Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I yield.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, while I certainly appreciate the efforts last evening of Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye to add roughly $13 billion to this appropriations bill for the readiness of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps, it is emergency spending, but it should come as no surprise that it is necessary. What I find surprising is that apparently the requests by the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, and also the OMB were turned down until it became obvious--and publicly obvious--that the readiness condition of the Army and the Marine Corps is the worst it has been in several decades. The principle is the lack of repaired, rehabilitated, and in certain cases replaced equipment. We are in a difficult situation with threats across the globe, with an Army that is heavily committed and a Marine Corps that is heavily committed to both Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are in a situation now in which our readiness is the worst it has been in three decades. This is a situation which requires not only the remedy of money, but it requires accountability. How did the Department of Defense and this administration allow our military forces to become so degraded? In the judgment of many people, including former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry, myself, and others, two-thirds of the Army's operating force, Active and Reserve is now reporting in as unready. There is not a single non-deployed Army brigade combat team in the United States that is ready to deploy. Our Army currently has no ready strategic reserve. Not since the Vietnam era and its aftermath has the Army's readiness been so degraded. How did that happen? It is not a surprise. Months ago, in February, I came to this Chamber and proposed an amendment to the tax reconciliation bill which would provide a fund of $50 billion to provide for the reset recapitalization of Army and Marine equipment. I was offsetting that, as I think it is appropriate to do, with the upper income tax breaks that were being voted on in that bill. My measure didn't survive conference, but the tax cuts did. I believe that is an unfortunate paradigm of what is happening here too often. We are sending soldiers and marines in harm's way, and we are not repairing their equipment. We don't have time to wait until it is too late--until the emergency is upon us. But we have plenty of time to debate tax cuts and estate tax reform. I can tell you that I served, as so many others did, and in fact, we are privileged to have the chairman and ranking member of this committee as distinguished veterans of the Army Air Corps and U.S. Army. I don't know many soldiers who qualify for the estate tax, but every soldier needs adequate, decent equipment to do their job. Their lives depend upon it. Yesterday Lieutenant General Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, stated: I am further behind or in more dire situation than the Active Army. This is the Reserve National Guard forces. The National Guard is charged not only with assisting in operations such as Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, they are the first line of protection at home. They are the first responders in a hurricane situation. They are in worse shape than our active forces. At the end of June--again, several weeks ago--at a hearing before the House of Representatives, Congressman Ike Skelton asked the Chief of Staff of the Army: Are you comfortable with the readiness level for the non- deployed units that are in the continental United States? General Schoomaker replied: No. The Chief of Staff of the United States Army says in a public hearing he is not comfortable with the readiness condition of our forces in the United States. That is a stunning admission. Senator Dodd and I were ready to propose an amendment to this Defense bill, along with Senators Lautenberg, Mikulski, Lieberman, and many others, to try to rectify this. We would offer $10.2 billion in emergency spending. I not only support but commend the leadership of this committee, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, proposing $13.1 billion. The money is necessary. I concur in their judgment and their action. This is not a situation where suddenly yesterday someone jumped up and said, we need some money. This is a situation that has been recognized for months. Not only was nothing done, but the budget sent here by the White House was inadequate and they knew it At a time of war when soldiers are committed, at a time of contest and conflict around the globe when we have to respond to threats, they lowballed money for the Army and the Marine Corps. We can give them all the money we want, but we need a little accountability, also. We didn't reach this position overnight. This was not a midnight discovery. This is years in the making. The Army told those who would listen that for every year of intense operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, they need $12 billion for reset. Last year we only provided a fraction of that, so this year the bill was $17 billion. Some of those funds cannot be used in this year so it will be pushed forward a bit, but basically we know what is happening. It will continue to happen every year. Twelve billion baseline for reset. If we do not make that number, it is rolled over to next year. This is not going to be a one-time affair. It is an emergency, but it is a chronic emergency. We have to understand the Army will need another $12 billion and the Marine Corps will need another $12 billion next year and the next year, as long as we are committed. It is the real course of Iraq, the course that seldom is found in speeches about ``staying the course,'' or ``when they stand up, we will stand down.'' We have to pay those costs. Last October, GAO released a report on military readiness. It assessed the state of 30 pieces of equipment, predominantly tanks, vehicles, helicopters, and aircraft. They made several disturbing operation observations last October: GAO's analysis showed reported readiness rates declined between fiscal years 1999 and 2004 for most of these items. The decline in readiness, which occurred more markedly in fiscal years 2003 and 2004, generally resulted from, 1, the continued high use of equipment to support current operations and 2, maintenance issues caused by the advancing ages and complexity of the systems. Key equipment items--such as Army and Marine Corps trucks, combat vehicles, and rotary wing aircraft--have been used well beyond normal peacetime use during deployments in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let me relate a story. I was in Fallujah about 3 weeks ago with the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. They are doing a superb job, as all our forces are. We asked questions about the state of the helicopters. They told us their helicopters are flying 200 percent more than in peacetime. They told us this before we got on the helicopters. We got on anyway because the helicopters are being maintained. But it costs money to maintain those helicopters. It costs money to repair those helicopters. If you fly any helicopter, fixed-wing aircraft, or you drive any military vehicle 200 percent more than its normal allocation, they wear out very quickly. That is what is happening. A report of the GAO went on to say: Until the DOD ensures that condition issues for key equipment are addressed, DOD risks a continued decline in readiness trends, which could threaten its ability to continue meeting mission requirements. The military services have not fully identified near and long-term program strategies and funding plans to ensure that all the 30 selected equipment items can meet defense requirements. Another GAO report released last October assessed the readiness of the Army National Guard. It found: To meet the demand for certain types of equipment for continuing operations, the Army has required the Army National Guard units to leave behind many items for use by follow-on forces. The Army Guard estimates that since 2003 it has left more than 64,000 items, valued at more than $1.2 billion, overseas to support operations. Without a completed and implemented plan to replace all Guard equipment left overseas, Army Guard units will likely face growing equipment shortages and challenges in regaining readiness for future missions. Again, this is the Army National Guard. These are the people we expect in the next few weeks to respond to a hurricane if it strikes the gulf coast, the Atlantic coast. These are the folks we expect to respond to earthquakes and to other problems any place in this country. They have left a great deal of their equipment overseas. They need help, also. In April of this year, still 3 months before the markup of this Defense appropriations bill, the Lexington Institute and the Center for American Progress jointly released the report called ``Army Equipment After Iraq.'' This report clearly stated: High utilization rates and harsh conditions have greatly accelerated the aging of equipment. A significant amount of equipment is being destroyed due to both combat losses and the wear associated with constant use. Equipment readiness in deployed units has shown a gradual erosion as the service struggles to keep up with maintenance and replacement needs. Readiness in nondeployed units has plummeted as equipment is transferred to deploying units or left behind when troops depart Iraq. Again, warning bells were sounded, but the administration was deaf. The Army knew the situation was growing increasingly difficult--indeed, perilous. They always knew that there would be a reset bill. Last November, as I