in the first decade--$300 billion more than was originally advertised. The fundamental premise behind the Medicare Part D benefit--that vigorous competition among private insurers would lead to lower drug prices--simply has not proven to be true. ``D'' also stands for the do-nothing Republican Congress that during this year's budget debate failed to pass a Democratic amendment that would give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to negotiate the best deal for Medicare prescription drugs. Instead of harnessing the purchasing power of over 40 million Medicare beneficiaries, the Administration plan called on private insurance plans to administer the program and to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies on drug prices. Here I think is the structural flaw in this overall program. In order to pull together the bargaining power of the largest number of seniors, the Government should be able to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies. The pharmaceutical companies have market power. Many of their drugs are patented and cannot be produced by anyone else. They can drive the price up. The only way in a market you counter that type of monopolistic pricing power is by banding together as consumers so you have one entity negotiating for the consumers against one entity who controls the product. You will get a better price. That is what we do in the VA system. The VA system has the legal authority to negotiate prices with drug companies. They have thousands and thousands of clients in their hospitals and in their outpatient settings, and they simply go and say: If you would like to sell us this significant volume of drugs, give us your best price. That is the way I believe we can get drug prices if not down, at least lower the escalation in costs. If we do not rein in price growth, the estimate of $700 billion over 10 years, I believe in a year or two, could be even higher. Families USA conducted a survey that compared the lowest Part D prices with those the Veterans' Administration negotiated for the five most commonly prescribed drugs to seniors, and the variation in price is staggering. The VA can negotiate on behalf of our Nation's veterans while Medicare is barred from doing so--legally barred. It is part of this legislation: a rather large benefit to the pharmaceutical industry, to the detriment of taxpayers and seniors. We can save money, and we can pass these savings on to seniors, we hope, but we cannot tie our hands. We have to be able to, as a large entity, as Medicare, negotiate these prices. I want to work with the President and my colleagues in the Congress to strengthen Medicare for the long term. But the Administration has failed so far in their approach to Medicare reform. Under the current Part D Program, drug companies hold all the cards. A recent New York Times article revealed that the shift of dual- eligible beneficiaries from Medicaid drug coverage over to the Part D Program has been a financial boon to drug manufacturers. Previously, under Medicaid--a separate program which is a joint State-Federal program--seniors could qualify in certain cases for drug assistance. In the States, the Medicaid programs were negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies for prices. But with the passage of Part D, these dual-eligibles were automatically enrolled into the Medicare Part D Program. And what happened to drug prices? They zoomed out of sight. That, to me, is evidence that we can do much better, not only to protect seniors but to protect taxpayers. Now, I believe the pharmaceutical companies deserve a fair return on their investment. They have invested in drug research and development. But allowing them to dictate prices for millions of elderly and disabled Medicare beneficiaries is a bad deal for the Federal Government and a bad deal for the American public. These are just some of problems with Medicare Part D that must be addressed. And while Part D is receiving most of the attention lately, seniors also face a 5.6-percent increase in Part B premiums for doctor visits and outpatient services in 2007, which will absorb a disproportionate amount of their Social Security cost-of-living adjustments--their COLAs. In fact, Part B premiums have almost doubled since President Bush took office, so seniors living on fixed incomes will now pay almost $1,200 just for these premiums alone. This is another example of the growing squeeze, economically, on middle-income Americans. When you look at working Americans, young Americans with families, you have seen tuition costs go up extraordinarily so. You have seen health care costs go up, and many of these families do not have the benefits of the Medicare Program at all. Their costs are going up significantly. And gasoline prices are high. But incomes are not keeping up. In fact, in real terms, inflation-adjusted terms, from 2000 to 2005, the median income of American families has fallen by $1,300. So you have falling income and increasing prices. It is this vice that is squeezing middle-income Americans. And then, when you go to seniors, they are looking at some relief in Medicare Part D, but they are falling in the doughnut hole and finding that relief is elusive. They are also finding their Part B premiums going up. They are being squeezed hard also. Now, through all of this, the Administration has proposed no substantive changes to the Medicare Program to help these beneficiaries. We have to take action. I hope in this Congress-- although the days are dwindling down to a precious few--but certainly in the next Congress we have to start looking seriously at reforming Medicare Part D, at making it more affordable for seniors and more affordable for taxpayers. Let's make the ``D'' stand for what it should stand for: doing right by our seniors. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Social Security.

Mr. REED. That is absolutely correct.

Mr. REED. That is right.

