Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. That is absolutely right. The Senator is right. We have extraordinary debt being held by countries such as China. Even Mexico is a creditor of the United States today. That debt has to be serviced. That money goes overseas. It is not kept within the United States for investment here. It also not only economically weakens us, it puts us into a position internationally where we do not have the kind of leverage we used to have when we were an economic power that did not have these huge debt burdens, and we did not rely upon the kindness of strangers. We are relying on the kindness of lots of countries who, sometimes, are not our friends. We can see that manifested in situations such as our relations with North Korea, China and our relationship with Iran. The Senator is a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee. We are struggling now to control the Iranians' race for nuclear technology. A key player is the Chinese. We cannot push them hard to take a tough line, in some cases because they hold a lot of our debt. That is a reality not only economically but also in terms of international affairs.

Mr. REED. The Senator is absolutely right. He realizes, as I do, when the Bush administration came into power, we were running a surplus. We had a projected surplus over several years in the trillions of dollars, an opportunity to do lots of critical and important tasks for America: to try to reform our health care system which will require not only changes in rules, regulations, and procedures, but probably additional resources; to try to reinvigorate public education at the elementary and secondary level and try to make college more affordable. These were investment goals. At that juncture we had the resources to do it. The Senator listened, as I did, to proposals which we thought were fanciful: the suggestion that if we did not cut taxes, our surplus would grow so great it would be unmanageable. What has grown so great and what is unmanageable now is not a surplus but a deficit. The Senator also recognizes, as we look ahead and as we see this continued deficit finance and growing debt, there are structural issues which will drive the deficit further. For example, we have to somehow come to grips with a longer term solution to the alternative minimum tax which will take additional revenues and resources away from the Federal Government. There are proposals, and we have heard them, of a full-scale repeal of the estate tax. Again, that would be an additional denial of revenues and resources to the Government at a time when we are running a huge deficit and we are fighting a war. All this adds up to what the Senator pointed out: not only annual deficits but a hugely increasing debt funded by foreigners, leaving us vulnerable not only to economic shocks but also to the fact, as the Senator suggested, that we are dependent. Dependency, in many respects, is the opposite of strength. We have surrendered a great deal of economic strength through these policies. The bottom line of this discussion is that this is not some theoretical macroeconomic research topic. This is reflected in the daily lives of Americans who are struggling, and in the future they are seeing every day a decreasing sense of confidence that they can provide their sons and daughters at least as good a quality of economic life, family life, and support as they have enjoyed. That is distressing the American public.

Mr. REED. Well, I think the Senator has a very valid point about Social Security, that, yes, you are right, from what I read into those comments, the President and the Republicans in the House of Representatives are committed to, once again, going after Social Security. It seems to me to be contradictory to everything that Americans are experiencing today. The one phenomenon that is frightening everyone is the loss of defined benefit pensions, left and right. Thinking back to when I was beginning to enter the workforce, in the 1960s and 1970s, if one of my colleagues had said: I have just taken a job as a machinist at United Airlines--you would say, you are set for life, just like your father was. You are going to work for 30 years, and you are going to retire with a nice pension and have benefits like health care. You, financially, are in a good position. Now we are hearing stories about machinists' pensions being abrogated because of bankruptcy proceedings, companies that we took for granted as being solid trying to get rid of their pension liabilities. The only thing left for most Americans is Social Security. Now, we hope they all have 401(k)s and private investments. But there is that credit card commercial about how something costs $50 and something costs $80, but at the end there is that priceless element. The priceless element, when it comes to pensions, is Social Security because at least you know every month you will get a certain amount of money, you will have something, you will know what it is. And that is worth a great deal because it gives a certain peace of mind. For most Americans, it is very modest, but at least it is something they can say they will have as long as they live. This administration wants to eliminate that. They want to put every American into a market which has great ups, but also great downs. It has cycles where everyone is doing well and cycles where people are not doing very well at all. That cannot be the bedrock of retirement. We have to maintain Social Security. So it is shocking to me that despite what America said over the last several months--essentially, take your hands off my Social Security--this administration is going to try again. And, of course, there are ways we can fund Social Security. I think we did that under the leadership of you and your colleagues in the 1980s, where changes were made to the formulas, changes were made to the rates of taxation, changes were made to strengthen Social Security. They are not interested, I think, in strengthening it because their objective is not making sure that American families have something to rest their dreams on in retirement. This is, in some respects, simply another example of catering to the market, of letting these investments be turned over to private markets. And there is some advantage to that, but not fundamentally with respect to Social Security. I am afraid we are going to have to fight this fight again.

Mr. REED. Yes.

Mr. REED. Well, I think the Senator is absolutely right in terms of his analysis. He has stated very eloquently and accurately about how many Americans depend upon Social Security; how, over the long term, it is a program that will be solvent--with no changes--for 20-plus years, and 50 years even if it is not paying full benefits. Frankly, I cannot think of another Federal program where we can say we can guarantee 25 years from now you are going to get what we told you you are going to get. That is one of the few programs of the Federal Government that will do that. I think the other point that should be made is that these actuarial assumptions are rather conservative. So this is not a situation where we are trying to, with smoke and mirrors, create an artificial picture of the funding stream going forward. And I have the same shock that you have, in a way, at these proposals because right now Social Security is even more important. There was a period in our economic history, from the end of World War II up until fairly recently, where many Americans were looking at and anticipating not only their Social Security but a defined benefit private pension--a rather good private defined pension--and their private investments. Frankly, we all understand that the best retirement plan has, as a foundation, Social Security, but it is not only Social Security. It has to have private savings, private investments over time. Sometimes--I am sure the Senator might have some of the same feelings I have--if we have all these proposals--benefiting the wealthiest Americans, why can't we give incentives for average Americans--more incentives--to save for their retirement, to put money away? We have some, but they are not enough. We can do that. But that is a conscious choice to favor, in this respect, the wealthiest over the vast majority of Americans. I do not think it makes much sense in terms of economic policy, fiscal policy, and also social policy. But today we have seen those private pensions too often disappear. Today it is more important to maintain the defined benefit program of Social Security, and I hope we can. But again, I say to the Senator, like you, I am concerned there is another movement afoot. Just listen to what the President says and what the chairman of the relevant subcommittee in the House and also the House majority leader say. If they get a chance, next year, they are going right back after Social Security, despite, as you point out, the rejection by the American people. And this was not some type of narrow, close call. Seniors, middle-income Americans--all Americans, I think-- were standing up basically saying: This is not a sensible approach.