suggested, they said it would cost $12 billion a year for each year of ongoing operations until 2 years after that. The Marines estimated at that time that they needed $11.7 billion over a 5- year-period for reset. These figures were confirmed by our March GAO report, entitled ``Preliminary Observations on Equipment Reset Challenges and Issues for the Army and the Marine Corps.'' Again, these pleas for help were ignored. However, when the Army and Marine Corps submitted their reset needs to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Office of the Management and Budget, these requirements, the requirements of the commanders in the field, were slashed. The Army's request was reportedly cut by $4.9 billion and the commanders in the field were not able to submit a rebuttal argument as they have in othe administrations. Our military leaders were told what they would get by the budget experts and that was the end of the discussion until it became so painfully obvious and publicly obvious that we are not ready to deploy significant forces that are here in the United States. In February, the President's budget request was submitted to Congress. The shortfall for reset was obvious. Again, I recognized this, as others did. That is why in February I submitted my amendment to the reconciliation bill to provide a fund of $50 billion over the next several years so we could deal with this readiness problem, not through emergency spending but through an offset where we would use proposed tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans to buy equipment for our soldiers and marines in the field. This amendment was rejected and the tax cuts went through. The equipment remained unrepaired. As early as 2005, information on the state of Army and Marine Corps readiness was readily available for all who were willing to pay attention. Billions of dollars would be needed to solve this problem. Now here we are in August of 2006. We are debating the fiscal year 2007 Defense appropriations bill and until last night there was only $2.5 billion in this bill for the Army for their reset needs. Again, we all must commend and thank the chairman and ranking member for taking the action they did last night. But we have to ask serious questions about an administration that would allow this situation to develop, that would tell commanders that they were not going to get the money they needed to provide for the equipment and troops in the field. This administration has tried to run a serious war on the cheap. They have tried gimmicks. They have hidden costs. They have failed to admit staggering costs that are involved already. It goes not only to the equipment, but having just returned from Iraq, having observed reconstruction that has produced very little after $30 billion, having listened to Prime Minister Maliki in his speech ask for further reconstruction aid, if we are ever going to make a difference there, we would have to complement our military effort with renewed reconstruction. That is a multibillion dollar proposition. Where are we going to get the money? I am pleased the Army and Marine Corps will receive this $13.1 billion, but that is just an installment payment. As long as we are committed, we will continue to see this type of expenditure go on and on and on. We have to provide for it, not on an emergency basis, not suddenly with the expression of surprise. We have to understand this will happen again and again and again. Anyone who goes to Iraq or Afghanistan, anyone who has the privilege of being with soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen, knows the extraordinary sacrifices they make. Anyone who has ever been around a military unit knows one of the quickest ways to undermine morale, undermine the spirit of these troops, is to give them lousy equipment and not repair their equipment. They know their life depends upon the equipment. They also know that it is not the speeches, not the parades, not the flag pins in the lapel that say what you mean about troops; you have to give them what they need to fight. Last evening, we did that. This administration has to be accountable. I don't understand how we can have both an administration and a Secretary of Defense who would see the readiness numbers that are presented today and deny money, forcing Congress to put it in. There is a gross lack of accountability bordering on dereliction.

Mr. REED. I thank the Senator.

Mr. REED. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. He has been extraordinarily active in ensuring us the resources are available for our military forces. I would be happy to explore with him the possibility of additional funding if it is necessary. Again, let me thank Senator Dodd. We traveled together in October of last year to Iraq and saw the great service that is being rendered by our soldiers and the need for the equipment, the honest need. But I will, at this juncture, Mr. President, yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote on final passage of S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. I will be voting against passage because I believe this bill is poor energy policy, irresponsible fiscal policy, and faulty environmental policy. The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act is a misnomer. The bill will not offer energy security to the United States. The United States consumes 25 percent of the world's energy and yet we have less than 3 percent of the world's oil supplies. While I agree that we must increase the domestic supply of oil and natural gas, this cannot be our Nation's only approach. Yet it is the only approach offered in S. 3711, and it is the only approach that the administration and Republican leadership continue to propose as our Nation's energy solution. Our Nation's energy security depends on reducing our dependency on fossil fuels through increased energy efficiency, greater investment in renewable energy, and development of alternative fuels to replace oil. But this bill does nothing to increase fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, create a national renewable energy standard for electricity, or promote energy efficiency or renewable energy. In fact, Federal investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy continues to decline. It is imperative for our Nation's energy and economic security that an energy policy that increases supply must be married to meaningful investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy. This is the energy policy that our Nation deserves, but it is not the one before us today. S. 3711 is also not sound fiscal policy. This legislation 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 U.S. 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. Our Nation faces a deficit of $8.4 trillion due to this administration's poor fiscal management and irresponsible tax policies. Large Federal budget deficits going forward are bad for the economy. They reduce national saving, which depresses future standards of living. Reducing Federal receipts and increasing the budget deficit at the same time as the baby boom generation retires will put increased strains on the Federal budget and makes no sense. This bill, if passed, will cost the Federal Treasury billions of dollars. I am not alone in my opposition to this legislation; taxpayer advocates share my concerns over its fiscal impact. In the early 1950s, Congress considered the allocation of revenues between the Federal Government and States resulting from drilling in our Nation's waters. During the debate last week on S. 3711, I quoted from a speech that Senator Truman gave at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic Action on May 17, 1952. President Truman stated in this speech, ``The minerals that lie under the sea off the coasts of this country belong to the Federal Government''----that is, to all the people of this country. The ownership has been affirmed and reaffirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States. Those rights may be worth as much as somewhere between $40 billion and $100 billion. If we back down on our determination to hold these rights for all the people, we will act to rob them of this great national asset. That is just what the oil lobby wants. They want us to turn the vast treasure over to a handful of States, where the powerful private oil interests hope to exploit it to suit themselves. Twice President Truman vetoed quitclaim legislation passed by Congress to turn these resources over to the coastal States. In his May 29, 1952, veto statement, President Truman said ``[T]he Congress should provide for the disposition of the revenues obtained from oil and gas leases on the undersea lands. S.J. Res. 20, as introduced by Senators O'Mahoney and Anderson, would have granted the adjacent coastal States 37\1/2\ percent of the revenues from submerged lands of the marginal sea. I would have not object to such a provision, which is similar to existing provisions under which the State receive 37\1/2\ percent of the revenues from the Federal Government's oil-producing public lands within their borders.'' In his veto statement, it is clear that President Truman did not support giving coastal States revenue from the Outer Continental Shelf. In the end, the coastal States received much more generous compensation than the provision offered by Senators O'Mahoney and Anderson and President Truman. When President Eisenhower signed the Submerged Lands Act, the coastal States were given title to and ownership of the lands beneath the territorial seas and the right to manage the natural resources within the States' boundaries. This law gave the States 100 percent of the revenue from coastal drilling in State waters. Importantly, the law affirmed the Federal Government's ownership in