Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I think probably the most efficient way to do this is let me yield the floor to the Senator from Maine. When she concludes, I ask the Senator from Montana be recognized. At the conclusion of the comments of the Senator from Montana, if I can be recognized again, I will finish my statement.

Mr. REED. I yield to the Democratic leader.

Mr. REED. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: I believe what happened, the floor manager raised a budget point of order. I have requested a waiver of that act. We have agreed at some time in the future we will have a vote on that. Now it is in order to have further discussion of the amendment, and Senator Cantwell can discuss her amendment.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I will continue my remarks about the LIHEAP program. I certainly salute the Senator from Montana for his passion, his eloquence, and his sense of decency. We should be moving on this legislation. It is a bipartisan effort, just as this LIHEAP legislation is a bipartisan effort. They are both linked by the devastation in the gulf. So many families have been displaced from their homes, their homes destroyed. They are looking for health care. Other families in the Northeast, in the Midwest, in the Far West, and in the Mountain States where this winter will be cold and difficult to bear will also see the effects of Katrina. They have seen them already in rising energy prices. As I indicated in my prior remarks, this is the second wave, the second surge. The first was waters through the gulf. The second is increased energy prices for the rest of the country. No family should be forced to make choices between heating or eating. That is precisely what many families will be faced with this winter unless we adopt this proposal and increase LIHEAP funding by $3.1 billion. The RAND Corporation found in a study that low-income households reduced food expenditures by roughly the same amount as their increases in fuel expenditures. They cut back on food to pay for heat. That is not something any American wants to see or wants us to tolerate. It is particularly difficult for seniors. Recently, I visited the home of Mr. Ohanian in Cranston, RI. Mr. Ohanian is an 88-year-old veteran of our military service. He served this country. Now he lives on a Social Security check of $779 a month. One does not have to have advanced training in economics to figure out that with these energy prices this year in the Northeast--Senator Collins indicated she was paying $2.70 a gallon for heating oil--that adds up quite quickly, and it wipes out a monthly income of $779. As a result, Mr. Ohanian has to go to his daughter's house sometimes for food, goes to soup kitchens to get help. He deserves it. He served this country in a most difficult time, in uniform. What we have is a situation where last year Mr. Ohanian received $600 in LIHEAP payments. It helped. It did not pay for all the fuel costs, but it helped. Unless we put this money in, his costs will be way out of proportion to what he can bear. Recently, the Social Security COLA was announced. It is $65 a month. Any increase is appreciated, but that is already wiped out more or less by increased contributions to health care programs that are required. When you put on top of that for a senior this huge spike in energy prices--be it natural gas, heating oil, or propane--they are losing ground rapidly, unless, of course, we act to at least bring them up to the level of last year's program. We need to fully fund the LIHEAP program at the $5.1 billion authorized in the Energy bill. This amendment would do that. It would add $3.1 billion in emergency spending to the $2 billion the President has requested. That is roughly what we had last year, just a little bit below. Do the math. If we have just $2 billion and we have increased energy prices--just take heating oil. Last year, heating oil was roughly $1.92. Expensive? Yes. Now it is $2.70. The same amount of monthly income, huge increases in energy costs. How can we provide that assistance we provided just last year? As Senator Collins indicated, look at the poverty numbers. Poverty has increased every year for the last several years. There are more people qualified for this program. This is an anticipated disaster--in some respects, the same way Katrina was anticipated. I hope we can learn from Katrina, not just sit back and watch idly, watch the impact, watch poor people suffer. Not just poor people who were caught up in the tumult and terror of New Orleans--but poor people in Portland, ME; New Haven, CT; in Cleveland, OH; in Seattle, WA; in Butte, MT. I expect it gets cold out there in the winter. They will be caught up. I thought after Katrina we had a coming together, led by the President, to recognize we are failing people who are poor, that we are not doing what we have to do to keep faith with them. I can remember his words at the Washington National Cathedral. Have those words evaporated already? Are those words not operative now? I hope they are. I hope we take them to heart. If we do, we will pass this amendment, and we will pass the legislation of Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley. That is what I thought the President was telling us to do at the Cathedral speech. Now, even if we do have funding of an additional $3.1 billion, we are still only serving about one-seventh of the 35 million households poor enough to qualify for assistance. So we are not talking about a program that has so much money that they do not know what to do with it. What they have is so many customers and clients that they do not know what to do with them. And what happens, is these people will apply to the community action agencies across the country, and they will be put on waiting lists. They will try to help some. We can do much better. I hope we can start by passing this legislation. We also need Presidential leadership. What has happened from the speech on the pulpit