Mr. REED. I think the Senator is absolutely right. I think what Americans are seeing is a bifurcated society. That is a fancy term for the haves and the have-nots. The haves are doing quite well. I remember Warren Buffett once said: ``If this is class warfare, my class is winning.'' And it is not class warfare. What it is is a series of economic policies that are not creating the jobs, that are not creating circumstances so that those jobs provide growing compensation to workers, and then on top of that, developing tax policies which favor the very wealthy and do not do enough to help those who do need assistance. Then it is complicated further by budget policies that are undercutting education and health care. We are debating a cut to physicians in terms of their compensation which goes into the overall effect of the health care system. One point I would make, in addition to this issue about education, is that one of the reasons we saw a spectacularly productive decade in the 1990s and previous decades is not because anything was done in the 1990s, it is because of the Pell grants and Stafford loans of the 1960s when Americans with talent and ambition could go to college. Twenty- five years later, they were inventing new products. They were developing new ways to develop and provide services. They were leading the world economy in every dimension--health care, business, all these things. If we stop investing in education now, we will lurch along for a few years, but we will start slowing up in terms of momentum, and we will ask ourselves 20 years from now: Are we still the preeminent economy, the preeminent area of scientific research? And that is a question mark. People understand that. I think it goes back to the point we have all tried to make, which is that these charts are illustrative of what is going on from a statistical and analytical point; but just ask the average family and they will say simply: My wages are stuck, my expenses are going up, I cannot provide for my children the way I thought I could, and I need help. We should be giving them help and we are not. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED. I would be happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, on Monday, we marked the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks. The horror and sadness of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon remain with us as a nation. We are still trying to come to grips with the security failures that allowed four civilian airplanes to be hijacked resulting in the death and injury of thousands of Americans and civilians from across the world. Fortunately, there has not been a terrorist attack on the United States since 9/11; but al-Qaida continues to perpetrate terrorist attacks throughout the world. We remain at risk. Today, we are considering legislation essential to keeping American ports and the maritime industry safe from terrorist attacks. I commend Senators Collins, Lieberman, Stevens, Inouye, Grassley, Baucus, and Murray for their work on this legislation. 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. I am glad the Senate is finally turning its attention to these critical security challenges. A terrorist incident at one of our Nation's ports could have tremendous costs in human lives and force the shutdown of ports across the Nation, which would have devastating and long-term impacts on our economy. This bill is a good first step in protecting our seaports and maritime industry. However, there must be funds to support the homeland security initiatives in this bill if we are to make more than a symbolic effort. I am glad that the Senate accepted Senator Murray's amendment to provide dedicated funding for port security. This administration and Congress has not made port, rail, or transit security priorities for funding, and authorizing language while important is not sufficient. Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups continue to strike across the world. A recent survey by the Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy magazine of national security and terrorism experts found that 86 percent believe the world is now more dangerous, and 84 percent believe the United States is losing the war on terror. For too long, the administration's focus on the war in Iraq has diverted resources and attention from the true war on terror. These are resources that could be used to fund security efforts at airports, at ports, on rail, and on public transit. These are resources that could be used at home to make us safer. Each year, more than 11 million containers pass through U.S. ports and 53,000 foreign-flagged vessels visiting them. Since 9/11, Congress has appropriated a total of $765 million for port security grants, including $173 million in fiscal year 2006, to help our ports adopt important security measures. The Coast Guard, however, estimated that needed port security improvements could cost more than $5 billion. 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. I am pleased that the Senate passed an amendment coauthored by Banking Committee Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Sarbanes, Senator Allard, and me to the port security bill that will authorize a needs- based grant program within the Department of Homeland Security to identify and address the vulnerabilities of our Nation's transit systems. I thank Senators Shelby and Sarbanes for their leadership and hard work on this vitally important issue. This amendment, consistent with the Public Transportation Security Act that passed the Senate in the 108th Congress, provides $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 week day compared to 2 million passengers who fly daily. Paradoxically, it is the very openness of the system that makes it vulnerable to terrorism. When one considers 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 this amendment and increased funding 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 or school or shopping or other locations efficiently and affordably. This amendment authorizes necessary funding to provide transit agencies with the tools they need to secure our commuter trains, subways, ferries, and buses. 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 commuters feel safe. I am glad that the Senate passed this bipartisan amendment which will grant transit security a similar standing as aviation security. I would also like to take a moment to touch upon some of the provisions in the Real Security Act amendment offered by Senator Reid that are relevant to efforts I have been working on in my capacity as a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions--HELP-- Committee. I am disappointed that this amendment failed on a budget point of order. At the end of last year, the majority inserted into the must pass Department of Defense Appropriations bill broad liability protections for drug manufacturers for countermeasure products. While we certainly need vaccines and other medications to protect the population from the array of potential biological, chemical, and nuclear agents that could be intentionally used against us, such sweeping immunity was not appropriate. At the same time, the bill did next to nothing to protect first responders, health care providers, and the general public should they be injured as a result of a countermeasure product utilized during the course of a public health emergency. Senator Reid's Real Security amendment provided for a sound and logical process for anyone who is injured or dies as a result of a countermeasure to receive fair and just compensation under the vaccine injury compensation fund. The amendment also provided appropriate indemnification for producers of countermeasure products. A key element in any effort to respond to a public health emergency is public trust and cooperation during the process. If our health care providers, first responders, and the general public do not have confidence in the response effort, they will choose not to participate. We have already been through this experience once with the President's failed effort to get first responders inoculated against smallpox. We must have thoughtful and clear procedures in place to demonstrate to those who may be called upon during a public health emergency that they will have recourse should they suffer as a result of a countermeasure intended to protect them. We all know that no vaccine or pharmaceutical is 100 percent safe. A small segment of the population will inevitably suffer an adverse event and to ensure they are taken care of in this event is the right and responsible thing to do. Another important area this amendment addresses is the need to strengthen our hospital and public health infrastructure. Federal efforts to shore up our hospitals and public health systems continue to fall short. Despite the ongoing support for bioterrorism preparedness activities in cities and states, grants for these important efforts, like many other critical domestic priorities, have actually declined over the past year. The Real Security amendment would have bolstered our hospitals and public health workforce in their preparedness efforts, enhances the ability of health care providers to respond during a public health emergency, and improves our domestic and international disease surveillance capabilities. 