lands seaward of the State boundaries. Revenues from Outer Continental Shelf drilling belong to the American people in all 50 States. The legislation that the Senate is considering today violates this pact with the American people, and denies the Federal Treasury and American people of essential revenue to address the needs of our Nation it violates. It also is contrary to our national motto, E pluribus unum, from many one. Revenues from Federal resources should, and must, benefit all Americans. Lastly, I believe this bill is not responsible environmental policy. The bill threatens our coastal ecosystems with the risk of pollution and oilspills which will harm the economies and families that rely on these resources. Unfortunately, the Senate is likely to pass this bill. This will pave the way for the Senate bill to be conferenced with H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act. This legislation would lift the moratorium on offshore drilling for all of our coastlines the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, and Alaska--and, it would allow drilling for oil and gas in coastal national parks and marine sanctuaries. This would put our coastal communities at risk to oilspills, onshore damage of sensitive coastal habitat, and air and water pollution. Oil is extremely toxic and our current cleanup methods are incapable of removing more than a small fraction of the oil spilled into our marine waters. Offshore drilling platforms and pipelines spilled 1.8 million gallons of oil in U.S. waters from 1990 to 1999, for an average of 500 gallons a day, which causes irreversible harm. Narragansett Bay and our coast support vital commercial fisheries, tourism important to our economy, and an abundance of wildlife. Our economy and environment are vulnerable to oilspills. My State remembers the devastating effects that the North Cape oil-spill had in southern Rhode Island. Oil spread throughout a large area of Block Island Sound, including Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge, resulting in the closure of a 250-square mile area of the sound for fishing. There were hundreds of oiled birds in the weeks following the spill and large numbers of dead lobsters, surf clams, and sea stars were found on area beaches. There was also the World Prodigy oilspill off Newport, RI, which spread over 123 square miles, killing marine life and closing beaches and fishing grounds throughout Narragansett Bay. The spill hit during a peak spawning period. Eggs and larvae of fish and shellfish lobsters, quahogs, tautog, and others--were exposed to the oil as they floated at the surface. Before opening new lands to development and denying the American people of a great asset and Federal revenues, we need to take meaningful action to reduce our consumption and increase renewable energy supplies. The only way to achieve greater energy independence is to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels overall. This is the energy policy that our Nation deserves, and this is the policy I will continue to fight for. I urge the Senate to reject S. 3711, and instead, pursue the vehicles and rule choices and the clean EDGE legislation that will set America on a true road to energy independence.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I recognize the accomplishments of BG James J. D'Agostino, U.S. Air Force, assistant adjutant general for air and deputy commanding general, of the Rhode Island National Guard. General D'Agostino is retiring on August 5, 2006, with over 38 years of active military service in war and peace. I have been pleased to know General D'Agostino for many years. Brigadier General D'Agostino has served in a variety of field and staff assignments. His military career began in 1967 when he enlisted in the U.S. Army. After completing infantry training, he served with distinction during the Vietnam war in four separate military campaigns. After serving in Vietnam, he was transferred to the Army Reserve and was honorably discharged as a sergeant in 1973. In 1974, Brigadier General D'Agostino joined the 143rd Civil Engineering Flight of the Rhode Island Air National Guard. Three years later, he graduated from the Air National Guard Academy of Military Science and was commissioned a first lieutenant. Shortly thereafter, he assumed the duties of base civil engineer for the 281st Combat Communications Group in Coventry, RI. Twenty-one years later, in 1999, he was transferred to the U.S. Property and Fiscal Office for Rhode Island as the supervisory logistics management specialist. Within 2 years, Brigadier General D'Agostino was selected to be the fiscal officer for Rhode Island, where he served through September 2005. In October 2005, he transitioned to his current position as the assistant adjutant general for air and deputy commanding general of the Rhode Island National Guard. You have to cast a very large net to truly capture everything Brigadier General D'Agostino has done to improve the Rhode Island National Guard. I would like to highlight some of his greatest accomplishments. During his 21-year tenure as the only ``one person'' base civil engineering officer in the Air National Guard, he completely rebuilt both the Coventry and North Smithfield Air National Guard stations. He planned and effected a comprehensive program of military construction which has since cut operating and maintenance costs by nearly 50 percent. Additionally, he more than tripled the size of the North Smithfield Air National Guard, station, which provided, for the first time, a realistic environment for unit-wide, in-garrison field training. For his outstanding performance he was recognized as Rhode Island's Federal Professional Employee of the Year in 1997. In 1998, Brigadier General D'Agostino prepared the critical project book for what was at that time the single largest military construction project in the Rhode Island National Guard, the $16 million C-130J aircraft hanger. Rhode Island's 143rd Airlift Wing was subsequently the first Air Force unit to receive the C-130J and appropriately, they performed superbly as they deployed the first C-130Js during the global war on terrorism in Iraq. Today, that hanger supports the Rhode Island Air National Guard's five C-130J aircraft. And finally, Brigadier General D'Agostino's has been a critical supporter of energy conservation. While rebuilding Rhode Island's bases, he strictly adhered to using energy efficient air conditioning units, lighting fixtures, and appliances. Additionally, he has implemented various energy conservation programs that further enhance energy efficiency. Between these and other cost saving measures, an estimated reduction of over 50 percent has been achieved in operating and maintenance costs. While carrying the full load of his professional career, Brigadier General D'Agostino has been affiliated with at least 30 professional and military organizations. He has and continues to serve in many prominent positions, where his work has paralleled his military successes. Brigadier General D'Agostino, currently serves as the chairman of the board at the Society for Human Advancement through Rehabilitation Engineering Foundation, with which he has been actively involved for over 20 years. The society has enabled hundreds of individuals with disabilities to communicate via custom-made computer systems utilizing voice synthesizers and other specialized equipment. As a past president of the National Guard Association of Rhode Island, Brigadier General D'Agostino created and still chairs its scholarship awards program, which has awarded almost $40,000 in scholarships. Additionally, he also served for several years as a trustee for the Rhode Island Air National Guard's McGown-Roberts Scholarship Fund, the primary educational fundraising vehicle for Air National Guard personnel. In 2002, the National Guard Association of the United States awarded him its coveted Meritorious Service Award for his contributions to his State and Nation. Brigadier General D'Agostino is surrounded by a wonderful family. Together with his wife of almost 30 years, Frances, he has raised two children, Christopher and Alisa, of which they are very proud. He and Frances have been a remarkable example of husband and wife in service to the Air Force, to the Rhode Island National Guard, and to the Nation. Anyone who has enjoyed their friendship, treasures their company and their kindness. Through Brigadier General D'Agostino's considerable efforts, the men and women of the Rhode Island National Guard have truly world-class facilities in which to accomplish their critical work. His consistent exceptional performance and exemplary character have secured his reputation as one of Rhode Island's most respected military officers. The Rhode Island National Guard has never been stronger and more connected to the Army and Air Force. Brigadier General D'Agostino has set the groundwork for current and future Rhode Island National Guard facilities. His dedication to excellence and his unsurpassed devotion to duty, honor, and country have marked his distinguished service over 38 years.