of the National Cathedral until today when it comes to LIHEAP? Nothing. Those were very powerful words, but they require powerful actions. We have not seen, in this respect, those actions. We have to do other things to get our energy house in order. In fact, this is not just an issue of domestic politics. It is probably the single most important thing we can do over the next several years to improve our strategic position in the world vis-a-vis those who would be our adversaries or those who compete with us. From a national security standpoint, we have to take steps to make our energy future more independent, more sensible. But we have to do things today that will help Americans. I am very proud Senator Cantwell is a cosponsor of this particular amendment. She is also the sponsor of the Energy Emergency Consumer Protection Act to bring prices down at the gas pump in the wake of natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. In addition, we have to pass Senator Dorgan's Windfall Profit Rebate Act which imposes a temporary windfall profit tax on big oil companies and uses the revenue to bring a rebate to American consumers to help offset the higher cost of oil and gasoline products. I am told the oil companies--the energy companies--will be reporting their quarterly earnings in the next few days, and most estimates are they could be the most profitable reports ever issued by companies in this country because of this extraordinary run-up in pricing. Some of that money should come back to Americans. Total energy spending in this Nation this year will approach $1 trillion--24 percent higher than in 2004. It will claim the largest share of U.S. output since the end of the oil crisis 20 years ago. Oil and natural gas companies make huge profits while workers' salaries are declining in real terms. This is wrong. We have to fix it. We have to pass Senator Cantwell's legislation, Senator Dorgan's legislation, and, of course, immediately, we have to help restore funding and increase funding for LIHEAP program. The President and Secretary Bodman have called on Americans to reduce their energy use. They have to lead by example. One way to lead is to support, articulate, and advocate, for sensible energy programs and this LIHEAP proposal to increase that funding. We have to do much more. I hope we begin, with respect to energy, by recognizing the pending crisis that will face so many families in this country, so many seniors. They will be cold this winter. They will give up eating so they can heat their homes. They will miss mortgage payments and rent payments because they have to at least stay warm. We can do much better. America can do better. I hope we do. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I move to waive the applicable sections of the act referenced by the Senator and at the appropriate time would ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. REED. If I could do so and then, with the order being that at the conclusion of Senator Baucus, Senator Collins be recognized to speak.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, from October 7 through October 16, 2005, the National Mall will be transformed into a solar village. The Solar Decathlon 2005 will showcase 18 solar homes designed, built, and operated by university teams from across the United States as well as Canada and Spain. Each of the university teams chosen for the decathlon competed in 10 contests that measured the aesthetics and livability of the solar homes as well as their capacity to provide lighting, heat water, and run household appliances, including a TV, refrigerator, and computer. Each team demonstrated the ability to power an electric car from the energy harnessed by the solar home--an important achievement in this day of skyrocketing fuel prices. I am proud that the Rhode Island School of Design, known as RISD, is among the 18 participating teams in the Solar Decathlon. The first Solar Decathlon, held on the Mall in 2002, received more than 100,000 visitors. The decathlon, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, aims to educate policymakers and the public about alternative energy sources to improve building design and quality of life. The competition motivates participating teams to use cutting-edge solar technologies, renewable materials, and energy-efficient building principles so that these features will become part of the mainstream of home design. RISD's solar home is a team effort on the part of more than 60 students and seven departments from both the Rhode Island School of Design and Brown University. The team was led by architecture faculty members, William Yoder and Jonathan Knowles. These students worked for 2 years on the production of an environmental and energy-smart home design while taking classes specifically geared toward this end. Last week, they transported their solar home to Washington, DC, for assembly on the National Mall. The principle behind RISD's design is to incorporate high-tech solar technologies with low-tech materials that increase energy efficiency. Through this combination, the students illustrated that designers and homeowners do not need to be well-versed in complex technologies to incorporate solar into their homes. Furthermore, many of the materials used in the RISD solar home, while having high insulation values, are reclaimed--an effort on the part of the Rhode Island team to reduce construction waste. As a design school, RISD was concerned about the attractiveness of the materials and design principles, which will improve the marketability of solar home features. Function and aesthetics led the team to incorporate both a roof garden and a louvered skin. The louvered skin is adaptable, so as to reflect heat during the day and keep in heat during cold nights. Moreover, the skin provides ``chameleon-like'' color variations and graphics that add to the home's artistic style as it tracks the cycle of the sun. The roof garden brings an element of tranquility to the home's