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 health care infrastructure. We must also reorient our priorities to ensure that we are doing all we can to protect our most important asset--our citizens.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss Senator Harry Reid's amendment, the Real Security Act. This is a comprehensive plan for making our Nation safer and making true progress in the war on terror. I would argue that despite continued upbeat assessments by the President, there is growing evidence that we need to change course--not cut and run, but change course, regroup, and reassess our progress in Iraq, in the global war on terror, and in the area of homeland security. I believe an evaluation would lead to the realization that changes need to be made and that a step in the right direction would be to implement measures that are included in Senator Reid's amendment. I would like to focus on just a couple of aspects of Senator Harry Reid's proposal, which is entitled the ``Real Security Act,'' those dealing particularly with Afghanistan and Iraq. Reports indicate that we may be losing ground in Afghanistan, the initial proper focus of the war on terror. Afghanistan was the locale of the Taliban. They were aiding and abetting al-Qaida and bin Laden, and we, by unanimous approval of this Congress and the Senate, gave the President the authority to launch offensive operations there. Those operations were successful. But then, before the entire success was secured, the focus of this administration turned away to a pre- 9/11 project: regime change in Iraq. In the intervening years, we have lost ground in Afghanistan. The Taliban has regrouped and rearmed, and this spring they mounted the toughest resistance since 2001. Suicide attacks, which once were unknown in Afghanistan, have more than doubled this year. Almost 5 years after the U.S. invasion, only half the money pledged by the international community to rebuild Afghanistan has been delivered and effectively spent. As Afghanistan's Ambassador to the United States has said: We will not be able to stabilize the country if we don't build up the domestic security forces and have development in the countryside. Had we invested more in development, we would have less security problems today. I have traveled to Afghanistan on a number of occasions. One of the problems we have is moving outside of Kabul, the capital, and creating a governmental presence, an Afghani governmental presence, in the countryside. We are trying vigorously to disrupt the production of poppies and opium, but that is hard in a society in which that cash crop is easy to move around, and it is quite lucrative. It is harder to move around other agricultural staples because there are no roads and irrigation is difficult. If we had, as the Ambassador suggested, focused more resources and attention more promptly on development, we might have a much more benign climate in which to deal with a resurgent Taliban. Without viable alternatives, there are scores of problems in Afghanistan. Sixty percent of the country is still without electricity, 80 percent is without potable water, and the unemployment rate is 40 percent. These are features which tend to support angry, disappointed young men, particularly, who are easy targets for those fanatics who would try to sway them into attacking security forces of both the Afghani Government and the United States. Without viable alternatives in terms of jobs and economic progress, it is easy to see how some turn to growing poppies, to providing support for this underground economy. According to the United Nations, Afghanistan just produced a record poppy crop, enough for 6,100 tons of opium--one-third more than the world's demand for heroin. These harvests fund the Taliban fighters who fuel the fighting in Afghanistan and terrorists around the world. Section 301 of Senator Harry Reid's amendment calls for a long-term commitment to Afghanistan, focusing on economic and developmental assistance, along with security assistance. That is the right plan. I have had the occasion to visit with our commanders in the field, and we asked them about additional forces, and we asked them about additional military hardware. They will say: We could use that, but I can tell you something we know we need right now; that is, economic development to give the people of Afghanistan confidence in their Government and hope for the future. Confidence and hope is one of the best anecdotes to the kind of regime the Taliban is trying to impose again in Afghanistan. Last night, as he addressed the Nation, President Bush stated: The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad. Two weeks ago in Salt Lake City, the President said: America has a clear strategy to help the Iraqi people protect their new freedom and build a democracy that can govern itself and sustain itself and defend itself. . . . We will stay the course. Yesterday, the Government Accounting Office, in testimony before the House Committee on Government Reform, provided a grim assessment of the Iraq security situation. GAO found, in their words: Since June 2003, the overall security conditions in Iraq have deteriorated and grown more complex, as evidenced by increased numbers of attacks and Sunni/Shia sectarian strife which has grown since the February 2006 bombing in Samarra. Attacks against the coalition and its Iraqi partners reached an all-time high during July 2006. The deteriorating conditions threaten the progress of U.S. and international efforts to assist Iraq in the political and economic areas. A New York Times story yesterday entitled ``Deal on a Constitution for Iraq is Teetering'' details how Shia and Sunnis failed once again over the weekend to reach an agreement on changes to the Constitution which would allow for a truly inclusive government. Also yesterday, the Washington Post reported that on August 16, COL Pete Devlin, the Marine Corps chief of intelligence in Iraq, filed a classified report about Iraq's Al Anbar Province, which includes the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi. This province borders Saudi Arabia and Syria. Colonel Devlin has been stationed in Iraq for 7 months and is considered by his fellow officers to be one of the best who is ``careful and straightforward.'' An army officer in Iraq familiar with the report says he considers it accurate. ``It is best characterized as `realistic,' '' he said. This report, while one of the first negative reports filed by a military officer, echoes several years of pessimistic CIA assessments of the province. The report is classified, so there are no direct quotes; however, those who are familiar with the report state that the assessment is dire. As the Washington Post summarized: One Marine officer called it ``very pessimistic.'' Another person familiar with the report said it describes Anbar as beyond repair; a third said it includes that the United States has lost in Anbar. The document reportedly states that there are no functioning Iraqi Government institutions in Anbar, leaving a vacuum that has been filled by the insurgent group al-Qaida in Iraq, which has become the province's most significant political force. One Army officer summarized the situation in Anbar province with the following: We haven't been defeated militarily, but we have been defeated politically--and that's where wars are won and lost. I visited Fallujah in March 2005 with General Abizaid. At that time, there was one State Department official there and no representatives from other agencies. That State Department official was tired and overworked. He was doing a remarkable job, both in terms of exposing himself to dangers and working tirelessly to try to give a political mentoring to the Iraqi authorities. He was desperate for assistance. At that time, he said he didn't think there was another big fight in Iraq unless the politics broke down and that it was a big year for politics. Clearly, more civilian assistance was key. My first visit was in 2005. I revisited the province this July. That same State Department official was still there, still doing a remarkable job, and still weathering the dangers and putting in the long hours to try to make a difference. Sixteen months since my last visit, and he was still the only civilian representative in Fallujah. He was even more tired. He said he believes the Marines have accomplished all they can reasonably be expected to accomplish. They are quickly running out of a mission. He felt it was time to see if the Iraqi forces could perform without the Marines, if the Iraqi Government could support their troops in the field and whether sectarian divisions were so acute that they would prevent the Iraqis from forging even minimal political cohesion. In his