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President. I am joined by Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Kerry in introducing important legislation regarding the Survey of Income and Program Participation, SIPP. This legislation is also being introduced in the other body by Mrs. Maloney. The SIPP is the only large-scale longitudinal survey that provides data for evaluating the effectiveness of programs like Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF. There is no other survey that provides the richness and detail of the data that the SIPP collects. The survey provides essential information on the extent to which programs meet families' basic needs and promote upward mobility. Unfortunately, the President, in his fiscal year 2007 budget, proposed the elimination of the SIPP, followed by a redesign that would not be ready until 2009 at the earliest. In the meantime, there would be an irretrievable loss of data. By eliminating the SIPP, we not only abandon significant research investments by government and private researchers but we would also lose the ability to examine family outcomes over time. Without access to the SIPP's consistent time-series data, we will have to wait years, if not decades, to understand the implications of current policy decisions. Researchers and policymakers would no longer have an accurate dynamic picture of living standards in America. It is important that we create a process to ensure that we do not lose valuable resources for assessing program effectiveness and economic well-being. As such, our legislation would create a SIPP Commission whose members would be required to review any proposals to change or eliminate the SIPP. This would allow for necessary input from users of the SIPP. The bill would also prevent the administration from unilaterally discontinuing or changing the survey. Mr. President, this survey helps Congress to make good policy choices and to be good stewards of American tax dollars. Proposals to cut or eliminate this survey need to be taken seriously and considered carefully. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Coleman, Senator Kohl, Senator Martinez, Congressman Ramstad, and Congresswoman Eshoo, today to introduce the Consortium on the Impact of Technology in Health Services Act. We face a challenging and exciting time in the evolution of America's health care system. Today, roughly 40 million men and women are over age 65. A full doubling of the elderly population is predicted to occur by the year 2030--with the first of the baby boom generation turning 65 in the year 2011--only 5 years from now. Nowhere is the aging of the population more apparent than in my home State of Rhode Island. We exceed the national average in terms of citizens over the age of 65 as well as those over the age of 85. In a State of slightly more than a million people, almost 15 percent of the population is over the age of 65 today. According to Census Bureau estimates, the number of elderly is expected to increase to 18.8 percent of Rhode Island's population by 2025. Rhode Island also has one of the highest concentrations of persons age 85 and over in the country. Dramatic increases in life expectancy over the last century can be attributed to tremendous advances in public health and medical research. These demographic changes also pose new challenges to our health care system that require creative and innovative solutions. In addition to Americans living longer, keeping up with advancements in medical science poses unique burdens and challenges for our health care system. We are facing shortages in a number of critical health care fields--nurses, primary care physicians, and geriatricians--to name a few. These workforce issues further hinder our ability to keep up with the health care needs of aging Americans. Greater use of technology has the potential to enhance the quality of care to our aging population and enable seniors to remain healthy and live independently longer. The application of technology in the aging health care services field would also help mitigate the burden on providers by allowing physicians, home health care workers, and family members to keep in regular contact with patients and loved ones. Better monitoring of elderly patients would also serve to identify changes in their health condition before a serious problem arises. Smarter applications of technology in caring for the aged could also address some of the growing concerns with skyrocketing budget deficits. As we grapple with Medicare and Medicaid taking up a growing proportion of overall Federal spending, we need to carefully balance health care expenditures while also improving the quality of care. We need to be thoughtful and wiser with our health care dollars as well as creative in the provision of services to the elderly. The Consortium on the Impact of Technology in Health Services Act will bring together experts from the medical, aging, and technology fields to build a vision and a framework for the development and implementation of a 21st century health care system able to meet the needs of our burgeoning aging population. We need to change the way we think about health care for our Nation's seniors. We need a model that is oriented toward health promotion and disease prevention. This legislation gives us a jumpstart on developing and implementing the tools and strategies needed to serve the senior population of America more effectively and with greater cost savings. I am pleased to join with my colleagues in introducing this important initiative and hope the Senate will give it careful consideration.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. In 1952, President Truman, speaking about proposals to give coastal States Federal offshore oil and gas revenue said: If we back down on our determination to hold these rights for all the people, we will act to rob them of this great national asset. That is just what the oil lobby wants. They want us to turn the vast treasure over to a handful of States where the powerful private oil interests hope to exploit it to suit themselves. Those sentiments are not far off from today. In 1953, Congress enacted the Submerged Land Act. This law provided that each coastal State would have a seaward boundary of at least 3 miles and that the Federal Government would relinquish to the States the interests of the United States in lands beneath the navigable waters within the State boundaries. Importantly, the law affirmed the Federal Government's ownership in lands seaward of the State boundary. Revenues from Outer Continental Shelf drilling belong to the American people in all 50 States. The legislation the Senate is considering today violates this pact with the American people, and it denies the Federal Treasury and the American people essential revenue to address the needs of our Nation. Again, to quote President Truman, since his comments still ring true today: I can see how Members of Congress from [affected areas] might like to have all the offshore oil for their States. But I certainly can't understand how Members of Congress from the other 45 States can vote to give away the interest the people of their own States have in this tremendous asset. It is just over my head and beyond me how any interior Senator or Congressman could vote to give that asset away. I am still puzzled about it. As far as I am concerned, I intend to stand up and fight to protect the people's interest in this matter. Proponents of this bill argue that their coastal States deserve to share in the Federal revenues because they have tremendous costs and environmental challenges arising from energy development and production that benefits the whole Nation. They argue, with some validity, that they bear costs, although the benefits are shared by the entire Nation. I acknowledge that. I fully acknowledge that energy development is harming our coastal zones, leading to habitat loss and erosion. For this reason, in 2001 Congress authorized a coastal impact assistance program that provided Federal funding to States and local communities for mitigating the impacts of OCS oil and gas development and production. It is also the reason why I supported an amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that mandated $1 billion over 4 years in direct Federal spending to gulf coast States and other producing States for the purposes of remediating environmental problems caused by the extraction and production of energy. That is the right approach, to appropriate Federal resources, directed to help States address a problem that is caused in large part by production activity. What I object to is a permanent entitlement that does not state specific eligible uses to mitigate the environmental harm of OCS production. For example, the bill before us today would allow the States to decide to fund a category described as ``mitigation of the impacts of Outer Continental Shelf activities through the funding of onshore infrastructure projects.'' This could cover any appropriate bricks and mortar project in any State along the gulf coast, from schools to highways to community centers, all of which I think could and would be legitimately argued by a State official as somehow mitigating the impacts of outer Continental Shelf activities. So in a sense what we have opened up here is a general revenue sharing, not a targeted approach to mitigating the specific harms caused by the extraction and production of petroleum and natural gas products. Nothing in this bill requires the States and communities to report back to taxpayers and the Federal Government how the funds are being used. I don't think there is any appropriate mechanism of routine reporting. I suppose that if you objected to a particular project, you might sue in Federal Court saying they violated the act, but that is hardly an appropriate and routine and rational way to ensure that the spending is appropriate. Again, reading the very general language in the bill, I would think that you could make a case that a school, community center, and a range of other projects would be infrastructure that would mitigate in some way the broad effects of production of energy in these States. An argument may be made that a vote against the bill is a vote against the communities and people harmed by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I don't think that is true. This debate has to be about responsible national