design but is also a smart use of space for a home designed for an urban setting where a lawn is hard to find. This element is one that illustrates the team's goal to blend the boundary between home and environment. The Rhode Island team also created a home that is adapted to its surroundings. Since the home was designed as an urban dwelling, it uses a north/south orientation, allowing for the home to receive ample lighting if serving as a townhouse between adjacent homes. The RISD team took into account the expansion of its townhouse style to a community scale. With the addition of mirrored or identical units, the entire lot would collectively become more energy efficient. Furthermore, the variations in how these modules fit together would create open spaces that provide a private haven when juxtaposed against an urban backdrop. The Rhode Island team applied great effort to the design of the ``mechanical core'' that runs the heating, cooling, plumbing, and electricity of the house. Centrally located, this unit minimizes the need for ducts and piping throughout the home, thereby increasing energy efficiency throughout the structure. RISD's house is so efficient that it produces enough reserve energy from the sun that it will be able to power a car. Upon conclusion of the competition, several teams will offer the homes that they designed and built for educational or living use. The RISD students intend to transport their solar home back to Providence, RI, where it will serve as an example of smart building design for the community. The Solar Decathlon offers an opportunity to witness first hand the ingenuity of the participating teams and the innovative solutions available to Americans to reduce our energy demand and propel us on a cleaner and sustainable energy path. Visitors to the solar village will be able to tour each of the 800 square-foot homes and ask the students questions regarding their solar design and technology choices. Workshops are scheduled throughout the week for visitors to learn how to incorporate into their homes both active and passive solar energy, improved energy efficiency technologies, and biobased products. My sincere congratulations to the Rhode Island team for a job well done.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today the Senate passed the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill conference report. The bill provides $30.8 billion in discretionary spending for the Department of Homeland Security. While it is important that the Senate acted to pass this legislation, I am concerned about the funding levels provided for critical programs in this conference report. Specifically, the bill cuts funding for vital first-responders grants, and fails to improve our Nation's transit and aviation security. I fear that we have failed to learn from the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London about the vulnerability of our transit system. Yesterday's terrorist threat against the New York City transit system further illustrates the need to increase our efforts in this area. Yet the conference report that we passed today includes only $150 million for transit security grants. In June, Senators Shelby and Sarbanes and I sponsored an amendment to raise funding for transit security to more than $1 billion. Unfortunately, the amendment failed. But it is this level of funding, not $150 million, that is necessary to keep the Nation safe. Every workday, 14 million Americans take a train or a bus. We know that transit systems and their riders are by their very nature prime terrorist targets. Subways, light rail, buses, and ferries are designed for easy access and to move large numbers of people efficiently. These are the facts: Numerous attacks on transit; 6,000 transit systems in the U.S.; and 14 million riders every workday. I don't think anyone can say transit is not a target for terrorists and should not be among our highest homeland security priorities. Yet the Federal Government's response to these facts has been underwhelming. Indeed, the Federal Government has invested $9 in aviation security improvements per passenger, but only $0.006 in public transportation security per passenger. Now, are aviation and transit the same and can we achieve the same level of security in the open access environment of transit? No, but I doubt that the 14 million Americans who use transit every workday think that less than one cent is the appropriate amount to invest in transit security Second, I am concerned about the cuts that the bill provides to aviation screening. The bill would cut funding for the aviation security screener workforce by $125 million from the budget request. This cut will result in 2,000 fewer airport screeners nationwide, including cuts in the number of screeners in Rhode Island. Rather than cutting the number of screeners, we need to increase the nationwide number to 53,000 screeners in order to keep wait times at the current average of about 10 minutes. Yesterday, President Bush in an attempt to rally public support for the war in Iraq stated that the Government disrupted 10 serious terrorist plots since September 11, 2001. Three of these plots involved hijacking airplanes for suicide attacks. Yet, today, the Republican Congress cut the number of screeners serving our airports. Finally, the bill cuts funding for first-responder grants for States and local governments by about 17 percent, $680 billion less than last year, and failed to include a formula to help ensure all states would receive adequate funding and protection. This conference report does not do enough to protect Americans from terrorism threats or natural disasters. This is a continuation of the administration's, and the leadership of this Congress, pattern of failure to learn from past lessons and invest in the essential infrastructure necessary to make our country safe. Is this the type of belt-tightening the administration is willing to accept in order to continue to pay for irresponsible tax cuts?

