Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 speak in opposition to the Oman Free Trade Agreement. International trade, if reached through the right paths, can confer tremendous benefits on all of its participants. Through this practice and agreements like this one, we have the opportunity not only to open up market access for American business but also to improve economic conditions for all participants. Unfortunately, the Oman Free Trade Agreement fails to live up to that potential. This agreement does not provide for American business, while at the same time it fails workers both here, I believe, and potentially in Oman. In 2001, the United States entered into a similar trade agreement with the country of Jordan. At that time, the agreement was heralded for its progressive labor standards. However, we have recently seen in Jordan instances of foreign workers forced into slave labor, stripped of their passports, denied their wages, and compelled to work for days without rest. These incidents have been occurring in Jordan because Jordanian labor laws are only applicable to its own citizens and preclude protections for foreign workers. What I sense is happening is that we have allowed, unwittingly, I believe, individuals and corporations in Jordan to exploit this agreement, to actually move people from countries outside of Jordan into Jordan, and to set up conditions that are not only horrible for the individuals but continue to put pressure on American working men and women in terms of reduced wages, and also do not act to raise the standard of living in Jordan. One of the points of our agreement with Jordan was to provide the kind of conditions that would raise the standard of living for Jordanian workers. So I am terribly concerned about what could happen in Oman. My fear in Oman is that they have far weaker labor standards, and that would lend itself to even worse conditions than in Jordan. In fact, the potential for seeing these types of abuses is much higher in Oman, where up to 70 percent of its workforce is comprised of foreign workers already. During the ``mock markup'' of this agreement last month--the practice of the Finance Committee where they would go through and, in theory and concept, make the changes they would like to see take place--the Finance Committee unanimously approved an amendment to explicitly prohibit products made with slave labor or through human trafficking from benefitting from this deal, conditions similar to those in the Jordanian Free Trade Agreement. However, the administration chose not to include this simple, commonsense provision in the final implementing legislation before us today. When our trade partners are held to different, less stringent standards, no one is better off. When Omani firms can employ workers in substandard conditions, the Omani workers and American workers both lose. The playing field is not level. The enforceable provisions of this free-trade agreement require only that Oman and the United States enforce their existing labor laws. In Oman, this means that workers can be denied the right to collectively bargain and to strike. More egregious, Omani law is vague in its forbiddance of forced labor. I appreciate the commitments of Oman to clarify these provisions and to improve enforcement. However, the timeline for doing this is far too long. If we implement this agreement, and Oman fails to live up to its promises, then this agreement will benefit a few while hurting many. I would note that part of the problem with all of these agreements is that they are considered under the President's fast-track authority, under which Congress is forced to take or leave even the most imperfect deals. And when the President ignores valuable input from Congress, particularly on issues such as labor standards, we are put in a position where our only choice is to vote against it. I am a supporter of free trade, but that does not require me to support bad deals from an administration that is more concerned about getting a deal than getting the deal right. We cannot allow other countries to break the rules. Our foreign trade partners must play by the same rules as we do because American companies and workers cannot compete with countries that engage in substandard labor practices. We have seen it again and again: trade policies that don't establish a real threshold for labor standards do not work. So, Mr. President, I will vote against the Oman Free Trade Agreement. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I recognize the 31st anniversary of the independence of Cape Verde. On July 5, 1975, this island nation gained independence from Portugal and since then has established itself as one of the most politically stable and economically viable countries in Africa. After discovery by Portuguese explorers in 1457 and then again in 1462, Cape Verde was incorporated into the Portuguese Empire as the first European settlement in the tropics. Over the next several hundred years, it was a lucrative trading post between Europe, Africa, and the Americas. A few years after World War II, with a growing nationalist movement, Portugal granted Cape Verde overseas province status. Within 5 years a group of Cape Verdeans and neighboring Guinea-Bissauans organized a coalition for the independence of Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde. After the 1974 Portuguese revolution, the new government signed an independence agreement with all of Portugal's overseas provinces, including Cape Verde. After six centuries of colonial rule, Cape Verde formally gained independence on July 5, 1975. Since the beginning of its independence, Cape Verde has strived for a democratic government. In 1991, the first multiparty elections in Cape Verdean history were held. Today, the Cape Verdean government is stable, with four parties sharing seats in the National Assembly. It has established market-oriented economic policies that are attracting foreign visitors, ensuring Cape Verde a strong service and tourism economy. Cape Verde has also been an essential part of international security. Over the past month, Cape Verde has served as the proving grounds for the latest testing of the emerging NATO Response Force, NRF. With over 7,000 soldiers, sailors, and airmen, Exercise Steadfast Jaguar 2006 is a major test of the NRF's ability to operate quickly, strategically, and at distance. Facing a variety of environmental conditions, the NRF is able to execute its largest military maneuvers since its creation exercising a wide array of missions. The archipelago's terrain provide challenging beaches for amphibious assault, arid flatlands for ground warfare, and a mountainous volcano for humanitarian relief after a fictitious eruption. These exercises, while still ongoing, can only be measured as a success and a true representation of international cooperation. Today there are close to 350,000 Cape Verdeans living in the United States, almost equal to the population of Cape Verde itself. Many of these Cape Verdeans make their home in Rhode Island. On behalf of the residents of my State, I wish to thank them for their contributions to our country. Finding its place in the international community, Cape Verde has stood up to assist the world's peacekeeping force in their infancy. It is fitting we honor Cape Verde's independence along side of our own. They understand the importance of a democratic society and international responsibility. I send all Cape Verdeans in Rhode Island and around the world my best wishes as they celebrate their homeland's independence

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, yesterday I opposed Senate Joint Resolution 12, which would have created a constitutional amendment allowing Congress to ban desecration of the flag. As a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy and a former officer in the Army, I am deeply offended when people burn or otherwise abuse this precious national symbol. I also believe, however, that the values and beliefs that the American flag represents are more important than the cloth from which this symbol was created. Prominent among these beliefs are the right to voice views that are unpopular, and the right to protest. In fact, these fundamental values, preserved by our Constitution, have distinguished our Nation for more than 200 years. The Framers understood that democracy cannot thrive, or even survive, without freedom of expression. Colin Powell has rightfully said, ``The first amendment exists to ensure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous. I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away.'' I oppose this amendment not because I condone desecration of our flag, but because I celebrate the values our flag represents. Flag burning is despicable. However, the issue is whether we should amend our great charter document, the Constitution, to proscribe it. In The Federalist, James Madison declared that the Constitution should be amended for ``certain great and extraordinary occasions.'' Except for the prohibition amendments, since the adoption of the Bill of Rights, we have only amended the Constitution for ``great and extraordinary occasions:'' abolishing slavery and giving African Americans the right to vote; extending voting rights to women; and regulating elections and the tenure of the Presidency. Of the 27 amendments, 17 protect individual rights and liberties. In fact, we have never amended the Constitution to constrict rights that other amendments already guarantee. So are we facing a ``great and extraordinary occasion'' justifying the use of a constitutional amendment? I would argue no. First, an amendment permitting government restraints on free expression cannot compel loyalty to or love for either our country or our flag. The proposed amendment would pronounce to the world that we value free speech, except when it offends, that we tolerate free expression, except when it is demoralizes. Second, is this a problem needing such strong medicine? Are we facing an epidemic of flag burnings? In fact, over the past 10 years, only 7 incidents of flag desecration have occurred per year on average, most of which have been successfully prosecuted under laws prohibiting vandalism, theft, disorderly conduct, and disturbance of peace. Indeed, passing such an amendment would probably do more to promote flag burning by malcontents than any other action this Congress could take. Third, proponents of such an amendment declare that it would boost the morale of our troops and help restore some of the American values so basic to the fabric of our country. But, as one veteran recently wrote, ``I did not believe then, nor do I believe now, that I was defending just a piece of geography, but a way of life. If this amendment becomes a part of our Constitution, this way of life will be diminished.'' I cannot help but believe that a more appropriate expression of support for our troops would be providing them with the equipment they need in the field, better benefits for their families, and an adequately funded medical system at home. Although I oppose a constitutional amendment, I did support an alternative approach offered by Senator Durbin. Senator Durbin's amendment contained two elements. First, it would have created a statutory prohibition against desecration of our flag. This part of his amendment was drafted to follow the guidance of the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Virginia v. Black, which upheld a Virginia law banning cross burning that is intended to intimidate. The Durbin amendment took a similar approach and prohibited desecration of the flag when it is intended to incite violence. The Durbin amendment also would have promoted respect for families of deceased members of the Armed Forces by prohibiting demonstrations at their funerals. The amendment was narrowly tailored to make these disrespectful demonstrations punishable. In sum, debating a constitutional amendment on desecration of the flag, although politically popular, is not how the Senate should be spending its few remaining legislative weeks. But this is a campaign year, and the majority appears to want the Senate to spend time on topics which defer and deflect us from concentrating finding solutions to pressing issues facing our Nation: restoring fiscal discipline, creating safe and affordable housing for working families, securing our borders, expanding health insurance coverage to the uninsured, ensuring students have the skills and tools to compete in an ever-expanding global economy, and redeploying our troops as quickly as possible out of Iraq. Unfortunately, the majority has provided limited time to debate most of these issues. I hope that with the rapidly dwindling number of days left in this session we will work to address the very real concerns that impact American families every day. I fear, however, that this debate is only a harbinger of what is to come and very clearly signals why we need a new direction.