Mr. REED. The Senator is right. It is absolutely a phenomenon between being crushed by falling real income and rising costs. It is not a situation where incomes are falling and being compensated by falling prices. It is a situation where they are being caught in this vice. The pain is palpable to working families throughout this country. These are all of our citizens. These are the people we all say we are here to help. And we are not helping them--not this Congress, not this administration. Not only are we not helping these individuals but it turns out the very policies of this administration and this Congress are rewarding those people who are doing the best, not those who need the assistance. That is evident in the tax policy being pursued by this administration and supported by this Republican Congress. This is the average amount of capital gains and dividend tax cuts by household incomes in 2005. This is one of the centerpieces of the administration's proposal. They have to cut capital gains taxes. They have to cut dividend taxes. Here is where the benefits go. If you make under $50,000--that is an awful lot of Americans--you get $6 in benefits If a person is making between $50,000 and $100,000--most Americans within that range are considered to be pretty prosperous folks--they get $55 in benefits. If a person makes over $1 million, they get $37,000 in benefits. One of the reasons for this is the fact that most working Americans, if they hold stock, they hold it in their retirement accounts. These retirement accounts do not benefit directly from these capital gains and dividends tax cuts. So for the vast majority of Americans, we are seeing virtually no direct benefit from these capital gains and dividends tax cuts. Of course, for the wealthiest, it is a bonanza. Now, if this somehow stimulated a huge spurt in economic activity, growth, job performance, and increased employment, that might be a justification--not the most compelling, but a justification. We are not even seeing that. What we are seeing--because, again, ultimately this is about arithmetic as much as anything--we are seeing a decrease in the resources and revenues of the Federal Government. So we can't compensate for increased cost of tuition. In fact, this administration, as the Senator from Michigan suggested, is sending up a budget that has record cuts in Pell grants and Stafford loans and those supports for education that are so critical at a time when everyone reflexively says we have to be the best educated country in the world because we must compete today with an emerging India and an emerging China. We can no longer sit back on our laurels saying we have the best educated people. We have to keep investing in education. We have dissipated those resources in a way that does not benefit the vast majority of Americans but benefits very few. As a result, not only are the costs of education going up, but our Federal support for education is going down. I should say something else, too. The last several weeks the, President hasn't missed an opportunity to remind the American people that we are at war. We are. And we have to support our forces in the field. I saw a figure today that to keep an Army division in operation in Iraq for 1 month costs $1.5 billion. Those costs have to be met. With the tax policy rewarding the wealthiest Americans without benefiting the rest of America, without contributing in a demonstrable way to significantly increase employment, without contributing to supports and programs so essential to investments for the future of this country, we are not only dissipating our resources, we have also engaged in an international policy that requires spending that is very difficult to avoid, nigh impossible. Who is bearing the burden? It is all being rolled into the next generation of Americans as we accumulate a huge amount of debt going forward. This is the most reckless economic policy I have ever seen. It is ``credit card economics,'' borrow as much as you can to fund military operations abroad, but we cannot afford domestic programs. What resources we have we give away in the form of tax cuts that are not strengthening the economy. It is a massive shift of resources from the vast majority of Americans to the wealthiest Americans; from a generation in the future that will pay for it, to a generation today that seems to be consuming it. Ultimately, these policies will catch up with us. They have already caught up with the families of America. As we debate these issues today, they are looking at sticker shock in health care, education, at the gas pumps, and housing. And they are looking at their stagnant paychecks. Not only can we do better, we must do better. This Government has in the past been able to sort these problems out. We have a record over the last 5 years of the preceding decade of growth across the board in terms of income at robust levels, of significant employment gains, of fiscal responsibility. All of that today is history.

Mr. REED. I yield.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I am very pleased to join my colleague, Senator Stabenow, and my colleague, Senator Sarbanes, to talk about the reality that is confronting the American family across the country. That reality is, they are being squeezed, and they are feeling every day increased pressure from an economy that is not resulting in higher wages and income but is demonstrating increased costs to every family in the country. Between flat, stagnant incomes and increasing costs, they are seeing their dreams shredded. It is our obligation, our duty to respond. This administration has not responded. The President tries to paint a rosy picture of the economy, but the American people know better because every day they see the high gasoline prices, and increased costs of education. They look at their paychecks and see no significant increases. And they wonder, really, for the first time in my lifetime, whether their children will have a better life than they enjoyed. It was taken as an article of faith in America when I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s that your children would do better than you did. They are probably going to college, if you hadn't gone to college. If you were fortunate to be a college-educated person, they certainly would go to college and maybe on to professional school beyond. They would be able to enjoy a home in a good community. They would be able to use their talents and their energies to provide for their families and to build a strong America. But, again, for the first time in generations, many, many people are wondering whether their children will be able to afford what they did, and be able to accomplish what they have done. Can they afford a home in the same community they grew up in? In many cases, that is not true in America today. Will they have a pension that they can depend on when they get older 40 or 50 years from now? Will they have the ability to send themselves to school, to educate