energy and responsible fiscal policy. We in this body have voted to provide $123 billion to help the gulf coast recover. That money, because of our difficult financial situation, is literally being borrowed. The interest on that debt and the principal of that debt will be paid by all Americans. It is an example of why we need Federal resources in difficult times, because there will be other occasions where other Americans will see the same kind of suffering, the same kind of destruction that was visited upon the gulf coast, and we as a Congress have to be able to stand up, not just with words but resources, to help these people. As we diminish the Federal resources by a very narrow revenue-sharing plan for four States, we diminish our capacity to respond. We have also directed and voted recently for a $2 billion authorization for Louisiana's coastal restoration program as part of the Water Resources Development Act. If more money is necessary to restore the gulf coast, then more money should be provided, and that is not the sentiment of just the people who live there, that is the sentiment of the American people because, frankly, if any part of our country was similarly devastated, we would all be here asking our friends and colleagues to help us, and I think they would respond. What they may not be able to do, if we pass this bill, is respond with the same kind of financial clout because we will have already given Federal resources for the benefit of only four states. There are other aspects of funding that inure to the benefit of these coastal communities. Section 8(g) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act provides coastal States with a share of the revenues received by the Federal Government from leases on Federal tracts that are adjacent to and within 3 miles of a State's seaward boundary. That is a specialized source of revenue which goes to coastal States. Between 1986 and 2003, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas received nearly $2 billion in revenues from the Federal Government under section 8(g). This funding is precisely the type of funding that could be used to mitigate the impacts of OCS production. Further, the Coastal Zone Management Act's ``Federal consistency'' provision ensures that Federal actions, such as OCS leases for energy production, that are likely to affect any land or water use or natural resources of the coastal zone must be consistent with a coastal State's approved coastal zone management programs. That means that if Gulf Coast States put into place strong coastal zone management plans to protect against erosion and the loss of wetlands and environmental complications, the law would require a Federal OCS lease to be consistent with these plans and make these States less vulnerable to storms. So not only is this an issue of funding, it is an issue of States taking action to ensure that they have strong environmental protections, and these plans, in turn, according to the law, will be imposed upon the OCS leases. Now, we understand that energy production is a burden to the States, but it is also, in many situations, an economic benefit to these very same States. The oil and gas industry is central to Louisiana's economy, with an estimated $93 billion impact in 2001. Over $1.3 billion worth of oil and gas is produced annually in Alabama. The State receives direct benefits of approximately $285 million annually in the form of lease bonuses, royalties, trust fund investments, and severance taxes. In 2005, Texas petroleum and coal were valued at $8.89 billion. All of these revenues provide a strong and powerful force of economic progress for all of these communities. I daresay that, as much as a burden is imposed, there would be great reluctance for any of these States to try to curtail this economic production because it benefits the community. Now, what is also troubling about the legislation is not only the fiscal implications, but also it is proposing a permanent entitlement that is unnecessary to generate new domestic natural gas and oil supplies. There are over 40 million acres of Federal Outer Continental Shelf under lease, but the oil and gas industry is sitting on over 33 million acres of undeveloped leases. They have less than 7 million acres in production, and there is 328 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas in the nonmoratoria areas. The United States consumes 25 percent of the world's energy, and yet we have less than 3 percent of the world's oil supplies. We cannot drill our way to energy security; yet this bill essentially provides only one way forward--to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. We deserve an energy bill that will reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and strengthen our economy. On July 20, I joined 40 of my colleagues in sending a letter to the majority leader asking that we consider energy legislation that sets national goals to reduce our overall national dependence on petroleum by increasing fuel efficiency and alternative vehicle technologies, that protects Americans from price-gouging and market manipulation, and that levels the playing field for new renewable and energy efficiency technology and, more specifically to this debate we are having, ensures that new energy proposals that affect spending or revenues must be fiscally responsible and take into account the true long-term impact of these proposals. That is not the bill we are considering today. I am left wondering why, as the Senate finally takes up energy legislation, we are not debating and voting on a bill to increase fuel efficiency in cars and trucks. Why are we not voting on oil savings provisions? Where are the provisions in our energy legislation to protect consumers from price-gouging or restore lost royalties to the Federal Treasury from oil and natural gas companies making record profits? Where is the mandated Federal funding dedicated to fully funding energy efficiency and renewable energy? I hope the Senate will get to vote on an increase in fuel efficiency standards. Gasoline consumption in the transportation sector represents about 44 percent of total oil consumption in the United States each year. Including diesel fuel, the number jumps to 57 percent. To bring about any serious reduction in our dependence on foreign oil, we must increase the fuel efficiency of our cars and light trucks, as well as promote the use of hybrids and vehicles that use alternative fuels. I also hope we will have a chance to amend this bill. I hope we have a chance to have a debate on an energy bill that will include not only supply-side considerations but also demand-side considerations. All of this legislation is important to consider, but I fear we will be constrained to this bill. Finally, I am concerned that whatever we do in the Senate would open up a conference with the other body. Their legislation, H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act, would lift the moratorium on offshore drilling for all of our coastlines, not just the gulf coast. I believe this would be a serious step, putting in jeopardy fisheries and marine sanctuaries, further depleting the Treasury, further eroding States' current positions with respect to drilling, and undermining environmental mitigation for energy development and production. My Rhode Island coastline, like the coastline of every State, is something we want to preserve and protect, and there is a fear that if the House version prevails, these coastlines will be jeopardized. We are in a situation where we have a burgeoning energy crisis. We just have to go to the gasoline pump to figure that one out. This burgeoning energy crisis impacts our foreign relations. We have scores of troops across the globe today because of our dependency on oil. But this should not be the occasion to entertain legislation that is unwise in terms of energy policy and potentially very damaging to the fiscal integrity of the United States. Before we open new lands to development, we need to ensure that the oil and gas industries are putting undeveloped leases into production, and we need to take meaningful action to reduce our consumption and increase renewable energy supplies. We need to be more independent with respect to energy, reduce our consumption of fossil fuels overall. This is an energy policy which we should pursue, and as a fiscal policy, we have to maintain Federal resources for Federal responsibilities. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield myself 20 minutes.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Senate today is considering the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. I believe this legislation is not appropriate energy legislation and also not responsible fiscal policy for the United States, as we face a Federal deficit of $8.4 trillion and looming cuts to many vital programs that the Federal Government must support. Next week we will begin to take up the Defense appropriations bill for this year. As we consider that bill, we will discover huge unmet needs to finance the current operations of our military. If we diminish the Federal Treasury, our ability to respond to that issue and a host of other issues will be contemporaneously diminished. This legislation would mandate that almost 38 percent of revenue from Federal resources generated by new leases in new areas of production made available by this bill will be given to four Gulf Coast States. Revenues that currently would be provided to the Treasury for the benefit of the Nation as a whole will be diverted to four States. This bill, if passed, will cost the Federal Treasury billions of dollars over time. I am not alone in my opposition to this legislation. Taxpayer advocates and environmentalists share my concerns. I ask unanimous consent that the text of several letters be printed in the Record expressing these concerns.