view, the United States was currently in a holding pattern, delaying the inevitable day when the Iraqis must step forward and, in the meantime, our forces are suffering additional casualties. These are the views of those on the ground in Fallujah, and they are representative of a larger problem this administration has had since the beginning of the war in Iraq. There was simply no postwar planning. While this administration has been focused exclusively on our military forces in Iraq, the reconstruction of the Iraqi infrastructure and economy has been virtually ignored. Iraqi reconstruction funds have been depleted with only a fraction of needed projects completed. The ability of the United States to aid in ministerial capacity building is hobbled by the lack of U.S. civilian experts in Iraq. In fact, because of the shortage of appropriate civilian advisers, the military is providing personnel on a case-by-case basis to help mentor civilian ministries. Clearly, the lack of emphasis on reconstruction is having a dire effect on progress in Iraq. Tired of 3 years without adequate security or services, Iraqi professionals are leaving the country. Those who remain do not trust or feel invested in the new Government. Frustration with services and lack of employment opportunities means angry young men join militias instead of supporting their Government. Lieutenant General Chiarelli, Commanding General of the Multi-National Corps of Iraq, told me in July that unless we devote renewed attention and additional resources to the economic reconstruction of Iraq and the development of governmental capacity, the emergence of capable Iraqi forces will not be decisive. We can train an Army, but unless we have the ministries to support that Army, unless we have a police system and a judicial system that can give individual Iraqis a sense of both security and the hope of justice, simply having an Iraqi Army in the field will not be decisive to the ultimate challenge of stabilizing Iraq. I, and many of my colleagues, have made it clear to the administration that several steps can and should be taken immediately to address this situation. The administration should secure fulfillment of international pledges to provide economic support to Iraq. We are spending billions and billions of dollars a month. The American people cannot indefinitely spend this kind of effort without support from our international partners. We cannot meet all of the demands for reconstruction. In fact, we should insist, and this Government should be effective, in securing the already pledged funds, so that at least we have another chance--and maybe we can do it right this time--to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq to a point at least that individual Iraqis feel they will have a minimal amount of electricity, hopefully, more than that; that they will feel secure in terms of access to health care and to those things that give them the sense that their Government can succeed, and they should risk, in some cases, their lives to make that Government succeed. That is not the situation today in Iraq. The administration should work with Iraqis to create a master list of necessary reconstruction projects with estimated funding and timelines. Funding for such projects should be a priority in the President's budget. We invested a lot of money, and we made a lot of contractors rich by building huge projects. General Chiarelli has been quoted several times talking about a huge water project in Sadr City was a model of engineering. There was only one problem: There was no distribution system, so it became the largest and most expensive water fountain in the world. He took his own resources, as a division commander, took some PVC piping and at least got some water out into the neighborhoods. That is the type of project that will make progress in Iraq. Time is running out. We have to refocus ourselves on these types of efforts. We should assign these projects to the military, the Army Corps of Engineers, USAID, and private contractors, but we have to make sure that these private contractors are willing to go out and do the work, not simply to bill for the work. We have examples where scores of health clinics were supposedly built, and it has been discovered that those health clinics have not been built, and those that have, the few, are inadequate. In fact, I have seen films, videos of raw sewage in the operating rooms of the supposedly new and improved health clinics. The administration should work with the Iraqis to establish target efforts to increase employment in order to provide young men an alternative to joining the militia. One of the things that is being done now on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis under the leadership of General Chiarelli is, after securing the neighborhood, now we are moving in, searching, taking out the weapons, trying to disrupt the cells of terrorists and others but then putting people to work with simple tasks, such as picking up trash and giving them some money, giving them a sense of hope, and improving the environment in these communities. We have to do more of that: putting people to work. The administration should provide increased incentives and funding to attract large numbers of volunteers from the Department of State, Agriculture, Justice, and Commerce to serve in Iraq. The President is fond of reminding the American people that we are a country at war. But this is not an administration at war; it is a Department of Defense at war. We are seeing soldiers and marines sent back to Iraq for the third time and some for the fourth time. But where is the mobilization of all of our power, our State Department experts, our agriculture experts, our Justice Department experts? That is the great fight we are facing today in Iraq. The military, through the loss of lives and through the wounded of so many Americans, are buying this Government the time to work with the Iraqi Government to build capacity, to build infrastructure. But we are not using that time because, once again, despite the President's claim that this is a Nation at war, this is not an administration at war. And until we mobilize all of our resources, we are not going to be able, I think successfully, to meet the challenges of stabilizing Iraq. Last year, the Secretary of State talked about provincial reconstruction teams which would be spread throughout Iraq. So far, we have not fully deployed sufficient numbers of these teams to do the job. It made for a good speech line last fall. It hasn't happened yet, and it is overdue. Section E of Senator Reid's amendment calls for a new direction for Iraq and expresses the sense of Congress that Iraq should work for an inclusive government and disarm the militias, diffusing the sectarian violence. These militias are becoming a critical and dangerous aspect of the situation in Iraq, and unless the Iraqi Government is able to deal with these militias successfully, the Iraqi Government will be compromised and incapable of effectively governing their country. Today, and for the last 2 days, we have been looking at a situation where the Iraqi Assembly is debating whether they want to regionalize the country--break it up. Shia representatives, led by Hakim and the Badr organization, are pushing for a legislative approach that will essentially provide the southern part of Iraq and the northern part of Iraq with their autonomy, leaving the center autonomous but desperately poor. It is raising the fears of the Sunni community. But the battle is between not just Sunnis and Shias but within the Shias because, on the other side, Moqtada al-Sadr and his militia are urging that the regionalization plan be dropped. This is what is going on in Iraq. It is not international terrorists plotting to attack us from there; it is the sectarian struggle for power of who will run that country, and we are caught in the middle of it. That is why Senator Harry Reid's proposal is so sensible. It talks about redeploying our forces, reinvesting again and is perhaps the last chance we will get to provide the Government of Iraq with the tools and the mentoring so that they can provide their people with basic services and basic security. I hope we can rally around and support this amendment because it represents not only a strong policy for America but a smart policy for America. I hope that when Senator Reid's proposal comes up for a vote, it is supported. It is one thing to go around the country and make speeches about staying the course, and it is something else to provide the resources, to provide the support, to provide the relief for our military that will give them a chance to succeed and give the Iraqis a chance to succeed. So I urge passage, when it is called for a vote, of the Harry Reid amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, my preference would be for a recorded vote, if possible. I think this is an important point about providing adequate resources to our special operators. Also, I would like to at least confer with Senator Bayh.