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, as we consider the nomination of Henry Paulson to be Secretary of the Treasury, I think it is important to bring a reality check to some of the claims about the current state of the economy--those claims made by the administration. My colleague, Senator Bennett, pointed out that yesterday we had a hearing in the Joint Economic Committee, and appearing as a witness was Edward Lazear, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. We had also two outside experts who were economists testifying on the state of the economy. Many of the Bush supporters are claiming that the economy is strong and everyone is benefiting, but I doubt that many working Americans would see it as strong as they do and see it as benefiting them as much as it is claimed by the administration. It is true that the economy is experiencing a business cycle recovery after the 2001 recession and after going through the most prolonged job slump since the 1930s. The President pointed out that the economy has done better since 2003 than it did in 2001 and 2002, but they don't talk about how this recovery has not been particularly strong by the standards of previous recoveries. This first chart shows the percentage change in payroll employment. The curve here is the average of seven previous recession recovery cycles. If you look back, historically, it is a much more robust increase over time than this lower line, which is the March 2001 to May 2006 statistics, the recovery in the last several years. In fact, this recovery is much less than the recovery was after the 1990 recession. That recovery was called the ``jobless recovery'' because job generation was so slow. So what you are seeing is that job losses continued for much longer in this period of time, 2001 to 2006, than had been typical. This recovery has been much weaker than those in the past. At this point in the recovery, from the 1990 to 1991 recession, the economy had created 5 million jobs. That is this delta right here--5 million more jobs than have been created in this recovery. So the difference between job generation at the same point in March 2001 to 2006, and comparing it to the 1990s, is plus 5 million jobs. This situation is similar with respect to business investment. It took much longer for the recovery to start with respect to business investment, and the level of investment lagged behind what has been typical in past recoveries. Each year of depressed investment means less capacity to produce goods and services in the future. Defenders of the President's economic record cannot deny that workers' wages have not been keeping up with inflation. Part of that is a result of many factors but, one, looking back at the investment, it has been a relatively small recovery in terms of business investment. Here is the average of seven previous recoveries and here is the 1991 recovery business investment and here is the current recovery. It is not as robust as it has been in previous recoveries. As I suggested a moment ago, there is another very palpable impact of this bad economic news, and that is that wages have not been keeping up with inflation. This will be, no doubt, no surprise to working families as they work to get their paychecks each week. Some have suggested that this is a result of the fact that wages are held down but benefits are growing, and that compensation is growing at historic rates. This is not the case. This is a chart that shows productivity, the output per hour, and real compensation per hour. What you generally see is that productivity increases will be closely tracking compensation increases except over the last several years where productivity is going up at a significant pace, but real compensation, wages plus benefits, is lagging far behind. This is what the average American is confronting today when they are looking at increased gasoline prices, soaring health care prices, and they are not seeing either in their paycheck or, in many cases, even benefit packages the same kinds of increases that are so necessary to keep up with an increase in inflation. Growth in compensation has lagged behind. Wages have grown more slowly than total compensation, but that is not because workers are negotiating better deals from their employers, it is because employers are facing higher costs for health insurance and are squeezing workers' wages as a result. Increased health care prices, particularly in the area of small business, is causing many businesses to forego increases they would like to give to workers, in terms of wages, just to keep up with increased health care costs. This doesn't mean a better health care package for workers, and in some cases workers are being dropped, unfortunately, from health care protection because of the expense. What we are seeing is that compensation is not keeping up with productivity and, typically, compensation does keep up with productivity. There is another issue, too, with respect to the situation for many American workers, and that is the fact that pension arrears have to be made up. Many companies now are putting money into pensions just to make them actuarially sound, where in the past they might have devoted that to wages. By and large, the situation, when it looks at the working men and women, is that we are not seeing the robust increases in wages or compensation that is important. These points were made by one of the witnesses yesterday at the JEC hearing, chief economist of the Bank of America, Dr. Mickey Levy, who testified that: Wage and compensation increases have been somewhat disappointing. Real wages have been suppressed by higher energy costs and have not kept pace with labor productivity gains. . . .Wages may be constrained by higher employer costs for workers' health care, along with the heightened international competition related to low cost production overseas. . . . Wage and compensation increases have indeed been disappointing, especially for the majority of workers who are not getting them. Gains in average earnings or income do not tell the real story when they hide growing inequality. When you look at one level, you see increases, but when you look at how the increases are distributed across the working population, it is another story altogether. The red bars on this chart show that workers in the middle and bottom have experienced a decline in real earnings, while those at the top have experienced gains. This is in sharp contrast to the experience of the time from 1995 to 2000. Here in blue, in the data for gains in terms of earnings, broken down by the lowest 10th percentile, 25th, median, 75th, and 90th, at the upper level in the 1990s you saw increases, but they were almost comparable at the very lowest level of income. You saw the proverbial picket fence, where there were positive gains at every percentile. What we are seeing today is quite the reverse of that--losses in real terms of earnings at the lowest levels through the middle levels, and only at the upper income levels are you seeing real gains in earnings. So the distribution of the economic progress that is being made over the last several years is not being shared fairly. Those at the upper income levels are seeing gains but, frankly, not the same robust gains of the nineties. At the bottom-income and middle-income level, there is a loss in real earnings. That is not an example of an economy that is working for all Americans. That is an economy that is working for the very affluent Americans. The answer of the Bush administration to these economic trends is basically to ignore them, try to gloss over them or redefine them or explain them away. They proposed tax cuts, which will do very little to help this distribution of earnings. In fact, what it does, essentially, is protect more of the earnings at the upper income levels. If we continue along the present course, we will be undermining the economy's longrun capacity for growth and undermining future living standards. Another aspect here, too, that is not dwelt upon by the administration is the fact that we are virtually zero in national savings. Without national savings, there is not the pool of investment capital necessary to provide for the new technology, new capital of the future. We are borrowing huge amounts of money overseas to fund our deficit. This is investments made in our country. But in terms of national savings of this country, it is close to zero. In some cases, it is negative. These are the real problems that confront this country. These are the real questions that Mr. Paulson has to address. How do we create an economy that performs as well as it did in the 1990s, where earnings gains are shared virtually equally across the spectrum of income, where low-income Americans don't see a loss of earnings but actually a gain? How do we ensure that wages and compensation keep up with productivity gains? How do we ensure essentially and fundamentally that the working families in this country cannot only get by but get ahead? That is the question that Mr. Paulson has to answer as Secretary of the Treasury. I think it begins with looking hard at the deficit and the policies of the administration with respect to taxes. I don't subscribe to the theory that our deficit is caused by runaway entitlement programs. We have an issue with entitlement programs, but we also have an issue with tax programs that take away revenue and are targeted to the wealthiest Americans. We have problems with expenditures that we cannot avoid with respect to supporting our forces in the field. We cannot stop providing equipment and materiel for our forces fighting the wars today, and we have to take care of them in the future. But there are significant issues with which we have to deal. I hope Mr. Paulson will be a strong voice in this administration to look at the facts and propose realistic solutions that benefit not just the few who are wealthy but the vast majority of Americans. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes from the time allotted. Mr. President, we should take heed of what the Government of Iraq is doing and saying. We should take heed of the fact that it has made progress in establishing itself and making significant steps forward. In this context, let me again remind my colleagues of what the National Security Adviser for Iraq has said. He suggested we should begin withdrawing troops by the end of this year. That is what the Reed-Levin amendment would require. He also suggests and predicts that by the end of 2007 most American combat forces would be out of the country. He says, in his words: The eventual removal of coalition troops from Iraqi streets will help the Iraqis, who now see foreign troops as occupiers rather than the liberators they were meant to be. Moreover, the removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's government in the eyes of the people. I concur with Senator Warner that we should support the Iraqi Government, pay attention to what they are saying. I think we should pay particular attention to what Iraq's security advisor has said. This was not a casual off-the-cuff remark. He said it first on CNN, where he knew he was speaking to a world audience, particularly an American one. Then he crafted a very careful op ed opinion for the Washington Post. If that is what one of the key leaders of the Iraqi Government is saying, then I think that supports our efforts for the Reed-Levin amendment. Also, this amendment has been mischaracterized grotesquely. This is not some arbitrary fixed timetable. This is not something where dates mean dates specific. We say precisely that the President shall submit to the Congress a plan by the end of 2006, with estimated dates for the continued, phased redeployment of U.S. forces, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise. I think my colleagues demonstrate a lack of confidence in the ability of the President, listening to his commanders in the field to prepare an estimate of our posture in Iraq over the next several years. There is no end point in our amendment because we recognize, as so many others, that this process could take an indefinite time but a time that at least could be estimated by the President. Let me also suggest that the Levin-Reed amendment recognizes there will be a residual force in Iraq of American trainers, American logisticians, and of special operations troops to seek out these terrorists, rather than having young Americans at checkpoints who are subject, because of a lack, apparently, of coordinated support, to being attacked successfully by Iraqis. That mission should be done by the Iraqis. But we cannot give up the right and capability of striking at terrorists in Iraq. This amendment clearly states that. It is something else, too, because we have a lot of people coming to the floor talking about we are going to stay the course and we are going to support them. We have done nothing virtually with respect to nonmilitary support, effectively, for Iraq. Where are the State Department teams? Months ago, with great fanfare, the President announced we are going to develop eventual reconstruction teams and put them in the provinces of Iraq. There are only four. They lack resources, they lack personnel, and they lack real support and emphasis. Unless we can fix some nonmilitary aspects of the reconstruction, redevelopment, political mentoring, our military efforts will buy us time that we will squander, as we have squandered to date. Now, the real test of the other side is not the rhetoric on the floor and the slogans that you cannot ``cut and run'' and appropriately recognizing the great sacrifices of our forces. It is coming down here with a plan--over many years, according to them--and the resources to support that plan--the billions and billions of dollars that we will need over the next several years, the personnel we need in the country, not just from our military forces but from our State Department, our Agency for International Development, and our Justice Department. If we are truly committed to this concept of complete victory, we need a plan. The President has to deliver such a plan. This amendment will require him, we hope, to sketch out that plan. At the heart of this, it is not about satisfying the Congress, it is about confiding in, with candor, the American people, telling them what the risks are, what the costs are and how we are going to pay for it. It is easy to come down here and say we are going to support our troops and do all these things. But then 2 weeks from today, or a week from today, we will have a bill to cut the estate tax. How do we pay for these troops and give them equipment and reset our equipment? How do we give resources for troops in the field and support this new Iraqi Government? With what? The real test of the other side will be when they come up with a plan and with money and with resources. I believe this approach is the most sound tactically, strategically, and politically, not to surrender but to succeed. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I join with my colleague, Senator Levin, and Senators Feinstein and Salazar, to offer this amendment. Too often, the Bush administration deals simply in slogans. We have heard them so often, so many times: mission accomplished; stay the course; don't cut and run; we will stand down when they stand up; complete victory. But a military operation such as this requires much more than slogans. It requires sufficient personnel and adequate equipment. It requires coherent strategic policy, and it requires detailed plans. At critical junctures in this effort in Iraq, this administration has been extraordinarily insufficient in all of this. We had insufficient personnel on the ground with the collapse of the government of Saddam Hussein. We opened up regions of Iraq so that insurgents could begin to form and begin to conduct this attack against their own people and against our people. Too often we went out to Iraq, visited the country, and were confronted by our own soldiers who complained that they didn't have armored humvees and body armor. I believe there has never been a really coherent strategic policy here. We heard the initial defenses of the approach to Iraq as we were going after weapons of mass destruction. They were not there. We are going to go after the heart of terrorism, when in fact the terrorists' connection to Saddam Hussein was tangential at most. Then, we are going to build an oasis of freedom and transform the Middle East. It is not an oasis today in Iraq. Certainly there were not detailed plans. We entered into this occupation without sufficient planning, without sufficient resources in so many different ways. The faults continue to plague us today. Insufficient resources to run detention facilities contributed in a significant way to Abu Ghraib, and that, as even the President admits, has been an extraordinary blot on our record and inhibits us today in our ability to achieve a stable Iraq. There is something else that you need to conduct military operations, and that is public support. Today, a majority of Americans would like to see a deadline to withdraw our forces from Iraq. They are not unpatriotic. They are not without grit and determination. They are terribly concerned, and they are looking for leadership. But I believe this leadership comes in not adopting some type of arbitrary timetable or deadline; it comes from adopting what is the most coherent and realistic policy we can today to stabilize the country of Iraq, to assist them in this stability, and to begin the phased redeployment of our forces from Iraq to begin this year. To begin, not with an arbitrary timetable or deadline, but to begin with the notion that these decisions will be based upon the advice of military commanders and based upon the conditions on the ground. But we must begin. We must begin because we have to send a strong signal to the Government of Iraq that they must take their future in their own hands, that they must make difficult choices about their constitution, about sharing political power, about eliminating sectarian elements from their security forces, and a host of other difficult problems. This rests upon the fundamental reality of the situation. Ultimately, it will be the Iraqis who stabilize their country and reform their country. We can help. We have helped. But it is up to them, and it must begin now. Also, this approach which we are proposing recognizes another reality. Our military forces, our Army and our Marine Corps, have been under tremendous pressure. They have done a magnificent job. The young men and women who wear the uniform of the United States have performed in an extraordinary fashion. But for some of them, it will be their third deployment to Iraq. Others have gone to both Iraq and Afghanistan. The wear and tear on these young Americans and their families is significant. The wear and tear on our equipment is significant. There is a $50 billion pricetag just to repair the equipment that has accumulated over the last several years in Iraq. So we have to recognize also that our forces need a signal that their mission will be coming to a conclusion, not in the next Presidency but, based upon a careful deliberation by the commanders, we hope in the near future. We also have to recognize that our threats are not confined to Iraq alone. Today we are all waiting anxiously to see what the North Koreans might do with respect to a scheduled--or at least a tentative launch of an intercontinental missile. We are today engaged in serious negotiations with our European colleagues with respect to the situation in Iran. We have seen in the last few weeks an Islamic government takeover on the streets of Mogadishu and Somalia. We have seen other areas of concern and conflict. Our commitment in Iraq, frankly, constrains our flexibility to deal with all these issues. Senator Levin and I have come forward today with a proposal that we believe will be an approach that begins a policy that we can achieve, that it is necessary for us to achieve, so we can move forward to begin to transition the burden from American military shoulders to those of the Iraqis. It begins with a phased redeployment which we believe should commence this year. Let me hasten to add again: There is no specific timetable. There is no deadline. This is based upon the advice of our military officers in the field. This is not cut and run or cut and jog or cut and anything else. It is an attempt to articulate a policy based upon the reality of Iraq, the reality of our present military forces, and the reality of a world which is engaged in conflicts in many different places. In the past weeks, we have seen some progress in Iraq--the installation of a government, the naming of a Prime Minister of Interior, and the naming of a Prime Minister of Defense. We have seen the death of Zarqawi. But still we recognize how turbulent and uncertain and how hostile the environment remains for our soldiers and the Iraqi security forces. We have about 127,000 forces there in the last 3 years, or more. We have seen more than 2,500 of these young Americans killed and more than 18,000 wounded. Their sacrifices have to be respected and honored--not simply with force but with wisdom and with a policy that will work, a policy that is attuned with what is happening in Iraq and around the globe and not a policy based upon bumper stickers that have been trotted out at a moment's notice. We recognize that we have an interest certainly in Iraq in terms of succeeding. And this plan we hope and we believe will be a success. We are putting together a plan--more of a policy than a plan--because the planning is the province of the President, as it should be, as Commander in Chief. But a policy of redeployment beginning now is the right direction. It will require the President to begin to outline those steps. It will also require the Government of Iraq to begin to take responsibility for their own situation. It will require them to begin deliberations for constitutional changes. These changes are necessary to ensure that this is an inclusive Government in Iraq, that the Sunni community feels that they can have a future in the new Iraq. It also recognizes that we have to have a sharing of political power in Iraq so that Iraq will succeed. In addition, the Iraqis must address the issue of sectarian militias, and the infiltration of security forces by sectarian elements have to be dealt with and dealt with decisively. We also have to recognize that ultimately these decisions will be made and must be made by the Iraqis. In this proposal there is a clear signal to the Iraqis that they must make these decisions beginning now for their future and, we hope, for a stable region and a much more stable world. We also understand that we have to bring together the international community. Since October of 2002, I have argued that this unilateral approach to Iraq is not destined for success; that we have to have a multinational approach to be successful. We have carried the burden both militarily and in many other ways. It is time that the administration engage and energize the regional neighbors and the broader international community to help address the issues that are presented to us all throughout the world by Iraq. We understand, on a financial basis, that this is an expensive undertaking. Originally, the administration suggested that this would be $50 billion or $60 billion. We understand now that we have already spent $320 billion, and the end is not in sight. In a recent study by Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel prize economist, if you added all the costs, all the costs of rehabilitating our equipment when comes home, all of the cost of veterans' benefits and caring for those who have served so well, the price will reach perhaps $1 trillion, if our commitment extends until 2010. Also, the international community has to do much more. The international community has pledged $8 billion, and only $3.5 billion of that money has been forthcoming. They need to do more, and we need to make them do more. This approach of going it alone has to end. And part of our amendment is to request that we engage in a much more multilateral approach to Iraq. We have trained 116,000 Iraqi soldiers, sailors, 148,000 Iraqi police and highway patrol and other Ministry of Interior forces. There are 102 operational Iraqi combat battalions in their Army, and 69 are either in the lead or operating independently. We have made progress. We hope that they are ready, but we think that we have made enough progress to begin our redeployment. Again, the pace of that redeployment will be set by our military commanders. As General Casey pointed out: As we are able to draw down our forces, we will receive additional benefits. A reduction in American forces will essentially push more Iraqi troops to the front lines. This is about the dependency. Those are General Casey's words. As long as we are there to do the heavy lifting, we will do the heavy lifting. That is an important point to be made and emphasized again and again. The Government of Iraq was formed. Their National Security Adviser, Mr. Rubaie, stated this week in an editorial that Iraq's position is that it have full control of the country by the end of 2008, and this will mean a significant foreign troop reduction. We envision U.S. troop presence by the year's end to be under 100,000 with the most of remaining troops to return home by 2007. The eventual removal of coalition troops will help the Iraqis who now see foreign troops occupying rather than as liberators. Moreover, the removal of foreign troops will legitimize the Iraqi Government in the eyes of its people. I do not know if my colleagues will come and accuse the Iraqi National Security Adviser of cutting and running on its own country. Perhaps they will, but they will be wrong. That is what a leading figure in the Government of Iraq is suggesting. A phased redeployment beginning this year, hopefully concluding by the end of 2007--but again we will leave that up to our military commanders. The benefits will be that the Iraqis will step forward, and also this notion of occupiers will be diminished substantially. From many different perspectives, this is the right policy at the right time. I hope that our colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, will embrace this policy. I retain the remainder of any time I have and yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. There are two key elements in the Levin-Reed amendment. The first is to begin redeployment, this year, of American combat forces in Iraq. So many of my colleagues have mentioned Mr. Rubaie, who is the National Security Adviser for the Iraqi Government. On two occasions he has said it is not only feasible but desirable. He said it first on television, and then he said it just this week in a carefully crafted editorial. So this is something that I think can be done, and, according to a key leader in the Iraq Government, should be done. The second element is that the President should submit to Congress a plan by the end of 2006, with estimated dates for the continued phased redeployments of U.S. forces from Iraq, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise. The President should do this with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise. This has been referred to as an arbitrary timetable. It is not arbitrary, and it is not a timetable. It is not a timetable of our creation, but it would be of the President. So do, I assume, those who object to this feel that the President could not produce such a timetable? Or if he did produce such a timetable, it would be arbitrary, that it would be made without consultation with our military leaders, that it would be made without reference to conditions on the ground? I do not think so. In fact, I think such a timetable would be appropriate and necessary. Also, I should point out that our amendment recognizes the residual presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, those that will be training Iraqi forces, those that will provide logistical support, and those that would conduct counterterrorism operations, our special operations troops. But, essentially, what we would also like to do, which is so critical, is to begin this transition from a predominantly military response to a nonmilitary one. During and after the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq, the United States will need a sustained nonmilitary effort to actively support reconstruction, governments, and a durable political solution. One significant reason why our military is stuck in Iraq today is because we have not made an appropriate nonmilitary effort. The administration has bungled reconstruction. They have yet to deploy more than 4 provisional reconstruction teams in the almost 18 provinces in Iraq. They continue to lag behind in terms of political mentoring, in terms of reconstruction, in terms of economic activity. They have done nothing. As a result, the only real viable tool we have is military forces. And the commanders will tell you on the ground that they are just buying time, that without this nonmilitary effort, all of our plans for Iraq will not succeed. Any effort like this requires popular support. Popular support rests upon candor with the people. This administration has not been candid with the people. They have not been candid with respect to the costs of this war. And those costs will go up. Indeed, to stay the course, we can predict billions and billions and billions of more dollars. They have not been candid with respect to the length of our operations. They have not been candid with respect to the impact of these operations on our troops. They have substituted slogans for candor. This amendment gives the President an opportunity to present a plan not only to the Congress but to the American people, a plan that will be candid, a plan that will strive for victory, a plan of his making. Without such a plan, we will continue to drift, and the chances of success will continue to diminish.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I yield to the Senator from Virginia and will then regain my time.