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act of 2005. This legislation would address a serious flaw in our Nation's regional fisheries management system by adding Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), which currently consists of representatives from New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. 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. In 2003, the most recent year for which final data are available, Rhode Island fishermen brought in 30 percent of MAFMC landings by weight--more than any of the MAFMC member States except New Jersey, which is responsible for about 60 percent of total MAFMC landings. If Rhode Island fishermen are responsible for a large percentage of overall MAFMC landings, these species make up an even larger proportion of landings within Rhode Island every year. Between 1995 and 2003, MAFMC species represented between 32 percent and 56 percent of all finfish landed in Rhode Island annually, for an average of 44 percent of total landings by weight. In eight of the years between 1990 and 2003, squid, Illex and loligo, was the number one marine species landed in Rhode Island, with a value of between $11.6 million and $20.1 million annually. Yet Rhode Island has no voice in the management of these species. Following council tradition and Federal fisheries law, the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act 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. The MAFMC would increase in size from 21 voting members to 23. 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. Today, Rhode Island's share of total landings for species managed by the MAFMC is more than six times greater than that of North Carolina. I look forward to working with my colleagues to restore a measure of equity to the fisheries management process by passing the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act of 2005. This legislation would address a serious flaw in our Nation's regional fisheries management system by adding Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), which currently consists of representatives from New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. 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. In 2003, the most recent year for which final data are available, Rhode Island fishermen brought in 30 percent of MAFMC landings by weight--more than any of the MAFMC member States except New Jersey, which is responsible for about 60 percent of total MAFMC landings. If Rhode Island fishermen are responsible for a large percentage of overall MAFMC landings, these species make up an even larger proportion of landings within Rhode Island every year. Between 1995 and 2003, MAFMC species represented between 32 percent and 56 percent of all finfish landed in Rhode Island annually, for an average of 44 percent of total landings by weight. In eight of the years between 1990 and 2003, squid, Illex and loligo, was the number one marine species landed in Rhode Island, with a value of between $11.6 million and $20.1 million annually. Yet Rhode Island has no voice in the management of these species. Following council tradition and Federal fisheries law, the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act 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. The MAFMC would increase in size from 21 voting members to 23. 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. Today, Rhode Island's share of total landings for species managed by the MAFMC is more than six times greater than that of North Carolina. I look forward to working with my colleagues to restore a measure of equity to the fisheries management process by passing the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, rising energy prices could financially wipe out working-class families and seniors this winter. We are about to see an extraordinary runup in prices that imperil the ability of many families simply to keep their homes warm during this coming winter. In New England, the average cost for a family using heating oil is projected to hit $1,666 during the upcoming winter. This represents an increase of $403 over last winter's prices and $714 over the winter heating season of 2003-2004. That is an extraordinary increase in the cost families have to spend to heat their homes. For a family using natural gas in the Midwest, prices are projected to hit $1,568, representing an increase of $611 over last year's prices and $643 over the price of the 2003-2004 heating season. The Mortgage Bankers Association, looking at this data, expects steep energy costs could increase the number of missed payments and lost homes this year. So we have observers who are fearful that this huge energy shock could cause families to, indeed, lose their homes. In America, no family should be forced to choose between heating their home or putting food on the table for their children. No senior citizen should have to decide to either buy lifesaving pharmaceuticals or pay their electric bill. But, unfortunately, low-income working Americans are facing these decisions this winter. In some respects, this is a tidal wave, not of rising water but of rising energy prices which is a consequence of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. For this reason, Senator Kennedy, Senator Kerry, and I offered an amendment to the Defense Department appropriations bill to provide $3.1 billion in emergency funds for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP. This funding will