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment and send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment along with my colleague from Indiana, Senator Evan Bayh, which would provide an additional $65.4 million for the procurement of Predators for our special operations forces. The Predator is an unmanned aerial vehicle-- or UAV, for short--used for armed reconnaissance, airborne surveillance, and target acquisition. It has become a critical asset in the war on terror. It is a small, remotely piloted aircraft that brings the battlefront to the military. Through the use of cameras and other sensors, the Predator monitors, in real time, buildings or people. Because it is unmanned, it is ideal for use in areas that are inaccessible to the U.S. military such as areas where the airspace is unsecure, the terrain is unpassable, or the environment is contaminated by chemical or biological weapons. The Predator system's hardware consists of a small monoplane with sensors, a ground control station, and data communications system. The special operations forces--the front line in our war on terror-- rely on Predator surveillance as part of their work to capture and kill the terrorists targeting our troops and the Governments of Iraq and Afghanistan. There has been a lot of discussion recently about the war on terror. This is actually one of the systems which has been most decisive in killing the terrorists. That is why I think we have to support additional funding for this antiterrorist system. Right now, special operations forces depend upon Air Force assets, which are already in high demand, for Predator support. With more Predators, we can be more effective in going after and taking out the terrorists. According to the Defense News article entitled ``Inside the Zarqawi Takedown: Persistent Surveillance Helps End 3-Year Manhunt,'' the capture of the terrorist Abu Mus'Ab al-Zarqawi--the leader of al- Qaida in Iraq, notorious for his despicable conduct--was facilitated decisively by Predator surveillance provided to special operations forces. The Quadrennial Defense Review recognized that special operators need dedicated UAV support and called for the establishment of a UAV squadron organic to special operations forces. The QDR reads: To achieve the future force characteristics for SOF-- special operations forces--and to build on progress to date, the Department will: . . . establish a SOF unmanned aerial vehicle squadron to provide organic capabilities to locate and target enemy capabilities in denied or contested areas. This special operations squadron would eventually provide coverage 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to assist the forces working to capture and kill terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. The objective, according to GEN Doug Brown, Commander of the Special Operations Command, SOCOM, is to establish an ``unblinking eye,'' which would help special operators targeting terrorists. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2007 included funding sufficient to begin to build the squadron, including the purchase of eight UAVs. On April 6, VADM Eric Olson, Deputy Commander of SOCOM, testified to the Armed Services Committee that the command did not have sufficient surveillance platforms. On April 27, Senator Bayh sent a letter to the Armed Services Committee expressing his intent to address this issue via legislation. Subsequently, the Appropriations Committee took action in the fiscal year 2006 supplemental and accelerated funding for this purpose. This funding would have allowed the initial operating capability to be achieved in 2007, rather than 2008, and for the squadron to be fully operational with 24 UAVs in 2010 instead of 2011. I believe this acceleration would have been significantly contributing to the capability of our Special Operations Command. However, the acceleration was reversed by the Appropriations Committee just a few months later when it cut the funding for the UAV procurement for SOCOM--a cut to the Air Force aircraft procurement line. According to the Special Operations Command, this cut ``would negate the effect of the FY2006 Supplemental, . . . causing Full Operation Capability to revert back to the original timeline. This delay will adversely affect AFSOC's urgent ongoing requirement to conduct persistent intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting missions.'' The amendment Senator Bayh and I are offering would put the acceleration back on track by adding $65.4 million for six UAVs and associated equipment. Just 2 weeks ago, during a trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, the Armed Services Committee staff was told by the special operations forces in both countries, who are working hard to track the terrorists targeting our troops and the Governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, that their No. 1 need is for Predator coverage. They need dedicated UAV support. We have not captured Osama bin Laden yet, and unfortunately there are many more targets for the special operators to conduct reconnaissance, surveillance, and, we hope, preemption. There is no rationale for not accelerating the establishment of the UAV squadron. SOCOM wants this, and they have stated such. They can execute this in the timeframe they have given the Congress. We need to increase the pressure on al-Qaida operatives in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as other terrorists attacking U.S. and coalition troops. These terrorists are threatening, each day, the success of our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the safety of our personnel. If we really want to carry the fight to the terrorists, if we really want to individually and collectively go after and take out these terrorists, the Predator, according to our special operations forces, is a key ingredient in this effort. Rather than rhetoric about fighting the war on terrorism, let's give these special operators the tools to effectively fight and destroy terrorists wherever they may be. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment that is offered by myself and Senator Bayh would add $64.7 million to continue an accelerated acquisition of Predator. These are unmanned aerial vehicles that are critical to our war on terror. They were instrumental in the detection and the ultimate destruction of Zarqawi and other terrorists. They are the chief tool of our special operations forces in terms of going after, seeking, finding, and destroying terrorists and terrorist networks. There was a plan to accelerate the deployment of these UAVs. That plan was disrupted, if you will, because of decisions previously made. But I think today we can send a uniform and unanimous message that we need to acquire these six additional UAVs to create ultimately a squadron of UAVs for our special operations command. With these weapons systems, we can continue to deal effective and decisive blows against terrorists. I urge unanimous passage of this legislation adding $64.5 million. I commend Senator Bayh because he really was a leader in this effort in terms of drawing the attention of the committee to this shortfall in funding and requesting that it be added with this amendment. I reserve the balance of any time remaining.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Conrad be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rhode Island Federal Worker Fairness Act of 2006. This bill will merge the Narragansett Bay wage area with the Boston, MA, wage area to provide Rhode Island Federal blue-collar workers with pay equity in the region. These workers include janitors, mechanics, machine tool operators, munitions and explosive operators, electricians, and engineers. Federal employees within the Narragansett Bay wage area are paid under one of the lowest Federal wage system, FWS, pay scales while residing in an area with one of the highest costs of living. Significant disparities between Narragansett Bay wages and those in proximate wage areas raise serious questions about the fairness and equity of the Federal wage pay scales. The average wage grade worker in Rhode Island earns $18.01 per hour compared to the same worker in Boston who earns $20.25 per hour or an employee in Hartford who earns $20.05 per hour. As a result, Rhode Island may be losing experienced Federal employees to the same jobs, at the same grade levels, just miles away because of better pay. Enacting this legislation would help the approximately 500 wage rate workers in Rhode Island better provide for their families, and it will ensure that Rhode Island keeps qualified and trained Federal workers. Roughly 80 percent of all FWS employees in the United States work either in the Department of Defense or the Department of Veteran Affairs. Indeed, Naval Station Newport employs the most FWS workers in the Narragansett Bay area. These employees perform work that is important to our national security, and competitive compensation is the best way to ensure that these workers are qualified and effective. Merging these two wage areas would reduce the disparity between the salaries of these Federal workers and keep Federal workers in Rhode Island from abandoning their Government jobs for higher paying positions in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rhode Island Federal Worker Fairness Act of 2006. This bill will merge the Narragansett Bay wage area with the Boston, MA, wage area to provide Rhode Island Federal blue-collar workers with pay equity in the