Mr. REED. I would be happy to do that, in the future. I would like to highlight some of the aspects of the bill which I think are very important. I have had the privilege of working with Senator Cornyn as the ranking member of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee. It has been a real pleasure. He has conducted the committee with great efficiency and great cooperation. The staff has been particularly helpful on a bipartisan basis. I am pleased to note that in the context of our deliberations, several important measures were included in this legislation. First, we have authorized an additional $400 million for science and technology programs. The original request sent by the Department of Defense was woefully inadequate. Science and technology is the key to our future on the battlefield as we match the skill and valor of our soldiers with the very best technology. We have to continue this investment. I am pleased that our legislation increases that item by $400 million. Also, the bill includes language to require a report to Congress on the testing policies and practices that should be pursued with respect to rapid acquisition programs, spiral development programs, quick reaction fielding programs, and the testing for safety and survivability of deployed equipment. One of the weaknesses, I believe, with the present approach of the Department of Defense is a failure to adequately test and evaluate, and I think that failure has to be corrected and this report will, I hope, put attention on this issue and lead to positive results. The legislation also urges the Department of Defense to identify and nominate an individual to serve as the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. This position has been vacant since January 2005. It is a critical position. This individual is the key independent personality in the Department of Defense to look at the testing and evaluation of new equipment. Without this position, the testing emphasis is woefully inadequate in the Department of Defense. As we put new systems into the military, we have to ensure that these systems are adequately tested. Without an individual with that responsibility and that position and posture within the Department of Defense, we are not providing the appropriate personality and mechanism to do the job. The bill also establishes the Joint Technology Office to coordinate all DOD hypersonics research programs in conjunction with NASA. The new office reflects an appreciation of the important role that these technologies can play in advanced air platforms, missile systems, and space systems. The committee's provision is an effort to ensure that millions of dollars being invested by the services and by DARPA in hypersonics are optimized and coordinated to enable this maturing set of technologies to reach operational capabilities at the highest possible rate and at the earliest possible time. The bill also extends the authority for DOD to run technology competitions and awards cash prices to winners. This is a provision that DARPA uses very effectively. The bill also authorizes more than $30 million in increases for research that supports defense manufacturing technology. A growing concern in the United States, in both the defense and commercial sector, is whether or not we have the capability to manufacture what we invent. This money will help us enhance our manufacturing abilities throughout the United States. There is another area of the bill that I think is very important and that is the area that helps us protect this country from weapons of mass destruction. First, the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program of the Department of Defense is fully funded with a budget request of $372 million. The Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is one of the leading nonproliferation programs. It allows our Government to cooperate with other governments, principally those of the former Soviet Union, to reduce the availability and supply of the fissile material and potential access to nuclear devices. Also, the nonproliferation programs at the Department of Energy are fully funded at $1.7 billion. This funding is critical. One of the most obvious threats and the most grievous threats to face this country is the existence of nuclear weapons, particularly if they fall in the hands of terrorists. One very effective way to prevent this potential apocalypse is to ensure these weapons are fully under the control of a credible responsible party. In fact, in many cases we are destroying some of this material to prevent it from ever being used again. The bill also includes an important waiver for the President with respect to the conditions that Russia must meet for chemical weapons destruction programs. It is important to continue to have these programs go forward. This waiver gives the President flexibility to continue these efforts. In the areas of combating terrorism and homeland defense, the bill authorizes funding increases of about $150 million. Approximately $100 million of these funds are being used to fund the top eight unfunded requirements of the Special Operations Command. We all understand each of the components of the Department of Defense submit their requests. These eight elements were not funded under the prevailing budget. Our legislation would provide $100 million to do that and allow our special operators to continue to enhance their technology and their programs. The increase will provide, I think, also, support for our Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams. These are military teams that are organized in case of a weapons of mass destruction incident in the United States. They are critical. The original 32 teams played a key role. This would allow them to upgrade their equipment. The bill also authorizes about $70 million to fund two of Northern Command's highest unfunded priorities. Included among these priorities are interoperable communications to facilitate the support of civilian authorities. This is an obvious need after Hurricane Katrina. When we go back--I am sure my colleagues are in the same position--to our home States we hear a persistent cry from fire and police officials that they need interoperable communications to talk amongst themselves and to talk to other levels of command. The bill also creates a senior executive position within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Defense for Special Operations and Low- Intensity Conflict to provide management oversight for SOCOM's acquisition programs. One of the lacking elements in SOCOM's organization is an acquisition specialist. This bill would put in a person with those skills, so they can facilitate the acquisition and development of new technology for our Special Operations Command. The bill also includes an authorization for the Department of Defense to use counterdrug funds to support U.S. assistance to the unified counterdrug/counterterrorism military campaign in Colombia. Last April, I was in Colombia and I had the opportunity to meet with President Uribes. I was encouraged by what he has done and what the people of Colombia have done. I also visited with our military personnel and civilians working to help the Colombian military personnel who have been working to fight narcoterrorism and strengthen democratic governance in Colombia, and I was extremely impressed with what they have done since my last visit in 2000. I believe, as we support the Colombians in their efforts, we will make a significant contribution to stability in that region. Finally, with respect to our efforts on the Emerging Threat Subcommittee, I note the bill includes authorization for incentive clauses in some of our chemical demilitarization contracts. This authority is intended to provide a more efficient way to close some of our chemical weapons facilities and to meet international deadlines. All of these efforts were the result of the close cooperation of Senator Cornyn and the staff with respect to the Emerging Threats Subcommittee. Let me now turn to an issue of increased importance in the last few days and that is missile defense. We are all anxiously observing what is going on in North Korea--the intelligence suggesting that the North Koreans are preparing to launch a long-range ballistic missile. This bill contains language that I think recognizes a need to continue to develop a missile defense system and to do so in a way that can assure its effectiveness. The bill would authorize additional funding for systems that we know are working and are extremely valuable, including the Aegis BMD system and the Patriot/PAC-3 system. I note the Patriot system is our only system that has actually intercepted a hostile missile, and that additional support for this system is more than justified. I also note that the Patriot system was rigorously tested and was subject to operational testing before it was fully deployed. The largest single missile defense funding increase which is authorized by this bill is $115 million for additional integrated flight tests for the Ground-based Mid-course Defense system, the GMD. I think it is very important to focus in on operational testing of this system. One of the shortcomings of the whole program for developing our missile defense system has been a rush, in many cases, to failure, not taking the steps to test the system or not designing tests that are operationally significant. In that respect, we have spent a lot of money but we have yet, I think, to fully and effectively deploy the ground-based mid-course system. We have to recognize that after three successive intercept flight test failures, the Missile Defense Agency is taking some steps which I think are encouraging. They created an Independent Review Team and a Mission Readiness Task Force to analyze these failures and recommend improvements to the GMD program. Again, one of the persistent criticisms I had was that the system was rushing pell-mell forward without stopping to evaluate the mistakes that have been made and then planning for a thorough and exhaustive system of tests. Therefore, the effort was just to put something in the ground, not to ensure that missile system would work adequately. MRTF, the Mission Readiness Task Force, recommended that four ground- based interceptors be diverted from planned operational deployment-- essentially sitting in the ground being described as operational, but frankly I don't know anyone who would give that a high probability of success--to using these missiles for ground tests. I think that is a step forward in terms of development the system. These recommendations were accepted by the Missile Defense Agency and the Defense Department. Again, I think a recognition of a new pragmatism and realism on the part of the Missile Defense Agency, something that is more than overdue. We need more testing to ensure the GMD system will work, and I think the legislation we have before us will signal and encourage such testing. The bill would also include a provision that would require the Department to submit to Congress each test and evaluation plan approved by the Director of Operational Tests and Evaluation under Section 234 of last year's National Defense Authorization Act. Again, this provision is designed to help improve testing and to show the emphasis that the Congress places on this testing. Finally, the bill includes a provision that would extend the requirement to have the GAO assess the missile defense program. The GAO plays a very valuable role as an outside objective observer on the progress of missile defense. We have to invest in a missile defense system, but we have to do it wisely. We have already seen where the effect of other budget priorities, principally Iraq, has even caused the administration to move money away from their original plans in missile defense. I believe we cannot afford to waste money in this regard. We have to invest it wisely. Part of that wise investment means having an adequate, thorough, exhaustive operational testing program to make steady progress, rather than to rush to failure. I would like to turn to another topic which is of concern to myself, and that is the shipbuilding program. Since 2001, most of the focus of the Department of Defense and Congress, indeed, of the Nation, has been on our land forces, the Army and Marines. They are engaged in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq and doing a magnificent job. They are bearing the burden of a very difficult combat situation. However, our Navy is still a vital element in our national defense. Its importance will continue to loom significant in the future. The CNO has stated that he needs $13.5 billion each year for at least the next decade to recapitalize the fleet. With this funding, the Navy must also build approximately 11 ships per year to maintain a 313-ship fleet.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise this morning to discuss the fiscal year 2007 Defense authorization bill. I am glad it is on the floor. It is very important legislation, and it is arriving in a timely manner where we can dispose of it along with the other body and hopefully conclude in the next few weeks with a finalized Defense authorization bill. I would also note that this is Senator Warner's last bill as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I personally want to commend him and thank him for his leadership, not only as the chairman of this committee, but as a young sailor, a young marine, and a more mature Secretary of the Navy, and now a mature Member of the United States Senate. So thank you, Senator, for your leadership and friendship.