provide our Nation's most vulnerable--low-income families, seniors, and disabled individuals-- with affordable energy this winter. Again, we saw and were shocked as a nation to see rising waters imperil the most vulnerable in our society on the gulf coast. Well, these rising energy prices will do the same thing by threatening the most vulnerable people through the Northeast, through the Midwest, through every area of the country that anticipates cold weather this winter. I urge my colleagues to join us to secure $3.1 billion in additional LIHEAP funding. In September, I, along with over 20 of my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, sent a letter to the President urging that he include additional funding for LIHEAP in a supplemental appropriations bill for Hurricane Katrina. We sensed, as he sensed, that one of the consequences of Katrina was a severe shock to our energy sector with complementary increases in prices. So I believe it is appropriate to deal with this issue now. We are waiting not only for the supplemental for Katrina, but also dealing with it on this particular appropriations bill. On Monday, I was dismayed to learn that President Bush currently does not have plans to request additional LIHEAP funds this year. States are bracing for a crisis caused by a lack of affordable energy, and this funding will ensure low-income families and seniors will have safe, warm homes this winter. President Bush, I strongly urge that you reconsider. The warning has been issued. Will you once again ignore a looming crisis facing America? In addition to LIHEAP funding, there are other steps that Congress and the administration need to take to address our Nation's high energy costs. First, we need to pass Senator Cantwell's Energy Emergency Consumer Protection Act to ban price gouging at the gas pump in the wake of natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. Second, we need to pass Senator Dorgan's Windfall Profits Rebate Act which imposes a temporary windfall profits tax on big oil companies and uses the revenues to provide a rebate to American consumers to help offset the higher cost of oil and gasoline products. Total energy spending for the Nation this year will approach $1 trillion, 24 percent higher than in 2004. Energy will claim the biggest share of U.S. output since the end of the oil crisis 20 years ago. Oil and natural gas companies are making record profits, while energy prices are overcoming and overtaking workers' salary increases. This is wrong. We also must fix those bankrupt energy policies that provide oil and gas companies with billions of dollars from the Federal Treasury for production. These tax breaks should be repealed to pay for LIHEAP and conservation programs that help American energy consumers, not big business. The Federal Government must lead by example also. The President called on Americans to reduce their energy consumption and conserve oil. I know American families are up to this challenge and will respond. But Americans have the right to expect that their President and their Government will also make sacrifices. The President should implement a Federal savings target to demonstrate a serious commitment to improving our Nation's energy security. He should set a 40-percent savings target for Federal agencies by 2020. Over the past few years, the Federal Government has reduced its petroleum consumption by less than 1 percent. We can and we must do better. As a nation, we must step back and evaluate our priorities. Now is not the time to cut funding for social programs such as LIHEAP, Medicaid, and food stamps that support working families and seniors while the President and Members of the Senate continue to push for irresponsible tax breaks. We must prioritize, and the most vulnerable among us must be considered first. Millions of Americans are struggling each day to make ends meet. They deserve our support. I hope the President and this Congress will heed this warning and help build an energy safety net for all Americans. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, on July 1, 2005, we welcomed home a son of Providence College to assume the presidency of that great institution. Father Brian Shanley is a man of great intellect, great enthusiasm, and a man of deep and abiding faith. He is superbly prepared to continue the extraordinary progress of Providence College as a distinguished community of scholars serving to educate the talented young men and women who proudly claim PC as their own. Generations of students and graduates of Providence College have enriched our Nation and our State not only with their knowledge but just as importantly with their character. Father Shanley understands this great legacy of Providence College and, through his effort and his energy, he will sustain and enhance this extraordinary place. St. Thomas Aquinas, a theologian who Father Shanley is acquainted with, wrote ``If the highest aim of a captain were to preserve his ship, he would keep it in port forever.'' Under Father Shanley, I do not think Providence College will get many ``port calls.'' He will sail forward with determination, faith, and good humor to inspire faculty and students to think seriously, to face the challenges of our times, and to live a life of character and concern that has always been the hallmark of Providence College. I wish him good luck and Godspeed.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I also ask the pending amendment be laid aside.