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Coleman, Senator Kohl, Senator Martinez, Congressman Ramstad, and Congresswoman Eshoo, today to introduce the Consortium on the Impact of Technology in Health Services Act. We face a challenging and exciting time in the evolution of America's health care system. Today, roughly 40 million men and women are over age 65. A full doubling of the elderly population is predicted to occur by the year 2030--with the first of the baby boom generation turning 65 in the year 2011--only 5 years from now. Nowhere is the aging of the population more apparent than in my home State of Rhode Island. We exceed the national average in terms of citizens over the age of 65 as well as those over the age of 85. In a State of slightly more than a million people, almost 15 percent of the population is over the age of 65 today. According to Census Bureau estimates, the number of elderly is expected to increase to 18.8 percent of Rhode Island's population by 2025. Rhode Island also has one of the highest concentrations of persons age 85 and over in the country. Dramatic increases in life expectancy over the last century can be attributed to tremendous advances in public health and medical research. These demographic changes also pose new challenges to our health care system that require creative and innovative solutions. In addition to Americans living longer, keeping up with advancements in medical science poses unique burdens and challenges for our health care system. We are facing shortages in a number of critical health care fields--nurses, primary care physicians, and geriatricians--to name a few. These workforce issues further hinder our ability to keep up with the health care needs of aging Americans. Greater use of technology has the potential to enhance the quality of care to our aging population and enable seniors to remain healthy and live independently longer. The application of technology in the aging health care services field would also help mitigate the burden on providers by allowing physicians, home health care workers, and family members to keep in regular contact with patients and loved ones. Better monitoring of elderly patients would also serve to identify changes in their health condition before a serious problem arises. Smarter applications of technology in caring for the aged could also address some of the growing concerns with skyrocketing budget deficits. As we grapple with Medicare and Medicaid taking up a growing proportion of overall Federal spending, we need to carefully balance health care expenditures while also improving the quality of care. We need to be thoughtful and wiser with our health care dollars as well as creative in the provision of services to the elderly. The Consortium on the Impact of Technology in Health Services Act will bring together experts from the medical, aging, and technology fields to build a vision and a framework for the development and implementation of a 21st century health care system able to meet the needs of our burgeoning aging population. We need to change the way we think about health care for our Nation's seniors. We need a model that is oriented toward health promotion and disease prevention. This legislation gives us a jumpstart on developing and implementing the tools and strategies needed to serve the senior population of America more effectively and with greater cost savings. I am pleased to join with my colleagues in introducing this important initiative and hope the Senate will give it careful consideration.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I support final passage of S. 250, the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006. This important legislation, which reauthorizes the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998, will help strengthen both the workforce in my home State of Rhode Island and across the Nation and ensure that our students have the necessary skills and tools to access high-quality, high-wage employment and compete in an ever-expanding global economy. I am pleased that Congress will reaffirm its overwhelming bipartisan and bicameral support for this program, especially in light of the President's efforts in his last two budget proposals to eliminate funding for Perkins. For the 2006-2007 school year, our State, which is home to 10 Career and Technical Centers and 54 high schools and colleges offering career and technical education programs, would stand to lose an estimated $6.3 million in Perkins basic state and tech prep funding under the President's proposed budget. These cuts are unjustifiable, especially at a time when it is ever more critical that we provide a robust link between students and a highly skilled workforce American business depends on to thrive. As a cosponsor of the Senate version of this bill, I am pleased that many of its comprehensive provisions on the recruitment, preparation, support, and professional development of career and technical education teachers, which I authored, have been included in the final version of the bill before us today. I believe having a well-trained, qualified, and effective teacher in every classroom is the key for ensuring that students participating in career and technical education programs will achieve their fullest academic and career goals and aspirations. The bill also contains a number of provisions that address the concerns raised by educators in Rhode Island. First, S. 250 does not combine the tech prep program with the basic State grant program at the Federal level as the House bill proposed. Second, the bill authorizes use of State administration funding at up to 5 percent, funding which supports such essential activities as developing a State plan, monitoring career and technical education program efficiency, and providing technical assistance to districts. Third, S. 250 adds a new State leadership incentive grant I authored for school districts and postsecondary institutions that elect to pool their funds for innovative initiatives, including improving the professional development of career and technical educators and establishing and enhancing systems for accountability data collection. I thank my colleagues, Senators Kennedy and Enzi, and their staffs, for their work on this legislation and moving it toward final passage. I am pleased to support this legislation. A highly skilled workforce not only grows our economy, but maintains our Nation's competitive edge in the world. I look forward to the President quickly signing this bill into law--which will hopefully signal a turnaround in his support for Perkins career and technical education programs--to help ensure that our students remain competitive and have the academic and technical tools to succeed.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, on behalf of the Greek Cypriot population of Rhode Island, and Greek Cypriots around the world, I recognize the 32nd anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Shortly before dawn 32 years ago today, heavily armed Turkish troops landed on the northern coast of Cyprus launching the invasion and subsequent occupation of Northern Cyprus. Over the next 2 months, over 200,000 Greek Cypriots, an overwhelming 82 percent of the island's population, were forced to seek refuge in the southern Greek controlled portions of Cyprus. Turkey eventually called a ceasefire after seizing 37 percent of the island. To this day Turkey is the only country that recognizes the self-declared ``Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.'' Over the last 30 years, the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly have striven to resolve this ongoing territorial dispute through multiple failed peace talks and resolutions. While many years and much thought has gone into determining an equally agreeable solution, talks between the Greek Cypriot south and the Turkish Cypriot north constantly end in a stalemate. However, hope was renewed this month when the United Nations began drafting recommendations on reviving stalled peace talks between this war-divided island's Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities. Furthermore, Cyprus President Tassos Papadopoulos and Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat were hailed by the Cyprus Parliament Speaker Demetris Christofias as taking positive steps toward restarting the Cyprus peace talks. We must applaud the continued efforts of the United Nations and the renewed focus of the Cypriot leaders to reunite a divided Cyprus and remain committed to ushering the settlement process forward. Cypriot, Mediterranean, and U.S. interests will benefit from a settlement that addresses all legitimate concerns of both sides and promotes the stability of a hostile region. Much like the Greek proverb, ``learn to walk before you run,'' Cypriot leaders must take small steady steps forward and continue forward even when the road looks unpaved. There is a path that leads to the reunification and peace between these two communities. Traversing this path, however, will take patience and tolerance.