Mr. REED. As I stated, the Chief of Naval Operations indicated he would need approximately $13.5 billion each year for the next decade to recapitalize the fleet. However, the President's budget request only includes 7 ships in fiscal year 2007 versus the 11 that the Chief needs to maintain the 313-ship fleet. Seven ships in fiscal year 2008. In 2009 the suggestion is they move up to nine ships. But those plans have been delayed before. This shipbuilding level simply cannot sustain the fleet. My greatest concern is with respect to the construction level of submarines. While many believe that the need for submarines has diminished with the end of the Cold War, the demand for these unique assets has never been greater. Last week I was with Senator Dodd and Senator Inouye for the christening of the USS Hawaii, our newest Virginia Class attack submarine at Groton, CT. Admiral Roughhead, Commander of the Pacific Fleet, pointed out submarines are his most demanded asset. They are the one ship that is constantly requested by commanders throughout the Pacific to do the tasks that are necessary to defend the Nation. This is true in our global war on terrorism as we need the ability for stealthy insertion of special operations troops. We need to be able to recover these troops, we need to have the capacity to strike with precision-guided Tomahawk cruise missiles. All of these are capabilities of the submarine fleet. Back in March of 2004, Admiral Bowman, who was then the Director of the Navy's Nuclear Propulsion Program, suggested to me that the Navy was only able to meet about 65 percent of the combatant commanders' submarine requirements with the current fleet of 54 boats. In 2003, Vice Admiral Grossenbacher, then commander of the Naval Submarine Forces, estimated we needed 70 submarines to meet the request of all of the commanders. These are requests that will simply not be met if we drop our submarine fleet below certain limits. In addition, we understand that China is developing a very robust submarine fleet. Today, China's submarine fleet is estimated at a number of approximately 60 boats. In 2004 and 2005, 12 new submarines joined the Chinese fleet. New nuclear-missile-attack boats are coming on line, and China has one of the largest modern diesel submarine fleets in the world. Clearly, there is a need to prudently react to the growing underwater prowess of China. Presently, the U.S. Navy has 282 ships, including 54 attack submarines. In the fiscal year 2007 long-range plan for construction of naval vessels, the Navy expressed the intent to maintain 313, but only 48 attack submarines. Recall recently there were requirements for up to 70 submarines--at least discussion of 70 submarines--or 54 submarines; 48 attack submarines are currently in the plan. The Navy is in danger of not even being able to put to sea 48 attack submarines at current build rate. Right now the Navy is currently procuring one Virginia class attack submarine per year, and a ninth is in the budget for this year. However, under the original plan drawn up by the Navy in 2003, production of two boats per year was supposed to begin in fiscal year 2007. Now the procurement of two per year has been pushed back to fiscal year 2012. If the Navy is able to implement its plan and begin building two attack submarines per year in fiscal year 2012, the attack submarine fleet will still drop below 40 before it begins to increase again. If the 2-per-year procurement keeps getting pushed off to the left--it has already happened 10 times where it has been pushed back--the submarine force would drop as low as 28. I think we all agree that 28 is a number that cannot be justified in terms of the demand and in terms of this effort. We have to do quite a bit to move up the construction of two submarines per year. First, the report language accompanying this bill states: ``The Committee does not understand the continuing delays in increasing the [submarine] construction rate'' and directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a detailed plan for lowering costs and defining goals and benchmarks for the Virginia class production program. I believe this language will help compel the Navy and the industry to redouble their efforts to increase the construction rate--and that is vitally important. Second, I am pleased to know that this legislation includes $65 million for R&D for the Virginia class submarines. This R&D is I think critical not only to improve the capabilities of these ships but also to continue to engage in the design force which is part of the human capital in our submarine industrial base. Also, I note that the bill includes $10 million for funding to begin design work on the successor to the Ohio class ballistic submarine. This design work is essential to continue our ability to produce a follow-on generation of attack submarines but also ballistic submarines. I think this is absolutely critical. Let me turn to another point with respect to our Army; that is, end strength. I am pleased to see that this bill authorizes an Active-Duty Army end strength of 512,400, which is 30,000 over the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request. The act also authorizes an Active-Duty Marine Corps of 180,000, which is 5,000 over the President's budget request. I think it is important to maintain the end strength of the Army. I think it is a result of the efforts of Senators Lott and Talent and myself on the budget resolution, where we actually moved $3.7 billion to accomplish this. Let me make one final point, if I may. The Army end strength is a critical issue. I think we have to note, at this time but also at a later date continue to note, that recruiting is becoming a critical issue for the U.S. Army. According to the information I have, the U.S. Army, in the first three-quarters of the year, has recruited to a level of 40,000. That means in the final quarter the Army is going to have to recruit 40,000 soldiers to meet their goals. That is much higher than they have ever done in the last few years. We have a recruiting problem that is beginning to emerge. I will devote additional time on this subject at a later time. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I will yield.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank Senators Stevens and Inouye for including a report in Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act, S. 2012, to study council management coordination between the New England Fishery Management Council and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, MAFMC. This report speaks to an issue of great importance to Rhode Island fishermen. I would also like to thank Senator Lautenberg for working with me on developing this language. In October 2005, I introduced the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act in order to address a serious flaw in our Nation's regional fisheries management system by adding Rhode Island to the MAFMC, which currently consists of representatives from New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. The legislation would create two seats on the MAFMC for Rhode Island: one seat nominated by the Governor of Rhode Island and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, and a second seat filled by Rhode Island's principal state official with marine fishery management responsibility. There is a precedent for this proposed legislation. In 1996, North Carolina's representatives in Congress succeeded in adding that State to the MAFMC through an amendment to the Sustainable Fisheries Act. Like Rhode Island, a significant proportion of North Carolina's landed fish species were managed by the MAFMC, yet the State had no vote on the council. While I am disappointed that this reauthorization bill did not include my legislation, I believe that the report will provide useful information to the Senate that will support Rhode Island's participation as a voting member on the MAFMC based on the Magnuson- Stevens Act's National Standards and the economic value of MAFMC managed species to Rhode Island. The report will provide an opportunity for the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, in consultation with the New England Fishery Management Council, to: evaluate the role of council liaisons in the development and approval of management plans for fisheries in which Rhode Island has a demonstrated interest and significant landings; evaluate approaches developed by the councils to improve representation of non-member States in decision-making; and analyze characteristics that supported North Carolina's inclusion in the MAFMC and how those characteristics support Rhode Island's position. The MAFMC manages the following 13 species, all of which are landed in Rhode Island: Illex squid, loligo squid, Atlantic mackerel, black sea bass, bluefish, butterfish, monkfish, scup, spiny dogfish, summer flounder, surfclam, ocean quahog, and tilefish. Rhode Island fishermen target a large proportion of species managed by MAFMC. These species make up a large proportion of landings within Rhode Island every year. Between 1995 and 2004, MAFMC species represented between 42 percent and 56 percent of all finfish landed in Rhode Island annually, for an average of 37 percent of total landings by weight. The economic value of these species to Rhode Island in 2004 totaled $72.8 million. Between 1995 and 2004, squid, Illex and loligo, was the number one marine species, based on economic value, landed in Rhode Island, with a value of $24.7 million in 2004. Because of these fisheries importance to Rhode Island, both in terms of the economic value and overall landings by weight, I believe the State deserves a vote in the management of these species on the MAFMC. Again, I want to thank Senators Stevens, Inouye, and Lautenberg for their assistance in addressing Rhode Island's interest to become a voting member of the MAFMC. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor the significant accomplishments of Cranston School Superintendent Catherine Ciarlo. Superintendent Ciarlo is retiring on June 30 after 46 years of working tirelessly to educate and raise the academic achievement of Rhode Island's students. After graduating cum laude from Rhode Island College with a bachelor's degree in elementary education, Catherine entered the classroom as a reading teacher the beginning of her lifelong commitment to developing and improving the literacy skills of Rhode Island's children. Horace Mann, considered by many historians to be the father of modern American education, once said, ``Teachers teach because they care. Teaching young people is what they do best. It requires long hours, patience, and care.'' Superintendent Ciarlo consistently exhibited all of these qualities, devoting her life to leading the Cranston school system to new scholastic heights and maintaining a steady focus on providing her students with a high-quality, first-class education. Catherine was appointed superintendent of Cranston Public Schools in 1997. During her tenure, she has helped foster a strong community of learning for all Cranston students. A potent symbol of her successful efforts as Cranston superintendent is the district's most current State report card where it met or exceeded proficiency targets in math and literacy across all grades and racial subgroups, and for both ESL students and those with disabilities. These scores are also an emblem of what is likely to be Catherine's most enduring legacy her passionate dedication for ensuring that students whom traditionally might have gotten lost in the shuffle were given the necessary support to enable them to thrive academically. Superintendent Ciarlo's contributions have been recognized in the past, most notably in 2005, when she was named Rhode Island's Superintendent of the Year and as a finalist for National Superintendent of the Year. Countless students owe their academic and professional success and achievements to Superintendent Ciarlo's efforts. Educators such as Catherine form the backbone of American society, providing our children with the essential tools to succeed in an ever-expanding global economy and keeping the United States competitive in the world. I have a special place in my heart for the Cranston School System. For many years my father worked there, ultimately as the supervisor of custodians. He would be very proud of ``his system'' under the expert leadership of Catherine Ciarlo. So am I. Thank you for your exemplary service, Catherine, and for your important contribution to the education of Rhode Island's students.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, as indicated previously, I would like to make a short statement pertaining to the supplemental appropriations conference report before us. It is interesting, my colleague from Florida spoke about the lessons of Hurricane Katrina. One of those lessons is we have to be prepared. In Rhode Island, we worked with Chairman Cochran, Ranking Member Byrd, and also with Senator Harry Reid to incorporate within the supplemental appropriations bill an appropriation to help prepare our hurricane barrier in Providence, RI. I thank the chairman, Senator Byrd, and Senator Reid for this effort. Unfortunately, this provision did not survive the conference committee, and we are not able today to tell the people of Rhode Island that we are giving them much needed help to strengthen the Fox Point hurricane barrier. The Fox Point hurricane barrier literally is the protection that will preserve Providence, RI, and the surrounding areas from a devastating hurricane. It protects the city. It protects all the key resources there, such as the infrastructure. It is right at the head of Narragansett Bay. That is where Providence sits, and in a hurricane, if it roars up that bay, there is not much to stop it except this barrier. It was built in the 1960s. It was at that time a modern, state-of- the-art construction, but the years have intervened. It is no longer a state-of-the-art construction. It needs work. It needs the electro- mechanical system control system replaced. It is one of the few major facilities in the country that I think is still operated by its original electrical components. The barrier employs three 35-foot-high gates that are electronically operated. This is not only to keep the water out, but to make sure they can still continue to pump water from the rivers that back up the hurricane barrier. Now, most people don't think Rhode Island is the prime target of hurricanes, but in 1938 and in 1954 we were dealt devastating blows. In fact, the damage from the hurricane in 1938 in those dollars was $125 million. Today it would be $1 billion. Hurricane Carol in 1954 flooded Providence, leaving the city under 8 feet of water and destroying 4,000 houses. So we have a need to help the city upgrade these facilities to provide the kind of improved equipment and improved performance that will assure us that if a hurricane comes--and we all know that eventually they will come to Rhode Island and to the rest of the eastern seaboard--we will be prepared. Again, I thank the chairman and others for their work to put the money in, and I am disappointed that the money was taken out. I hope that in the future we can find another way in which we can protect the people of Providence, RI, and the whole State of Rhode Island. Mr. President, with that, I once again congratulate Senator Byrd, and I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business with respect to a tribute to Senator Byrd and then make another statement with respect to the conference report.