Mr. REED. I also ask unanimous consent to add Senator Hagel as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment which would move funding for the end-strength increases included in this bill from emergency funding to regular funding, thereby increasing the top lines of the Army and Marine Corps budgets. Let me first begin by commending Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye for including the end-strength numbers, the increase in this legislation. There are no more dedicated individuals committed to the welfare and the efficiency of our military forces than Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, and they have raised the end-strength numbers of the Army by 40,000, and they have raised the end-strength numbers of the Marine Corps by 3,000, and this was over the request included in the President's budget. I think it is patently clear that additional personnel are necessary, and I am pleased to see that this is the conclusion of the Appropriations Committee. But simply raising the end-strength number, in my view, is not enough. I believe we also have to pay for these troops in a very straightforward fashion--not through emergency supplementals but through the regular budget process. If we do not start doing this now, I believe the Army and the Marine Corps will begin to pay a far greater price in the future as supplemental funding may diminish, but still the needs for an increased end strength persist. There is an obvious need for increased end strength. On January 24, 2004, Army Chief of Staff General Schoomaker announced he had received emergency authority to temporarily increase the size of the Army by 30,000 soldiers for the following 4 years. At that time the leaders of the Department of Defense were working on a couple of assumptions. First, they were working with a plan formulated in the fall of 2003 that calculated the numbers of forces in Iraq in mid-2005 to be approximately 40,000 troops. Remember, at that time the Pentagon was predicting our force levels in Iraq would be 40,000 troops. In the fall of 2005, at this moment, we have approximately 139,000 Army troops in Iraq, together with 25,000 marines--far above the predicted level of troops necessary, in the Pentagon's view 2 years ago, to conduct these operations. Now this number of about 130,000 troops, Army troops and significant Marine Corps forces, has been steady or even higher from the period of March 2003, the time of the invasion, to today. In addition, General Schoomaker recently told the Associated Press he is planning for over 100,000 troops to remain in Iraq through fiscal year 2009. I think this is very prudent and I commend General Schoomaker for doing that which I think is necessary, of publicly stating that we at least have to assume for planning purposes a commitment of that number. This initial assumption of 40,000 troops in place in Iraq by 2005 is clearly inadequate. It has been overtaken by events. Again I think this argues for not a temporary increase in troops but a permanent increase in end strength and regular funding. The second point I make is that in addition to our obligations in Iraq, which require significant forces--and to have the forces in Iraq, we have to have many more forces in the Army and Marine Corps training and getting ready to go and recover--in addition to that, Secretary Rumsfeld was ambitiously moving forward on a transformation of the Army to increase the number of brigades from 33 to 48 and replace 10,000 military slots with civilian slots, significantly reducing the number of soldiers in support positions. This is a very difficult and in some cases dynamic experience. We have an army at war and an army in transformation simultaneously, but the Army is doing a magnificent job in both cases. Secretary Rumsfeld argued that this transformation would initially cause a spike requiring again a temporary increase of 30,000 soldiers, but then within 4 years his projection was that spike would be eliminated. However, under the Army's own analysis and even if all anticipated efficiencies are widely successful, if we get the transformation of military positions and civilian positions, we are able to form these brigades to perform as they were expected to perform, and all these efficiencies are squeezed out of this transformation, the Army has suggested we will not be back down to pre- 911 end strength of 482,400 until fiscal year 2011, 6 years from now. Now that is not right. You have two demands, our commitment in Iraq and our transformation process, that drive up end strength numbers, not in the short term but actually over many years, and we know this right now. Third, the Pentagon could not have anticipated in some cases their involvement in natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina which is creating demand for forces, particularly National Guard forces. As we understand, the National Guard is the first responders. They have in some respects a dual capacity. They serve the Governors of States, as the State militia, as a State force, and then they have a Federal role. So these demands on military forces right now, including individual units, including demands in the planning process, are a third issue that is increasing end strength numbers and, I would argue, also argue strongly for regularly paying for these forces. Now even before General Schoomaker made his announcement in 2004 of an increase temporarily in end strength, Senator Hagel and I were arguing that we