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the Senate bill, I am pleased the Senate is considering the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Reauthorization and Amendments Act, H.R. 9. The Voting Rights Act was signed into law 41 years ago as a direct reaction to the vicious attacks against civil rights demonstrators crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL. After these attacks, President Johnson was able to end a long deadlock with certain Members of Congress attempting to weaken the legislation. The act passed in August 1965 and successfully prohibited measures that localities had developed to disenfranchise racial and ethnic minorities, such as literacy tests, ``grandfather clauses,'' character assessments, poll taxes, and intimidation techniques, often violent. It was also drafted to prevent the racial gerrymandering, at-large election systems, staggered terms, and runoff requirements certain jurisdictions were using to dilute the effect of the minority vote. Since then, sections 2 and 4 of the law, prohibiting the use of tests and devices intended to dissuade minority voting, have made obvious attempts to disenfranchise minorities a thing of the past. By requiring district court or attorney general determination of whether a proposed election change would abridge voting rights, section 5 has deterred measures frequently used before 1965 to weaken minority votes. Thanks to the original law and the reauthorizations that followed, an increasing number of African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans have been voting, decreasing the gap between white and minority turnout. Minorities report fewer attempts to curtail their rights and minority districts have allowed a greater number of African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanic Americans to be elected to office. The Voting Rights Act, then, has been successful in helping to carry out the promise of the 15th amendment. Since 1965, Congress has responded to continuing or new evidence of disenfranchisement and vote dilution through the Voting Rights Act reauthorization process. And this reauthorization is no different. The nonpartisan Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights, which President John F. Kennedy created to promote voting equality, established a commission to conduct an investigation into vote discrimination in preparation for this most recent reauthorization proposal. The conclusions of the Commission, echoed in the many congressional hearings held on the law, was that, while the Voting Rights Act has successfully eliminated systematic efforts to disenfranchise voters, restrictions to ballot access and weakening of the minority vote are still occurring. In fact, the Commission reported that attempts to repress the minority vote, ``are still encountered in every election cycle across the country,'' citing deterrents against English-language minorities, unduly burdensome requirements for registration and voting, and election laws that result in vote dilution. Unfortunately, the 41 years this law has been in effect have not yet overcome centuries of discriminatory practice. Since the last reauthorization, the Supreme Court, in Reno v. Bossier Parish II and Georgia v. Ashcroft, has also curtailed the intent of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, deciding that the act does not prohibit redistricting with the purpose or effect of weakening minority votes. Many of the changes in the bill before us were drafted as a direct response to these cases. This act not only renews the expiring provisions, it restores the original intent of section 5 by prohibiting the approval of any proposed election law change having the effect of diluting a minority voting population. As my courageous colleague, John Lewis, has said, ``The sad truth is discrimination still exists. We must not go back to the dark past.'' This reauthorization will provide the tools we need to honor our constitutional commitment to allow all of our citizens to vote. It reinvigorates the guarantee that is the foundation of our democracy the right to vote and it is a pledge not to return to a time when, as Martin Luther King said, ``The denial of this sacred right [was] a tragic betrayal of the highest mandates of our democratic tradition.'' I am honored to support this bill and would like to thank my colleagues, Senators Specter and Leahy, for their work and leadership in bringing it to the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for including this provision in the Water Resources Development Act. More than 100 abandoned camels litter Narragansett Bay, creating a safety hazard for boaters and divers and contaminating the bay's water with creosote, which has been listed by the Environmental Protection Agency as a probable human carcinogen. Camels were commonly used as fendering systems at the Newport Navy Base, the Quonset Point Naval Air Station carrier pier, Davisville Naval Construction Battalion Center, and the Melville Fuel Depot. As my colleagues from Virginia and Oklahoma pointed out, this language claries that funding from the formerly used Defense sites' account could be used to remove abandoned marine camels located in the waters of formerly used Defense sites in Narragansett Bay, including removal of debris that is linked to a formerly used Defense site even if that debris has drifted off land and into the water. The ecological health and water quality of Narragansett Bay is vital to the economy of Rhode Island, and I believe that this language will aid in the cleanup of this precious natural resource. Aquatic Nuisance Species

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. I wish to take a few moments talking about H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Last year, the House overwhelmingly passed this bill, and I am pleased that the Senate will now finally consider this legislation. My colleague in the other body, Congressman Jim Langevin, has been a staunch advocate for stem cell research and has played a central role in advancing this legislation through the House of Representatives, and I commend him for that. I hope to be able to stand on the Senate floor a few years from now to highlight the advancements that have been made in the treatment of spinal cord victims, children with diabetes, and Parkinson's treatment because of embryonic stem cell research. However, I fear that even if the Senate approves legislation, patients will only see further delays in promising stem cell research. The President endorsed the use of Federal funds research on existing cell lines in his August 2001 Executive Order. At the time of the announcement, he said: Scientists believe further research using stem cells offers great promise that could help improve the lives of those who suffer from many terrible diseases--from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's, from Parkinson's to spinal cord injuries. And while scientists admit they are not yet certain, they believe stem cells derived from embryos have unique potential. This is from the President's Executive Order. We know now that the stem cell lines identified in the Executive Order were not the panacea for breakthrough medical research. There are only 22 stem cell lines available for federally funded research, and since they were derived in the absence of scientific and ethical guidelines, they have proven unsuitable for most research. At the same time, there are approximately 400,000 frozen embryos in IVF clinics that will likely be destroyed. While I recognize the many benefits of using embryonic stem cells in biomedical research, I also realize that many serious ethical and moral issues have to be considered. I believe Federal guidelines designed to create and uphold strict oversight of these practices can achieve the appropriate balance needed in order to ensure that this research is being carried out in an acceptable manner. H.R. 810 sets forth responsible rules and limitations for obtaining excess embryos as well as adequate standards for conducting research involving embryonic stem cells. It would establish the necessary framework for oversight so that principled research can finally be allowed to proceed. Some of my colleagues believe embryonic stem cell research is not necessary, given some of the tremendous advances adult stem cells have yielded. Indeed, I wholeheartedly support continued progress in the area of adult stem cell research and was proud to be one of the lead sponsors of the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act, which Congress enacted late last year. This bill was essential in maintaining patient access to lifesaving treatments through the National Marrow Donor program and also opening the door to the developments of a companion registry system for cord blood. We know the use of umbilical cord blood in treating diseases such as leukemia, sickle cell anemia, and rare but deadly genetic disorders such as Krabbe disease is showing tremendous promise. The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act solidified the Nation's commitment to increasing the number of cord blood transplants by providing additional Federal funds to help public cord blood banks increase their inventory, as well as support outreach, patient advocacy, and coordinating information and education activities. The President also recognized the importance of this avenue of research. During the 2001 Executive Order, he said: You should also know that stem cells can be derived from sources other than embryos. And many scientists feel research on these types of stem cells are also promising. Many patients suffering from a range of diseases are already being helped with treatment developed from adult stem cells. He went on to add: However, most scientists, at least today, believe that research on embryonic stem cells offer the most promise because these cells have the potential to develop from all of the tissues of the body. Those are the President's words. I urge all of us to heed those words today. I urge the Senate to support H.R. 810 and also the President to sign it into law. I also intend to support S. 3504 and S. 2754, but neither of these measures is a substitute for H.R. 810. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I believe I have 5 minutes under the order.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 4613.