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, on Monday, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia reached an extraordinary milestone: 17,327 days in the United States Senate, almost 48 years. He has cast over 17,000 rollcall votes. His congressional career has spanned the tenure of 10 Presidents, beginning with President Dwight David Eisenhower. In West Virginia, he has run 14 times and never lost. He has served for over 60 years in both the House and the Senate and other public service. This year he is running for his unprecedented ninth term as a United States Senator from West Virginia. Suffice it to say, he is the longest serving Senator in the history of West Virginia, as he is in the history of the United States. He is the only person in West Virginia to carry every county in the State, all 55. He has run unopposed for the Senate because of the regard, the respect, and, indeed, the affection of the people of West Virginia. He is 88 years old. He is not slowing down, he has never slowed down, and he will keep it up. As a Member of the Senate, he has been a leader--Democratic whip, majority and minority leader, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and President pro tempore of the Senate on two occasions. In everything he has done, he has been a champion of the Constitution and the people of West Virginia. He secured billions of dollars in funding for his home State, and he has been a leader on mine safety and other issues that are so closely tied to his constituents. In May 2001, Senator Byrd was given the award that everyone recognizes is his due. Gov. Bob Wise and both houses of the West Virginia General Assembly named him ``West Virginian of the 20th Century,'' and he is striving now for the 21st century. He is an individual who is a self-made man, starting off in war industries in a shipyard, and earning his law degree cum laude from American University while a Member of the United States Congress. He is also someone who recognizes the need for education of others. He created the Robert C. Byrd National Honors Scholarship. This scholarship provides opportunities for young Americans to pursue education as he has pursued his education. He is a historian--a historian of this Senate and the Roman Senate. In fact, his 3,000-page ``History of the United States Senate'' is the premier history of this August body. He is a defender, a supporter, and, in some cases, the living embodiment of the United States Constitution. He carries it with him everywhere and every time. He is someone who not only talks about the Constitution, but on the floor of this Senate and in this country defends it each day. He is an individual of great prominence. He is an individual of great humanity. There is only one fact, I think, that is dimming this very special occasion for the Senator, and that is, it is not being shared by his beloved wife Erma Ora Byrd. But she is looking on this day with the same satisfaction, the same sense of accomplishment. It is only fitting to close with a quote from Senator Byrd because I can in no way match his oratorical skills. In September 1998, he addressed the history of the Senate and he said: Clio being my favorite muse, let me begin this evening with a look backward over the well-traveled roads of history. History always turns our faces backward, and this is as it should be, so that we might be better informed and prepare to exercise wisdom in dealing with future events. His grasp of the past has given him a wise and insightful view of the future. He has always encouraged us to learn our history and then practice our history to shape the future of this country in this Hall of the Senate. He has stood tall on so many occasions, but most notably I think was in October 2002. With an iron will and articulate voice, he questioned the policy of this Government as we entered this fight in Iraq. History, I think, will record his wisdom, his decency, and his contribution to the country. Although I am a day late, I hope I am not a dollar short. Congratulations to Senator Byrd on his model accomplishment.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern about efforts by the President and some in Congress to repeal or all but eliminate 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 1 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 estate tax is simple: when a very wealthy person dies, 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. This tax raises significant revenue, it is highly progressive, and it provides an important backstop to the income tax. Today, only estates worth more than $2 million are subject to the estate tax and an individual will be able to pass along up to $3.5 million tax-free by 2009. A couple can pass along twice that amount. And let's not forget that estate planning often shields even greater sums of wealth from taxation. The House Committee on Government Reform estimates that the heirs of Lee Raymond, former ExxonMobile CEO, and the current CEOs of the five largest U.S. oil companies would receive a windfall of up to $211 million if the estate tax were permanently repealed. The committee has also calculated that estate tax repeal could save the heirs of President Bush, Vice President Cheney and 11 Cabinet members as much as $344 million. It would be hard to call this a middle class tax cut without pretending a great deal. Indeed, the Congressional Research Service reports that in 2004 when the exemption was $1.5 million, 99 percent of estates paid no estate taxes whatsoever. It bears repeating that less than one-half of 1 percent of estates will pay any tax at all as the estate tax exemption climbs to $3.5 million by 2009. Despite the concerns expressed by some farm and small business groups, the vast majority of taxable estates are those of multimillionaires and billionaires who made their fortunes through their business and investments in securities and real estate or were born into extremely wealthy families. After the President's tax cuts passed in 2001, he took a victory lap through Iowa where the New York Times quoted the President as saying: I heard somebody say, ``Well, you know, the death tax doesn't cause people to sell their farms.'' He added: I don't know who they're talking to in Iowa. Perhaps it was Neil Harl, an Iowa State, University economist whose tax advice has made him a household name among farmers throughout the Midwest. He has searched far and wide but has never found a case in which a farm was sold to pay estate taxes. ``It's a myth,'' says Professor Harl, who has only found heirs who wanted to sell the family farm. Even the American Farm Bureau Federation, one of the leading advocates of estate tax repeal, can not provide a single example of a farm lost due to estate taxes. The reality is that only a small fraction of taxable estates consists primarily of family-owned farm or small business assets. The Tax Policy Center estimates that in 2004, only 440 taxable estates--2 percent of all taxable estate--were primarily made up of farm or business assets. And the Congressional Budget Office found that the vast majority of family farms and small business estates would have sufficient liquid assets--such as bank accounts, stocks, bonds, and insurance--to pay the tax without having to sell any farm or business assets. CBO also found that with a $3.5 million exemption--$7 million per couple--only 13 or fewer farms would encounter any liquidity constraints. Moreover, there are already special provisions in place to ease tax burdens for family-owned small businesses and farms, such as allowing additional sums to be bequeathed tax free and permitting estate taxes to be paid in installments over 14 years at favorable interest rates. So if saving family farms and small businesses is not the real root of the repeal effort, you would think that there would be some sound economic rationale. However, claims by proponents that eliminating the estate tax would encourage saving and investment, reward entrepreneurship, and contribute to economic growth turn out to be myths as well. Repeal advocates argue that capital assets have already been taxed during the taxpayer's lifetime, so a tax at death is gratuitous. But the reality is that a large share of capital assets has never been taxed. Under current law, we have a provision called the ``step-up'' in basis that allows capital gains from the appreciation of assets--such as a house or stocks--during the decedent's lifetime to escape taxation through 2009. In 2010, the lone year in which full repeal is currently slated to be in effect, we switch to a ``carry-over basis'' in which heirs of large estates would inherit the potential capital gains liability that is realized only when the asset is sold. In effect, today under the pretax law, the heirs receive the estate but on a stepped-up basis--the current value of the home. So for the home the father purchased for $30,000 and is now worth $1 million, they receive the estate based on the value of a million dollars. No taxes were ever paid on that appreciation other than the estate tax. The Small Business Council of America opposes the full repeal of the estate tax because they estimate that a great number of small business owners will be worse off due to the loss of step-up in basis and only an extraordinary few will be better off. Four years from now, the Halls of Congress will be filled with heirs who won't want to pay taxes that they have inherited with repeal of the estate tax. But any economic rationale for repeal falls apart when you learn that it will reduce national saving and hurt economic growth. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, making estate tax repeal permanent would cost an additional $369 billion over 10 years. This estimate, however, dramatically understates the true cost of repeal. The full cost of repeal would not be felt until the second decade, beyond the time period of the budget estimates. In that decade, the cost of repeal could reach nearly $800 billion, plus debt service costs that would bring the total to nearly $1 trillion. A compromise plan currently circulating in the Senate would permanently raise the exemption to $5 million and cut the top estate tax rate to 15 percent, which would cost nearly as much as full repeal, and it is not much of a bargain. Rising federal budget deficits make the cost of repeal or ``repeal- lite'' even more unpalatable. 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. The President's tax cuts were passed at a time of huge projected surpluses in the Federal budget. The surpluses have been squandered by this administration and with deficits as far as the eye can see, it is simply irresponsible for the President and Republicans in Congress to press for full repeal of this tax. By financing repeal with debt, we would be replacing the so-called ``death tax'' for a few very wealthy heirs with a ``birth tax'' for all, an action that seems neither wise nor fair. The cost of estate tax repeal will be paid for with borrowed money. Future generations of taxpayers--who will make significantly less than the deceased multimillionaires and billionaires whose estates would no longer owe taxes--will have to repay those funds. Estate tax repeal would raise the per-person debt burden by about $3,000 in just the first 10 years after the tax disappears. In 2005, the CEO of ExxonMobile earned $9.1 million. Contrast that with the fact that the typical firefighter, police officer, or soldier today makes less than $50,000 a year and the inequity of this repeal is inescapable. Clearly, estate tax repeal will predominately benefit the heirs of a handful of very wealthy estates. According to the Forbes 2005 ``World's Richest'' list, three members of the Mars family have $10.4 billion each and four members of the Walton family have nearly $20 billion each. These heirs still rank among the world's wealthiest people even after taxes. Jamie Johnson, heir to the Johnson and Johnson fortune, put it this way, ``I was always told that the American Dream is about getting a bigger and better life than your parents have. But that dream was accomplished by my great-grandfather. `` In their book about the history and politics of the estate tax, Death by a Thousand Cuts, Yale professors Michael J. Graetz and Ian Shapiro provide an eye-opening account of how a few very wealthy individuals and families have been working long and hard behind the scenes on repeal efforts. In the meantime, some of the wealthiest Americans-- including Warren Buffett, William Gates, Sr., George Soros, and Ted Turner--have warned about the corrosive effect of eliminating the estate tax. When Teddy Roosevelt endorsed the idea of an inheritance tax, he said that its ``primary objectives should be to put a constantly increasing burden on the inheritance of those swollen fortunes, which it is certainly of no benefit to this country to perpetuate.'' Indeed, our Founding Fathers abandoned an economic aristocracy--where large fortunes were handed down generation after generation, concentrating wealth and power--to create a meritocracy based on the ideal of equal opportunity for all. Underlying the estate tax is the notion that because our government provides a stable environment for wealth to be created and flourish--our financial markets, legal system, regulatory system, and strong national defense--society is owed a modest return on those investments. Television ads last year depicted a World War II veteran supporting the repeal of the estate tax, the underlying message being that the tax is somehow unpatriotic. Ironically, the estate tax was first adopted in the nineteenth century to pay for government shortfalls due to wartime spending. 