needed more troops and we needed them for a considerable length of time. I think, as I have tried to suggest, this need is even more obvious today than several years ago when Senator Hagel and I first took the floor. Yet surprisingly the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request did not ask for any additional troops in terms of end strength. They were operating on this emergency mechanism but, as I said initially, I am delighted and pleased to see that the Appropriations Committee, under the leadership of Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, has recognized the need to formally increase end strength. What I am asking is that this formal increase of 40,000 Army troops and 3,000 marines be also complemented by including their funding in the regular baseline of these forces and not through an emergency supplemental. This issue of funding is the purpose of my amendment. An end-strength increase of 40,000 soldiers and 3,000 marines will cost approximately $3.9 billion for 1 year of paid training, housing, and equipment. This bill funds the cost through supplemental funding, a mechanism which the Department of Defense agrees with. They have always been supportive of this, but I would argue again the assumptions that they have articulated of a temporary spike, do not consider, I think, fully the demands of transformation, and the other external demands of supporting foreign deployments and domestic operations such as Hurricane Katrina. This funding mechanism is not the best because there are several problems with this approach. The first problem is that supplemental funding is supposed to be reserved for unforeseen or emergency events. The Army and marines have required more troops than their authorized end strengths for the past 2 years and it is likely this trend will continue for at least 4 more years. That should not be a surprise to anyone. These soldiers and marines are clearly not an unforeseen happenstance today. So I would argue it should be included in the regular budget and not through emergency supplemental funding. The second problem is that to continue with supplemental funding creates a potentially unhealthy pattern. We pass supplemental funding many times. This funding runs out quickly before the end of the year-- usually in about 9 months--and we are presented with a second supplemental bill. But these extra soldiers and marines will be in the field, we know, beyond 9 months; in fact, as I have suggested, probably for several years in terms of their total end strength. But the Department of Defense is caught up in this cycle of asking for supplementals, running out of money and asking for another supplemental. Again, I think with respect to this issue of predictable increases in end strength of several years, we can avoid that through regular funding. Another problem with supplementals is the growing concern and uneasiness of the American public with respect to funding some of our operations. Congress, to date, has appropriated $218 billion for the war in Iraq. That does not go unnoticed by the American people. All of this funding has been through supplementals--in effect, deficit spending. The Congressional Budget Office points out that we will run a deficit in 2005 of about $331 billion--again, a fact not escaping the American public. This deficit number does not include the significant costs associated with Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. In an AP poll conducted 2 weeks ago, 42 percent of those polled stated that they preferred to pay for this hurricane relief by cutting spending in Iraq. That is potentially an ominous note with respect to the priority that the American people are suggesting in this poll. Only 14 percent, by the way, were willing to continue to add to the Federal debt to pay for our operations overseas and our operations in the gulf coast with respect to recovery from Katrina and Rita. My concern is that the time we can come up and automatically fill all the needs of our military forces in Iraq through supplementals may be drawing to a close. It will be increasingly more difficult to move these supplemental bills to fully pay for our forces as the American public begins to be more and more concerned with both the deficit and the unexpected increasing costs of contingencies and the cost of our operations overseas. I believe, if this happens, there is a real potential for both the Army and Marine Corps to be caught short having troops in the field which they must pay, equip, train, support, and also their families at home, but yet being squeezed because supplemental funding will not be sufficient. That will require them to look within their own budget to cut programs, to cut training, to cut modernization, which is very critical not only to their present posture but also to their future posture as the world's most formidable land force. If these supplementals can't resolve the personnel costs of additional troops, the Army will have to look for $3.5 billion within their budget, and the Marine Corps would have to look at $400 million. These are significant numbers for these services. This could put excruciating pressure upon our military forces that are already under excruciating pressure, and we can see that reflected in many different dimensions. Recently, we read about the recruiting shortfall. I believe Secretary Harvey of the Army announced today that they are going to increase the category of enlistees they would accept that do