themselves, not just through college but throughout their lifetime? This is not something that is just the impersonal effect of the world economy and globalization. This is something that Government has a duty to respond to, and this administration has not responded to it. The facts are very clear. After adjusting for inflation, the income of the typical family is lower than it was when President Bush took office. The typical family has fallen behind in the last 6 years. The economy has gone through the most protracted job slump since the Great Depression. Even though job creation has turned positive, the pace of job creation has been modest and real wages are not growing. The administration likes to point to statistics that show an increase in average income or compensation. But it seems pretty clear that these averages reflect gains by highly compensated individuals who receive bonuses, who exercise stock options, while ordinary workers see their wages falling behind with rising living costs. When you talk about an average, if you have a lot of poor people and you have several highly compensated individuals, that average moves up. That is what the President is talking about. What we should be looking at is, how do we help those low-income Americans see more in their paychecks? How do we help them protect against rising prices in so many critical areas? This first chart demonstrates what has happened between 2000 and 2004. This is the median inflation-adjusted household income. This is the centerpoint of households in the U.S., 50 percent below, 50 percent above. So it takes away the distorting effect of a few, a handful of terribly wealthy households in the country. This is the most accurate view of what has been happening. You can see in 2004, the median income was $47,399; in 2005, in inflation-adjusted terms, $46,326, a fall of $1,273. Median household incomes fell. That is not the sign of a good economy. In fact, that is the sign of a failing economy. This is accompanied by another phenomenon. The second phenomenon is that prices are increasing. In fact, they are rising dramatically in critical areas. This is a chart that shows the middle-class squeeze under the Bush administration. College tuition, room and board, up 44 percent; households have $1,300 less at the median; their expenses for college are going up 44 percent. Health insurance premiums, if you can afford them or you have access to health insurance at all, because there is a growing number of Americans who can't buy health insurance; those premiums are going up 71 percent. Gasoline prices, up by 104 percent. Even in the last few weeks of lower prices, they are still extraordinarily high given the prices in 2000. What you have seen is a situation--this is just arithmetic--income goes down, costs go up, families are squeezed. They have to put on hold a lot of their dreams and hopes for the future--for college, in some cases. They have to worry about whether they will be destroyed financially by a health care crisis at home because they cannot afford health care coverage. Certainly we are all seeing throughout the economy how expensive it is just to get around because of the price of gasoline. For upper income Americans, the people who are certainly above the median income, this is a problem. For the vast majority of Americans, low-income Americans, the extra $10 or $15 per fillup means they cannot take the kids out for even a modest meal. They can't do things that they took for granted. They certainly cannot save. One of the other phenomenons we have seen is virtually a zero savings rate for households in the country. They are not getting ahead. I can recall--I think we all can recall as children--when parents talked about trying to get ahead, trying to get a little bit ahead, something that will give them not only some financial security but peace of mind. For some families in the last 6 years they are not only not getting ahead but they are falling behind. It is not predestined; it is not inevitable. It is because of the policies of this administration. One of other startling aspects of the Bush administration is that employment has not grown. This is a chart showing the growth of nonfarm employment throughout administrations in the country going back to Herbert Hoover. The Bush administration has the worst nonfarm employment growth of any administration since Herbert Hoover. That is not a comparison anyone would like to entertain. We have seen it go up and down through administrations, but this is the worst. Under the Clinton administration, there was a 2.4 percent per year growth in nonfarm employment. That has been reversing. This is a situation where people are looking around, again despite all the happy talk of the administration, people just have to look around. The jobs are going away and they are not coming back. Pick up the paper. About every day you see a big American company announcing 20,000 jobs being let go, changes, restructuring, et cetera. That causes people great concern. Again, we have to do something, and nothing of consequence is being done by this administration. It is the worst job record since Herbert Hoover. That is a damning epitaph for the economic policies of this administration. Coupled with the anemic job growth has been a similar anemic growth in earnings. Here again is a comparison. Between 1995 and 2000, under the Clinton administration, and between 2000 and 2005 under the Bush administration. What you see in the Clinton administration is a strong growth in earnings, weekly earnings, for every category of worker, from the lowest to the highest. In fact, I should point out that the highest-income Americans did much better under the Clinton administration than they are doing under this administration. But what is startling is that this picket fence of the Clinton administration of growth in every income level, strong positive growth, is not the case in the Bush administration. In fact, in the lowest 10 percent you are seeing negative growth, a loss in terms of weekly earnings. The poorest Americans are not only not keeping up, they are falling behind. It is not just at the bottom, it is all the way up to the 50th percentile. Half of American full-time workers have seen a loss in the last 5 years in their usual weekly earnings. They are losing ground, and they know it. They are not getting ahead. They are falling behind. You see at the upper income levels a slight increase. It was much, much better under the Clinton administration. One of the ironies here is that the economic policy, relatively speaking, is benefiting the wealthiest Americans, but it is not benefiting them as much as under the Clinton administration. Again, these are weekly earnings. This figure would be much, much different if we put in all forms of compensation. There you are seeing even a more pronounced view of the upper income Americans because of stock bonuses, because of all sorts of compensation that is not in the form of weekly earnings.