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 nearly 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 going to vote on repealing one of the most progressive taxes on the books. There has been a lot of discussion about the death tax. It is not the death tax. It is the estate tax. But there is a death tax that is paid by Americans to sustain and support this country--and it is terribly unfair because it falls on a few. In Iraq, it has fallen upon 2,480 of our soldiers. In Afghanistan, it has fallen upon 299. It also falls upon the police and fire officers who each day risk their lives and some who give their lives. They truly pay the death tax. They will never be touched by this estate tax. The average base pay of a specialist in the U.S. Army is $24,000. He won't be worried nor will his family be worried about the estate tax. Firefighters make about $40,000; police officers, $47,000 on average in this country. Yet, sadly, too many of them each year for their country pay the ultimate death tax. It is more debilitating than any check one sends to the IRS. What do they need? What do their families need? They certainly need a strong, robust economy that will support their families in the future. For those young Americans who are wounded in action--and right now in Iraq, 17,869--they need a strong Veterans Administration to support them years from now just when this repeal of the estate tax burden would take its toll and take more and more money away from the Federal revenue. They are the ones who really pay the cost. If we pass this measure, we won't be able to help them when they need the help. We won't be able to support the Veterans' Administration system. We won't be able to provide the kind of support for education, for opportunities for higher education that will be so necessary for their children. This repeal vote misses the point. The death tax was a slogan thought up by Republican operatives to sell an idea that does not have a compelling economic rationale. But there is a real death tax, and sadly, Americans in uniform must pay it for this country every day. They will receive no benefit from this repeal. Indeed, our ability to help them and their families will be limited in the years ahead. I don't think this is just bad policy, it is unconscionable. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, a short time ago the Senate approved the nomination of GEN Michael Hayden to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I think it was an appropriate confirmation by this body, but I do think it is also appropriate to comment on the nomination of General Hayden. Twenty months ago, I came to the Senate floor to oppose the nomination of Porter Goss for the same position, as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. At that time, I stated that the Director of Central Intelligence is a unique position. It should stand above politics. The citizens of the United States have the right to assume that the Director of Central Intelligence is providing objective information and analysis to allow the President to make the best possible decisions. I didn't believe that a partisan choice was the proper choice then, and it seems in fact that was the case. Mr. Goss is an example of where this administration believed that its political agenda was more important than the security of our country. The CIA was in turmoil then, and it is in turmoil now. The Agency's assessments were distrusted then and are still subject to skepticism now. Many more experienced operatives have resigned. Mr. Goss, a political operative chosen by President Bush to lead the Central Intelligence Agency through a difficult period while engaged in a war, failed in this mission. So the administration is trying again. This time, the President has chosen an intelligence veteran. General Hayden has served our Nation for the past 37 years as a distinguished intelligence officer in the U.S. Air Force. He has most recently held positions as Director of the National Security Agency and the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence. General Hayden is well versed in intelligence matters, he is well known in the community, and I do not believe he is a partisan political operative. There is evidence that General Hayden has been and can be independent and objective. General Hayden is a better choice, a much better choice, than Mr. Goss. However, I still have some concerns. First, there has been much discussion about General Hayden's position in the military and his ability to be independent from the Defense Department in his assessments and in his operations. While the law has always allowed a military officer to serve in this position, I believe there is a valid reason for concern. The fiscal year 2007 national Defense authorization bill addresses this issue. It states that flag and general officers assigned to certain positions in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA shall not be subject to the supervision or control of the Secretary of Defense or exercise any supervision or control of military or civilian personnel in the Department of Defense, except as authorized by law. I believe this is an important provision and only one reason the Defense authorization bill should be considered as soon as possible, to get this position on the books of law. However, I also believe we have to go a step further. I think if a military officer is chosen as the Director of National Intelligence or Director of Central Intelligence, that position should be a terminal assignment. That position should be recognized by the officer and by other members in the Department of Defense and the administration as the final assignment of that particular officer. I believe it best for our national security if an officer who takes one of these top intelligence positions is free from considerations about his future military career--what assignments he might be given, who he might be angering in the Department of Defense, who he might be pleasing within the Department of Defense, either consciously or subconsciously. As I said earlier, intelligence should be above politics, and it also should be above the politics within the Pentagon of assignments and of budgets and of other considerations. A law stating that the position as Director of Central Intelligence or National Intelligence is a final military assignment would help clarify this position in detail. It is an issue I will raise again during the consideration of the Defense authorization bill. General Hayden has agreed, in consultation with Senator Warner and also in consultation with his family, that it is his intent to make this his final military assignment. I have no doubt that he will do that, but I believe it is important to formalize this provision in the law. That is why I will bring this to the attention of our colleagues when the Defense authorization bill comes to the floor. There is another issue, of course, that is of concern. That issue is the administration's terrorist surveillance program. General Hayden headed the National Security Agency when the program was proposed and implemented. From what we know today, that program conducted electronic surveillance of international telephone calls and collected millions of domestic phone records. Let me be clear. A vote in support of General Hayden should not be construed as an endorsement of this administration's surveillance program. Nor should concerns about the administration's programs be viewed as an unwillingness to adopt aggressive intelligence activities against those who truly threaten this country. I believe we still do not know enough of the facts about these programs. From what I do know, however, I have grave concerns. A thorough investigation must be conducted and must be conducted in a timely manner, but General Hayden was not the creator of the program, nor was he the one to provide the legal authority for the program. He stated he needed authority to implement such a surveillance program and the administration provided him with the authority he felt was sufficient. On this issue, at this time I will give General Hayden the benefit of the doubt. I did support the nomination of General Hayden. I am certain he knows he is taking a very difficult job at a very difficult moment. Many other honorable men and women have joined this administration. They have come to this administration with years of experience and expertise, and they have found themselves in very difficult dilemmas, where their experience and their expertise was challenged by this administration. Their objectivity, their sense of duty--not to a particular President but to the country overall--has been seriously challenged. In certain cases, the only remedy for these individuals is to resign rather than continue to support policies that they feel in their hearts and in their minds are not serving the best interests of this country. General Hayden might come to such a decision point, and I hope, given his skill, his experience, and his dedication to duty, that he would take the harder right than the easier wrong. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to one of Rhode Island's most highly decorated soldiers, Commander Richard L. Cevoli of East Greenwich. Commander Cevoli served our nation bravely in both World War II and the Korean War. In honor of his sacrifices and service to his nation, I am introducing a bill, along with Senator Chafee, to name the post office located at 5775 Post Road in East Greenwich, RI, the ``Richard L. Cevoli Post Office.'' Commander Cevoli was born in East Greenwich, Rhode Island, on October 24, 1919, and died in a tragic plane crash in Florida on January 18, 1955. He went to Rhode Island State College, which is now the University of Rhode Island, and earned a degree in civil engineering. In 1941, after graduation, he moved to New York and began working for the engineering firm of Merritt, Chapman & Scott. The month after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Richard Cevoli returned to Rhode Island and entered the Navy. He was sent to flight training in Dallas, Sanford, and Pensacola before being assigned to Squadron VF-18, based on the USS Intrepid in the Pacific. It was during his service with the VF-18 that Commander Cevoli was awarded the second-highest medal awarded in the Navy--the Navy Cross. This honor was given to Commander Cevoli during the Battle of Leyte Gulf off the Philippines coast in October of 1944. Along with other fighters, Commander Cevoli strafed the largest Japanese ship, silencing many of its guns. The following day, he severely damaged a Japanese aircraft carrier with a 500-pound bomb. On a subsequent attack on the Japanese forces, as is recorded in his medal citation, ``Cevoli disregarded the terrific antiaircraft opposition and scored a near miss on a Kongo class battleship with a 500-pound bomb. Then, pulling out he made a second run to strafe a destroyer, silencing its antiaircraft weapons and thereby contributing to our successful bombing and torpedo attacks which followed. His outstanding courage and determination were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.'' Following his service during the war, he returned to Rhode Island and continued his Navy career at Naval Air Station, Quonset Point. However, the peace was short-lived. North Korea invaded South Korea, and another major conflict quickly began. From 1949 until 1951, Commander Cevoli served as the Executive Officer in Squadron VF-18 on board the USS Leyte, seeing action in Korea. In addition to the Navy Cross, Commander Cevoli earned two Distinguished Flying Crosses and eight Air Medals during his active flying career. Once the conflict in Korea had ended, Commander Cevoli was able to spend more time at home. He took classes at the Naval War College in Newport and in July, 1954 he was placed in command of Squadron VF-73. Tragically, he died serving his country when his plane crashed during a training mission. Commander Cevoli left behind a wife, Grace, and three children, Steven, Carol, and Elizabeth. A life-long resident of East Greenwich, Commander Cevoli's legacy is memorialized in the Rhode Island Aviation Hall of Fame. This legislation will pay tribute to this hero of Rhode Island and the United States, and I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Commander Cevoli by supporting this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to one of Rhode Island's most highly decorated soldiers, Commander Richard L. Cevoli of East Greenwich. Commander Cevoli served our nation bravely in both World War II and the Korean War. In honor of his sacrifices and service to his nation, I am introducing a bill, along with Senator Chafee, to name the post office located at 5775 Post Road in East Greenwich, RI, the ``Richard L. Cevoli Post Office.'' Commander Cevoli was born in East Greenwich, Rhode Island, on October 24, 1919, and died in a tragic plane crash in Florida on January 18, 1955. He went to Rhode Island State College, which is now the University of Rhode Island, and earned a degree in civil engineering. In 1941, after graduation, he moved to New York and began working for the engineering firm of Merritt, Chapman & Scott. The month after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Richard Cevoli returned to Rhode Island and entered the Navy. He was sent to flight training in Dallas, Sanford, and Pensacola before being assigned to Squadron VF-18, based on the USS Intrepid in the Pacific. It was during his service with the VF-18 that Commander Cevoli was awarded the second-highest medal awarded in the Navy--the Navy Cross. This honor was given to Commander Cevoli during the Battle of Leyte Gulf off the Philippines coast in October of 1944. Along with other fighters, Commander Cevoli strafed the largest Japanese ship, silencing many of its guns. The following day, he severely damaged a Japanese aircraft carrier with a 500-pound bomb. On a subsequent attack on the Japanese forces, as is recorded in his medal citation, ``Cevoli disregarded the terrific antiaircraft opposition and scored a near miss on a Kongo class battleship with a 500-pound bomb. Then, pulling out he made a second run to strafe a destroyer, silencing its antiaircraft weapons and thereby contributing to our successful bombing and torpedo attacks which followed. His outstanding courage and determination were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.'' Following his service during the war, he returned to Rhode Island and continued his Navy career at Naval Air Station, Quonset Point. However, the peace was short-lived. North Korea invaded South Korea, and another major conflict quickly began. From 1949 until 1951, Commander Cevoli served as the Executive Officer in Squadron VF-18 on board the USS Leyte, seeing action in Korea. In addition to the Navy Cross, Commander Cevoli earned two Distinguished Flying Crosses and eight Air Medals during his active flying career. Once the conflict in Korea had ended, Commander Cevoli was able to spend more time at home. He took classes at the Naval War College in Newport and in July, 1954 he was placed in command of Squadron VF-73. Tragically, he died serving his country when his plane crashed during a training mission. Commander Cevoli left behind a wife, Grace, and three children, Steven, Carol, and Elizabeth. A life-long resident of East Greenwich, Commander Cevoli's legacy is memorialized in the Rhode Island Aviation Hall of Fame. This legislation will pay tribute to this hero of Rhode Island and the United States, and I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Commander