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, my amendment would require the Coast Guard to report to the Committees on Appropriations and Commerce, Science, and Transportation on proposed changes to the civil engineering program before the Coast Guard takes any action to alter or reduce operations within this particular program. The mission of the civil engineering program is to provide high-quality planning and real property and facilities maintenance to support Coast Guard units across the country. In my judgment, reducing staff and reorganizing the civil engineering program is not appropriate, given the current workload and the increased number of homeland security responsibilities taken on by the Coast Guard. If significant reductions in personnel and offices take place, I have serious concern that the Coast Guard would not be able to adequately support its shore facilities in New England and across the Nation. The work performed by employees of the Coast Guard civil engineering program is of paramount importance. It is important that Congress review any plan to reorganize or consolidate this program. It is my understanding, hope, and expectation that the amendment will be accepted by voice vote. I thank my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee and the Commerce Committee for their kindness.

Mr. REED

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

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, when the administration released its midsession review of the fiscal year 2007 budget yesterday, it made a number of claims about how its policies have been successful at promoting economic growth and bringing down the budget deficit. In this case, however, as in so many others, the administration is looking through rose-colored glasses, exaggerating the successes of its policies and ignoring the true costs. Let's begin by putting the improvement in the fiscal year 2006 budget deficit in perspective. It is true that tax revenues have grown this year--as they always do in a business cycle expansion--and that revenues have been coming in stronger than expected. But the current projected 2006 deficit of $296 billion is just a little lower than the fiscal year 2005 budget deficit of $318 billion. It is still the fourth largest budget deficit on record in nominal terms. The Bush administration wants us to compare the current estimate of the fiscal year 2006 budget deficit with the exaggerated estimate of $423 billion they made in their February budget projection. As the noted budget expert Stan Collender wrote at the time: This President has a well-established history of overstating the deficit early in the year and then taking credit when it turns out to be lower than projected, even if it has done nothing to make that happen. And, of course, that is exactly what we are seeing right now. The real story is the sharp deterioration of the budget in this administration. When President Bush took office, the Congressional Budget Office projected large and growing Federal budget surpluses under existing laws and policies--the so-called baseline projection-- including a budget surplus of over $500 billion in fiscal year 2006. However, the President has presided over an incredible reversal of fortune. A $128 billion Federal budget surplus in fiscal year 2001 turned into a $318 billion deficit by fiscal year 2005 and a projected deficit almost as large in fiscal year 2006. This is not news to crow about. Frankly, it reveals, as I suggested, a tremendous reversal in the budget fortunes of this country. A $5.6 trillion, 10-year projected surplus from 2002 to 2011 has turned into a deficit of $2.7 trillion. So from the time the President took office until today, what we thought was going to be a $5.6 trillion surplus is now a $2.7 trillion deficit, an extraordinary change in the fiscal year health of the United States. Realistically, this 10-year deficit is probably much higher because it does not include big-ticket items such as the war costs which are being funded on supplemental appropriations and not properly projected into the budget base; and the need to make tax adjustments like fixing the alternative minimum tax. 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. They have pursued an open-ended commitment to stabilizing Iraq that relies on supplemental appropriations rather than the normal budget process, and they have remained committed to extending irresponsible tax cuts that will add further to the budget deficit. All of this comes at the cost of inhibiting 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, and 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 which is resonating 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 the economic growth that we are purportedly seeing. Job growth has been very slow by the standards of past recoveries, real wages are stagnating, and disparities in income and earnings are growing wider. Last Friday we learned that employers added only 121,000 jobs to their payrolls in June, and that employment growth over the past 3 months has averaged just 108,000 jobs per month. Those are not the kinds of figures you expect to see in a healthy job market. They are not even enough to keep up with normal growth in the labor force. You also don't expect to see the earnings of the typical worker fallin behind inflation year after year in a growing economy, but that is what has happened since 2003. Average hourly earnings have fallen in each of the past 2 years, and real median household income has declined by about $1,700 under President Bush. The benefits of economic growth over the last several years are simply not being shared fairly. Those at the upper income levels are seeing gains but, frankly, not the same robust gains of the 1990s, when we saw the proverbial picket fence, where there were positive gains at every level of income in the United States from the poorest to the richest. Now, we are seeing a distribution of income that is skewed to the very richest. At the bottom income and middle income level, there is a loss in real earnings since the President took office. They are not even keeping up. While wages have stagnated and incomes are falling for most workers, profits have grown to record levels. Corporate profits have grown at an annual rate of over 16 percent, more than twice the average growth rate in past recoveries. Strong productivity growth has shown up on the bottom lines of shareholders, but not in the paychecks of workers. It seems clear that investors are benefiting greatly from Bush administration policies, but hard work goes unrewarded. Most Americans depend on their salary, not their investments, to pay their bills. Too many Americans are being squeezed by stagnant incomes and rising costs for gasoline, health care, and education. Somehow, the Bush tax cuts are supposed to make up for this. However, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that the tax cuts passed this year will only save the typical American family about $47--about what it now costs to fill up the gas tank of their minivan. But taxpayers making over $1 million will receive a tax cut of more than $42,000--enough to buy a new Mercedes. Ironically, the sources of the revenue surprises that have led to the improvement in the fiscal year 2006 budget prospectus mirror the growing disparity between incomes at the top of the distribution and incomes for typical American families. Corporate tax receipts are substantially higher than originally projected, and much of the unexpected increase in individual income taxes appears to come from income gains by high-income taxpayers. In particular, tax receipts for income not automatically subject to withholding, known as nonwithheld receipts, were 20 percent greater during the first 9 months of 2006 compared to 2005. Nonwithheld income is not ordinary wages; it is income such as capital gains, executive bonuses, noncorporate business income, and interest on dividends. Unfortunately, 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. The President's budget includes cuts to elementary and secondary education, student financial aid for higher education, job training for displaced workers, child care assistance so that parents can go to work, and community development grants aimed at expanding small businesses. Getting our fiscal house in order is the first step toward keeping our economy strong. But we also can't shortchange investments in research and technologies that will create the high-wage jobs of the future. Our policies should be refocused toward promoting lifelong education and training for our citizens in order to allow Americans to increase their earnings, their personal savings, and their ability to own a home. Today, we are at war and yet there is no sense of the shared sacrifice that has united this country in past conflicts. 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, it is unconscionable to think that we are being asked to make the President's irresponsible tax cuts permanent. Those tax cuts were poorly designed to stimulate job creation and broadly shared prosperity when they were first passed, and they have produced a legacy of large budget deficits that leave us increasingly hampered in our ability to deal with a host of challenges that we face as a Nation. Large and persistent budget deficits have contributed to an ever- widening trade deficit that forces us to borrow vast amounts from abroad and puts us at risk of a major financial collapse if foreign lenders suddenly stop accepting our IOUs. We had a current account deficit of nearly $800 billion last year and our international financial debt continues to mount. Raising our future standard of living and preparing adequately for the retirement of the baby boom generation require that we have a high level of national investment and that a high fraction of that investment be financed by our own national saving--not by foreign borrowers. We followed such prosperity-enhancing policies under President Clinton, but that legacy of fiscal discipline has been squandered under President Bush. No matter how rosy a picture the administration tries to paint, neither the present nor the future fiscal outlook seems terribly bright. Instead of more tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, we need to invest more in hard-working families and create greater opportunities for every American. We cannot afford the costs of failing to meet that challenge