region. These workers include janitors, mechanics, machine tool operators, munitions and explosive operators, electricians, and engineers. Federal employees within the Narragansett Bay wage area are paid under one of the lowest Federal wage system, FWS, pay scales while residing in an area with one of the highest costs of living. Significant disparities between Narragansett Bay wages and those in proximate wage areas raise serious questions about the fairness and equity of the Federal wage pay scales. The average wage grade worker in Rhode Island earns $18.01 per hour compared to the same worker in Boston who earns $20.25 per hour or an employee in Hartford who earns $20.05 per hour. As a result, Rhode Island may be losing experienced Federal employees to the same jobs, at the same grade levels, just miles away because of better pay. Enacting this legislation would help the approximately 500 wage rate workers in Rhode Island better provide for their families, and it will ensure that Rhode Island keeps qualified and trained Federal workers. Roughly 80 percent of all FWS employees in the United States work either in the Department of Defense or the Department of Veteran Affairs. Indeed, Naval Station Newport employs the most FWS workers in the Narragansett Bay area. These employees perform work that is important to our national security, and competitive compensation is the best way to ensure that these workers are qualified and effective. Merging these two wage areas would reduce the disparity between the salaries of these Federal workers and keep Federal workers in Rhode Island from abandoning their Government jobs for higher paying positions in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague, Senator Isakson, to introduce the Tanning Accountability and Notification--TAN--Act of 2006. A House counterpart measure was introduced by Representatives Maloney and Brown-Waite in February. Close to a million people will be diagnosed with skin cancer this year. Approximately 1 in 5 Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetime, and these numbers are on the rise. There are many factors that contribute to these startling figures. In recent years efforts have been undertaken by various organizations to better inform the public about the risk of sun exposure and ways to decrease the chance of developing skin cancer. One area, however, where better information is sorely needed is on the use of indoor tanning salons. Every day approximately 1 million people visit a tanning salon. It is a practice particularly popular among teens, the group that seems most at risk from the effects of indoor tanning. The American Academy of Dermatology, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, the National Institutes of Health, NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, and the World Health Organization, WHO, all discourage the use of indoor tanning equipment. This message and the current information about the risks of indoor tanning I fear are not being adequately passed on to consumers. The FDA has not updated its warnings on tanning beds since 1979. Regular users of indoor tanning beds deserve to be fully informed. The TAN Act calls upon the FDA to revisit the current label on indoor tanning beds and determine through a process of public hearings and consumer testing what kind of labeling requirements would convey important information on the risks of indoor tanning. This legislation is not about introducing new regulations but ensuring that the current FDA regulations remain effective in communicating accurate, current, and clear information to consumers of indoor tanning salons. I look forward to working with my colleagues towards passage of this important, bipartisan legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Alabama. The premise advanced by the Senator from Alabama is that we have such a robust relationship with other nuclear powers, such as Russia, that it would be easy to coordinate this; there would be no mistaking a launch of a conventional missile from a Trident submarine. But I think that is contradicted by what the Russians themselves say. General Cartright went out and met his counterpart, General Baluyevsky, the chief of the Russian general staff, and tried to talk to him about these threats of terrorists needing to strike at long distance. And General Baluyevsky said this could be a costly move which not only won't guarantee his destruction--referring to Bin Laden--but could provide an irreversible response from a nuclear-armed state which can't determine what warhead is fitted on the missile. That is the strong support, constant communication with Russia that we have today, which could easily discern and disseminate information about a potential launch of a conventional weapon from a Trident platform. The Trident submarine contains missiles which are all armed with nuclear weapons. They are part of our strategic triad--probably the most secure part of our triad. And the practical problem for anyone in the world is to determine, if we shoot one of these missiles at them, is it a conventional warhead or is it a nuclear warhead? If anyone believes they have nuclear weapons and are being attacked by a nuclear device, I think there is a strong fear, on my part at least, that they would retaliate before they could ever verify what was going on. Another aspect of this whole proposal is that it is premised on the fact that we would only have minutes or so to strike a target. But I think you have to ask yourself, reasonably and realistically, if that is the case, how do we know the target is so dangerous? I presume, in terms of developing our intelligence sources, we first have a suspicion, then we have information, we go out and verify it, and in that process I would assume and would hope that our national security officials would begin to move assets into the area which could conduct a strike with precision weapons. Again, I think the record of the intelligence community, frankly, in terms of determining targets is one that is spotty at best. That is because of the difficulty of doing this type of intelligence work. Recall now the first blow in the Iraq war was a precision strike to decapitate their leadership by killing, essentially, Saddam Hussein. It turned out he wasn't there. Think about if that type of intelligence prompted the firing of a Trident missile, and a nuclear power was unsure that it was not a nuclear weapon or a conventional weapon and retaliate. I think we are going down a very dangerous path. Let me also suggest something else, which is inherent in the argument of Senator Sessions. I guess the question would be, would we wait, if it is so dangerous and so insistent to act so quickly, would we wait to ensure that the other parties understood--the other parties being Russia or China--that this was a nonnuclear launch? How much time would that take? How could we be sure that we have effectively communicated it? None of this has been investigated. The comments by the Russian chief of general staff suggests that. So I think we have an obligation to look carefully at this issue before we go down this path. That is essentially what was agreed to in the Defense authorization bill. The Defense authorization bill says no funds can be expended for R&D until 30 days after a report, which is specified in the committee legislation, is given to the relevant committees in the Senate and the House. If they have all these answers right now, and they are compelling and persuasive, I presume it could be delivered within a few days, starting the 30-day period to be told or to expire. I think this is a prudent thing to do. To go ahead and avoid this report not only contradicts the sentiment on the authorizing committee, but also I think it disregards the difficult questions that have to be asked. Where is this instantaneous assured notification to others that this is a conventional weapon and not a nuclear weapon? I think that question alone requires an evaluation. I hope in the disposition of this amendment we would let this report requirement stand, would let the committee do what they have essentially done--roughly the same thing--allowing R&D funding to go forward pending reports of one kind or another. That is the prudent and appropriate thing to do. I hope we would do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about the cynical efforts to tie a much needed boost in the minimum wage to a massive tax cut for the heirs of the wealthiest Americans. The economic disparities between minimum wage workers and wealthy people whose large estates are subject to the estate tax are so vast that pairing these two measures together defies logic. I am also hard pressed to find a link between either of these issues and the extension of several expiring tax provisions that have been tacked on as well. No matter how my colleagues in the majority try to dress it up, this is really just another vote on the estate tax. It was less than two months ago that full repeal of the estate tax failed to pass in the Senate. Instead of addressing the pressing problems ordinary Americans face on a range of economic issues, the leadership is back again trying to pass near-elimination of the estate tax. The estate tax is an important component of our progressive federal tax system, it is the Federal Government's only tax on wealth, and by 2009 less than one-half of one percent of all estates will be subject to the tax. Far from being a ``death tax,'' the tax falls on heirs who seldom had any real role in earning the wealth built up by the estate holder. The decedent's estate pays a portion of the total assets to the Federal Government and the remainder is then passed on to heirs. Capital gains that have built up in the estate tax free are passed on to the heirs on a ``stepped up'' basis, and the heirs are not liable for any income tax on these gains. No tax is levied if the estate passes to a spouse or is donated to charity. The overwhelming majority of estates pay no federal estate tax. As a matter of fact, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimates that only about 8,200 estates would owe any estate tax in 2011 if the 2009 exemption level of $3.5 million were made permanent. Those are the people who would benefit from further cuts in the estate tax and their estimated average tax savings is about $1.3 million--a far cry from the $2.10 hourly wage increase that the Majority has put on the table for minimum wage workers. A minimum wage hike is long overdue. The Federal minimum wage, which today stands at $5.15 per hour, hasn't been raised since 1997. Since then, inflation has not only wiped out that pay increase but brought the real value of the minimum wage to its lowest level in half a century. Over the past 9 years, the minimum wage has lost one-fifth of its purchasing power. The majority's plan would increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour by the middle of 2009. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that 5.9 million workers would benefit directly from the increase and that the average benefit would be $1,200 per year. Another 7.1 million workers earning somewhat more than $7.25 per hour could benefit indirectly as a ``spillover benefit'' of the minimum wage increase. However, 1.8 million fewer workers would benefit under the Republican proposal because it phases in the increase over a 3-year period rather than the 2-year phase-in under Senator Kennedy's proposal. Senator Kennedy's minimum wage legislation, which I have cosponsored, also does not contain any poison pills, such as the near-elimination of the estate tax or the egregious roll back of State pay protections for minimum wage workers. Currently, there are seven States that have chosen not to include a tip penalty in their minimum wage laws. Thus, tipped employees in these States earn the full State minimum wage. Under the Republican bill, however, one million tipped employees in these seven States will see a drastic cut in their base pay. Raising the minimum wage is vital because workers have been left out of the economic growth we have seen so far in this recovery. Strong productivity growth has translated into higher profits for businesses, not more take home pay for workers. The stagnation of earnings in the face of soaring prices for gasoline, home heating, food, health care and college tuition is squeezing workers' paychecks. Just this week, the administration admitted as much. At a speech at Columbia Business School, Treasury Secretary Paulson stated that ``amid this country's strong economic expansion, many Americans simply aren't feeling the benefits. Many aren't seeing significant increases in their take home pay. Their increases in wages are being eaten up by high energy prices and rising health costs.'' 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. Five million more Americans have fallen into poverty since President Bush took office--37 million Americans are now living in poverty, including 13 million children. The minimum wage is an important policy tool to lift low-income families out of poverty. Almost two-thirds of those who would benefit are adult workers, and more than a third of these adults are sole breadwinners for their families. This is not pocket change for teenagers, as opponents of the wage floor have argued. The devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita last September put the national spotlight on the problem of poverty in America. As Senator Grassley, chairman of the Finance Committee, put it last year, ``It's a little unseemly to be talking about eliminating the estate tax at a time when people are suffering.'' While the minimum wage has steadily lost purchasing power over the past 9 years, Federal Reserve data show that over roughly the same period the inflation-adjusted average net worth of the 10 percent families with the greatest wealth increased by almost 40 percent. The wealth of those most likely to have estate tax liability has increased substantially, but the taxes owed on an estate of any given size are lower now than they were in 1997 because of increases in the exclusion and reductions in the tax rate. The differences in economic circumstances between those at the very top of the income or wealth distribution and those at the bottom are vast and widening. Again, during his address in New York, Treasury Secretary Paulson stressed that ``addressing issues of wage growth and uneven income distribution is a longer-term challenge that we can address.'' And yet, again the rhetoric of this administration does not match its actions. The consideration of this bill before us today is proof that the majority and the administration are not serious about addressing disparities. Looking at earnings, minimum wage workers make about $206 for a 40- hour week at the current rate of $5.15 per hour. That would put them in the bottom 10 percent of the distribution of usual weekly earnings of full-time workers and these workers have suffered the largest declines over the past 5 years. Those at the upper-income levels are seeing earnings gains but for those at the bottom- and middle-income levels, there is a loss in real earnings since the President took office whereas in the 1990s, when you saw the proverbial picket fence--there were positive gains at every percentile. Turning to household wealth, an overwhelming majority of households have very little in the way of accumulated wealth and assets and would not be subject to the estate tax. Households in the bottom fifth of the wealth distribution have a median wealth of just $2,000. In contrast, households in the top 10 percent have a median wealth of $1.4 million, which is less than the current estate tax exclusion of $2 million for an individual or $4 million for a married couple. Because half of the households in that wealthiest group have less than the median net worth of the group, most will not owe any estate tax. The inequity of this proposal is compelling enough, but the budgetary consequences of nearly eliminating the estate tax make it completely unpalatable. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that this estate tax proposal would cost about $600 billion over the 2012-2021 period, or about $750 billion when the associated debt service costs are included. That is about three-quarters of the cost of full repeal, but probably understates the true cost because the latest proposal is not fully effective until 2015. We are financing near-repeal of the estate tax with debt, because the costs will be paid for with borrowed money. Future generations of taxpayers--minimum wage workers and others who will make significantly less than the heirs of deceased multimillionaires and billionaires-- will have to repay those funds. The drain on the budget would occur at the very time that the baby boom generation enters retirement and rising Social Security and Medicare costs would strain our budget. Secretary Paulson rightfully identified ``reforming entitlement programs, advancing energy security and maintaining and strengthening trade and investment policies that benefit American workers'' as ``longer-term challenges that will face our economy in the years to come.'' However, as we all know these are challenges that we can only meet if we have the resources to do so. Making permanent fiscally irresponsible tax cuts only endanger our abilities to truly address what should be our national priorities. Raising the minimum wage will increase the likelihood that minimum- wage workers will be paying taxes and drawing on fewer government services. In contrast, virtually eliminating the estate tax will reduce Federal revenues, increase the budget deficit, and put pressure on other government programs that contribute to the economic well-being of lower-income workers, including minimum wage workers. Today, we are at war and yet there is no sense of the shared sacrifice that has united this country in past conflicts. Ironically, the estate tax was first adopted in the nineteenth century to pay for government shortfalls due to wartime spending. Our military families are making tremendous sacrifices, and too many of them have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country. With $320 billion appropriated or pending for Iraq operations to date and more than 2,500 service men and women killed, the human and financial tolls are both more staggering than imagined. With mounting war costs, the impending retirement of the baby-boom generation and deficits as far as the eye can see, due to the President's irresponsible tax cuts, it is unconscionable to think that we are going to vote again on gutting one of the most progressive taxes on the books. Putting a minimum wage hike that is so necessary for working families to make ends meet together with an estate tax bill that benefits a few wealthy heirs reveals a warped set of priorities. The same can be said for holding hostage a package of tax extenders that all support. Our focus should be on strengthening the safety net for American families-- whether it's raising the minimum wage or preserving Social Security, pensions, and health insurance coverage. I have been a consistent supporter of the minimum wage, but this is a cruel juxtaposition of policies which I can not support.