Cevoli by supporting this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to discuss S. 2611, the immigration bill we are debating this week. It has been a difficult debate with several difficult votes, but I believe this is one of the most important pieces of legislation we will address this year. The status of immigrants in this country, including legal aliens, guest workers, and illegal aliens, has a profound impact on our economy, our labor force, and the quality of life of all of the Nation's residents. Clearly, our immigration system in terms of both its punitive measures and its benefits offered is in need of overhaul. The bill before us is not perfect, but it is a realistic approach to dealing with an issue that is important to so many Americans. Rather than measures that sound good but are ineffective, this legislation is truly comprehensive immigration reform. It includes tough enforcement provisions directed at those who seek to come here illegally in the future and those who would hire illegal aliens. It contains provisions for guest workers that balance the needs of employers and the average American worker, and it offers a path to legalization to those who entered this country illegally but who have since been working hard and obeying the rules. One of the most important sections of this bill relates to enforcement. Clearly, the continuous flow of illegal immigrants across our southern border in particular in search of higher paying jobs in the United States strains our Nation's labor market and resources such as hospitals and schools and law enforcement. I note that while illegal immigration has been a significant problem since the 1980s, the problems have only worsened in the past 6 years. The 9/11 Commission gave the Bush administration a grade of C-minus on border security. The administration has simply lost control of the border. In the past decade, between 700,000 and 800,000 illegal immigrants have arrived in this country annually. Over 70 percent of these individuals are from Mexico or South America or from Central America. During the same period from 1995 to 2005, the number of Border Patrol agents increased from 4,876 to 11,106. However, while the number of border agents increased dramatically during the Bush administration, the number of apprehensions at the border declined 31 percent from the last 4 years of the Clinton administration. In addition, approximately one-half of the 11 million illegal aliens in this country live in the 46 nonborder States, yet the average apprehension rate during the Bush administration is 25,901 individuals per year in interior States away from the border. But apprehending individuals illegally crossing the border only partially solves the problem. The reason so many try to enter this country is the search for jobs. We must work to cut off the supply of jobs by making it too costly for employers to hire illegals. Again, this administration has performed poorly in this area. In fiscal year 2004, the last year in which data is available, the Justice Department only obtained 46 convictions for employer violations of illegal immigrant employment laws. Audits of employers suspected of utilizing labor have dropped from a peak of 8,000 per year under President Clinton to less than 2,200 in fiscal year 2003 under President Bush. The number of cases resulting in fines has declined from a peak of 900 under President Clinton to a total of 124 in fiscal year 2003. I would therefore say that the first step to improve enforcement would be to actually enforce the laws that are already on the books. In addition, I believe the bill adds many useful enforcement measures. I would like to highlight a few that I feel are most significant. I am particularly pleased with the focus on technology. This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to create a virtual fence along the borders using unmanned aerial vehicles, cameras, sensors, tethered aerostat radars, and other surveillance equipment. This bill also requires the Department of Homeland Security to work with other agencies such as the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration to develop plans for sharing assets and implementing surveillance strategies. In addition, this bill includes provisions which replace and extend existing fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border. While I realize that building additional fences may be an attractive option, ultimately I believe this approach would be expensive and ineffective. History has proven that fences simply drive the illegal immigration flow to cross by land through more inhospitable terrain, increasing the number of deaths, or to enter by boat through our largely unprotected ports and shores. For example, once a triple fence was built in the San Diego area, apprehensions dropped dramatically, but they increased 342 percent during the same period in Tuscon, away from the fence. In addition, during that period, it is estimated that 1,954 people died attempting to cross the Sonoran Desert to reach Tucson. I also believe that wall is a symbol of distrust which can only weaken our relations, particularly with Mexico. It is a country we need to cooperate with to reduce the flow of illegal aliens. For these reasons, last week I voted against the Sessions amendment to add 370 more miles of triple-layer fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers along our southern border. I believe the funding could be spent in more effective ways using new technologies. This bill also improves enforcement of employers who might unlawfully hire illegal aliens. First, it reduces the number of documents that can be used to prove legal status. It also increases verification and recordkeeping requirements. Most importantly, it establishes an electronic employment verification system. Under this program, employers must electronically verify new hires' employment authorization within 3 days through the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security databases. All employers will have to participate in the system within the next 5 years. The bill also provides for punitive measures for employers who do not participate. Such a system will help standardize enforcement, making it more certain that employers hiring illegals will be found out and therefore providing a deterrent effect. I believe the measure I have discussed, along with others in the bill, will help control the stream of illegal aliens entering this country. As we all are aware, one of the most controversial aspects of this bill is that it provides a path to legalization for approximately 11 million illegal immigrants living in this country. I believe that while this is a difficult decision, it is a necessary one. Logic and history dictate that these individuals will certainly not return to their native countries voluntarily. In addition, it is not possible to apprehend and return all of them involuntarily. If apprehensions continue at the present rate and new illegal immigration ceases, it would still take 228 years for this country to be free of illegal immigrants. In the meantime, a significant segment of our population is living in the shadows and in constant fear of being caught working for low wages, often in terrible conditions, without health care, without a way to redress any crimes against them. So many being forced to live this way lowers the standard of living for all of us--by decreasing job opportunities, lowering wages and the standards of working conditions for the American workforce, and burdening our hospitals and law enforcement agencies. It is not just a problem for the illegal population, it is a problem for all of us. And it is time we address it. This bill does address it, and I believe in a fair way. It is not what opponents have called amnesty. These people are not illegal one day and enjoying the rights and benefits of legal residency the next without any sacrifice or work on their part. I would like to take a moment to put these provisions I am about to discuss in a historical context. For the vast majority of our Nation's history, there were few, if any, requirements for immigrants entering this country. The first restrictive immigration laws, other than those racially based, were not passed until the late 1880s and did not substantially change for several decades, including during the height of European immigration in the early 1900s. These laws excluded convicts, polygamists, prostitutes, persons suffering from loathsome or contagious diseases, and persons liable to become public charges. The 1917 literacy requirement required individuals to be able to write out 40 words in some language, not necessarily English. These requirements, I would say, were not particularly strenuous. The INS, once established in 1891, actually ran its own schools and supplied textbooks to help immigrants learn English and civics. There was no requirement to work or have marketable skills. For the most part, if you arrived and were relatively healthy, you were admitted. So by these standards, the requirements for earned adjustment are much more significant. First, in order to receive the most benefits from this bill, an individual must prove he or she has already lived in this country for 5 years--time to become a part of the community and, it should be noted, the residency requirement since 1802. These individuals will also have to prove they worked 3 of the past 5 years and then must work continuously for the next 6 years. They must pay all unpaid back income taxes. They must demonstrate an understanding of the English language and an understanding of the history and government of this country. They must submit to fingerprinting and background checks and meet the health and security requirements of every other alien entering the country. Also, they are placed at the ``back of the line'' of applications for adjustment, and, as we all know, that wait is several years. They also have to pay a $2,000 fine as well as other processing fees. Those who have been in this country since January 7, 2004, and have been employed since that time may apply for status called deferred mandatory departure which would allow them to remain in this country for an additional 3 years. During that time, these individuals can apply for immigrant or nonimmigrant status, but ultimately they must leave the country in order to be admitted under that legal status. These hurdles are high and a far cry from amnesty. They strike the proper balance in punishing those who came here illegally and addressing the problems of some illegal aliens in the country. One of the original provisions of S. 2611 about which I had significant reservations was the originally proposed H-2C guest worker program. It would create a new visa category--providing visas for hundreds of thousands of low-skilled workers each year. I understand the argument that this new program is a way to regulate and hopefully slow the flow of illegal aliens who will continue to cross our borders, but I was concerned about immediately implementing the program as it was originally drafted. I believe, however, that it has been vastly improved by the amendment process here on the floor. Senators Dorgan and Stabenow were the first to note the flaws in this program during debate on their amendment to eliminate the program, an amendment which was tabled. Further amendments, however, fix many of these flaws. I wish to commend Senator Bingaman for his amendment, which passed, that reduces the number of H-2C visas allotted annually to 200,000 and eliminates the provision that would allow this number to automatically increase in future years. This amendment provides some needed limitation on the H-2C program until we see how all the provisions of S. 2611 are working. I also wish to commend Senator Obama for offering his amendment, which was accepted and which provides adequate requirements for the wages offered to H-2C visa workers. One of the greatest challenges of allowing low-skilled workers in this country is balancing their needs with the needs of the American labor force. Over the past 32 months, real average hourly earnings have fallen by 1.2 percent. Without adequate protections, an influx of workers who will accept lower wages risks bringing down the wages and working conditions of everyone. I also worry that companies will use this visa program as a recruiting device for cheap labor rather than truly offering opportunities to individuals who want a better life in the United States. Senator Obama's amendment will work against those dangers, and I am pleased it was included. I must state that I continue to have one concern about this program-- the bilateral agreement. For our immigration system to truly work, it is critical that the United States have cooperation regarding enforcement with countries and citizens flocking to this country. I was, therefore, pleased to find that S. 2611 requires the United States to enter into bilateral agreements on numerous issues, including taking back aliens removed from the United States, document forgery, smuggling, human trafficking, and gang membership. However, this bill does not state that these bilateral agreements must be completed before the H-2C program is established. I believe a delay in concluding bilateral agreements may undercut the purpose of the H-2C program. I will continue to monitor the situation, and I believe it is an issue Congress may have to address again in the near future. Let me conclude very briefly by pointing out that there is a category of residents here, the Liberian community, who have been here legally since the late 1980s. For years, I have been endeavoring to provide relief so that these individuals, who are important and decent members of communities all across this country, could reach permanent status in United States and aspire to citizenship. I am pleased to note that in this bill, there is a means to do that. They can avail themselves of the mechanism others will use for their pathway to citizenship. It is long overdue. I am disappointed that we could not specifically rectify this problem years ago and recognize their contributions as legal residents here under temporary protective status. But I am pleased that this legislation will go a long way to give the Liberian community a pathway to citizenship. I am pleased to support this legislation. I commend the sponsors and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and Senator Kennedy for their work. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.