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 would strengthen private pension plan funding and improve the financial position of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, PBGC. While the bill reflects difficult compromises, it is important that we act now to preserve the financial health of defined benefit pensions. This legislation is an important step toward protecting the pensions of working Americans. Today's workers will live longer and work longer but also spend more time in retirement than ever before, so it is vital that the pension benefits promised to workers will actually be there when they retire. The crisis in private pensions is just part of the growing problem of economic insecurity for many Americans. Although the economy has been growing, job growth has been modest, wages are not keeping pace with inflation, income inequality is growing, employer-provided health insurance coverage is falling, and private pensions are increasingly in jeopardy. Soaring prices for gasoline, home heating, health care, and college tuition is squeezing the take home pay of most workers. Many workers have little left over for retirement savings after making ends meet for basic living expenses. Meanwhile, many employers shift the risk and responsibility of adequate retirement funds onto workers, as retirement prospects are more uncertain than ever. 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. Despite the shift away from traditional pensions, defined benefit plans remain a critical source of retirement support, with 44 million workers and retirees relying on such plans as a source of stable retirement income. However, as we have seen with recent pension terminations in the airline industry, the real risk of defined benefit plan defaults further exacerbates workers' uncertainty and concern about their retirement prospects. This bill tackles the growing problem of employers not setting aside enough money to cover their pension obligations. The Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, PBGC, estimates that total underfunding in PBGC- insured pension plans is about $450 billion, more than $100 billion of which is in plans sponsored by financially weak companies that are at reasonable risk of default. However, the PBGC, which is the backstop to the defined benefit pension system, has funding issues of its own due to increased defaults by employers. At the end of 2005, the PBGC reported a cumulative deficit of $22.8 billion in its single-employer program. While the PBGC has sufficient assets to pay benefit obligations for a number of years, without changes in funding, the agency will eventually run out of money. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that PBGC's cumulative deficit will increase to $87 billion over the next 10 years, and suggests that there is a significant likelihood that all of PBGC's assets will be exhausted within the next 20 years. The Pension Protection Act would tighten the funding rule for defined benefit plans by requiring that plans fund 100 percent of their liabilities, up from 90 percent under current law. Companies with underfunded plans would have seven years to make up any funding shortfall. Financially troubled airlines with underfunded plans would have 17 years to become fully funded. The legislation would limit the use of credit balances to prevent companies with unfunded plans from avoiding plan contributions, prohibit companies with underfunded plans from increasing future benefits, and require an accurate accounting of each plan's true financial condition. Plans would also be required to provide more information about their current funding status to plan participants and beneficiaries. In addition, the bill contains important, long overdue disclosure rules to protect the pension of workers, to avoid a situation like that of the Enron workers who lost their entire life savings. Under this bill, companies would be required to give workers quarterly benefit statements that show the value of their assets, and explain their right to and the importance to diversify their investments. The companies would also be required to give their employees a range of options for investing their 401(k) plans rather than just the in company stock and allow workers to sell the stock after three years. A few of the other notable features of this bill are provisions that encourage low- and moderate-income workers to save for retirement by extending the ``saver's credit,'' and requiring automatic enrollment in defined contribution pensions such as 401(k) plans. The saver's credit provides a permanent non-refundable tax credit to taxpayers with incomes below certain limits if they make contributions to an IRA or an employer-sponsored plan. Early evidence indicates that the saver's credit has increased participation rates in retirement plans. The effects of the credit are limited, however, by its nonrefundability, the sharp phase-down of the credit rate for moderate- income taxpayers, and the lack of indexing of the income limits. This bill would address one of the current problems with the credit by indexing the income thresholds starting in 2007. The Pension Protection Act would encourage companies to use automatic enrollment. Under automatic enrollment, companies can enroll employees in contributory pension plans and defer a specified percentage of their earnings into an account. Employees are free to opt out of the plan if they do not wish to participate. Under current rules, employees must make an active decision to participate in contributory plans. Studies show that automatic enrollment dramatically increases participation rates. The increase is particularly likely to benefit younger workers and low-income workers, who tend to have the lowest participation rates. One concern I have is that this legislation extends the higher contribution limits on 401(k) and IRA contributions enacted in 2001, which would do little to encourage retirement saving while adding over $36 billion to the budget deficit over the next 10 years. While tax- advantaged retirement saving by low- and moderate-income individuals is likely to represent new saving, high-income individuals are more likely to use expanded savings opportunities to shift existing savings from taxable accounts to tax-advantaged accounts. In its analysis of a similar proposal in the President's FY 2004 budget, CBO concluded that expanding tax-free savings accounts would have little effect on personal saving. Nonetheless, the Pension Protection Act makes progress toward ensuring that workers will receive the retirement benefits they have earned. We must continue work to improve our pensions system to ensure that Americans who work hard their entire lives have the financial security they deserve. Part of this work will be to revisit some of the elements of this bill as well as to encourage employers to continue to offer retirement plans to hardworking Americans. The dilemma is that it took the majority 8 months to bring this bill forward and without it, more plans and workers are jeopardized. Congress must continue concerted efforts to address the real needs of American workers. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague, Senator Isakson, to introduce the Tanning Accountability and Notification--TAN--Act of 2006. A House counterpart measure was introduced by Representatives Maloney and Brown-Waite in February. Close to a million people will be diagnosed with skin cancer this year. Approximately 1 in 5 Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetime, and these numbers are on the rise. There are many factors that contribute to these startling figures. In recent years efforts have been undertaken by various organizations to better inform the public about the risk of sun exposure and ways to decrease the chance of developing skin cancer. One area, however, where better information is sorely needed is on the use of indoor tanning salons. Every day approximately 1 million people visit a tanning salon. It is a practice particularly popular among teens, the group that seems most at risk from the effects of indoor tanning. The American Academy of Dermatology, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, the National Institutes of Health, NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, and the World Health Organization, WHO, all discourage the use of indoor tanning equipment. This message and the current information about the risks of indoor tanning I fear are not being adequately passed on to consumers. The FDA has not updated its warnings on tanning beds since 1979. Regular users of indoor tanning beds deserve to be fully informed. The TAN Act calls upon the FDA to revisit the current label on indoor tanning beds and determine through a process of public hearings and consumer testing what kind of labeling requirements would convey important information on the risks of indoor tanning. This legislation is not about introducing new regulations but ensuring that the current FDA regulations remain effective in communicating accurate, current, and clear information to consumers of indoor tanning salons. I look forward to working with my colleagues towards passage of this important, bipartisan legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.