not meet the previous standards that were being used or increase the lower category of enlistees. That is a reflection of the difficulty we have to man the force, at least at the recruitment level. Retention is good. But once again, if this pattern of operations persists for several years, and we see soldiers who have served with magnificent valor and dedication to the country faced with a third or fourth deployment into Iraq or into Afghanistan, those pressures will build. I believe very strongly that not only should we follow the lead in the Appropriations Committee by formally increasing the end strength, but that we should begin to think seriously about and in fact begin to pay for these forces through the regular account. My amendment moves the appropriate amount of money from the Army and Marine Corps personnel and operations and maintenance accounts included in the bridge supplemental, and moves them to the Army and Marine Corps personnel and operations and maintenance accounts in the underlying bill. The funding move will, I hope, ensure several things. First, it will be much more honest about how we are paying for our operations overseas with respect to the Army and Marines Corps. Secondly, it will enable us to better ensure that these funds will be available if, in fact, it becomes more difficult in terms of both the fiscal climate and the overall opinion climate in the country to send up on a regular basis very substantial supplemental appropriations bills for our consideration. I think we should do it today. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I thank my colleague, Senator Hagel, for joining me in this effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have immense respect for the chairman. I appreciate the difficulty of the job in trying to balance all these conflicting requests for funds. He has done a tremendous job with this appropriations bill. Certainly, I will consider his advice with respect to the position of the legislation. I would like to consider it a little further. But I appreciate the difficulty that the committee has in trying to meet all these amendments. I say, finally, that what I am trying to do now is avoid a situation next year or the following year, as the chairman very well pointed out, where supplementals are not sufficient and the Army and Marine Corps have to look to their acquisition programs, cut combat systems, they have to look to other issues, quality of life for families, since these do keep these forces in uniform. There is no disagreement, as the chairman pointed out, with respect to the need of these troops. There is no disagreement with respect to the fact that they will be on our books, if you will, for several years into the future. I am pleased that the chairman and Senator Inouye formally increased the end strength, as Senator Warner and Senator Levin have done in the Defense authorization bill. He is very right. The argument is how we pay for it. Do we pay for it through the emergency, or do we pay for them through the regular accounts? I argue that a day of reckoning is coming where, if we don't face up to this by including it in the regular accounts, we will be dipping into acquisition and into other necessary programs of both the Army and Marine Corps. But again, I will take the Senator's good advice very closely to mind, and I appreciate the fact that we agree on so much. We are trying to figure out what is most appropriate--not just for the near term but in the long term--way to pay for these forces. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. I ask to call up amendment No. 1943.

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I introduce, along with Senators Allard, Collins, Sarbanes, Bond, Murray, Chafee, Mikulski, Dodd, Akaka, Schumer, Corzine, Landrieu, and Clinton, the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act of 2005 (CPEHA). This legislation would reauthorize and amend the housing titles of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. Specifically, our bill would realign the incentives behind the Department of Housing and Urban Development's homelessness assistance programs to accomplish the goals of preventing and ending long-term homelessness. During the past several weeks, stark pictures of the reality faced by many in the wake of Hurricane Katrina have made more of the country aware of the day-to-day pressures faced by those who are homeless. Unfortunately, as many as 3.5 million Americans experience homelessness each year. Ten to 20 percent are homeless for long periods of time. Many of these Americans have severe disabilities. Many have worn a uniform for our country, with the Veterans Administration estimating that at least 500,000 veterans experience homelessness over the course of a year. Statistics regarding the number of children who experience homelessness are especially troubling. More than one million children experience homelessness each year; that is one in ten poor children in the United States. We have learned that children who are homeless are in poorer health, have developmental delays, and achieve less in school than children who have homes. Many of those who are homeless have a simple problem--they cannot afford housing. Using the most recent census data, 56 percent of extremely low-income families are paying more than half their income for housing. Between 1990 and 2000, shortages of affordable housing for these families worsened in 44 of the 50 States. In 2000, it was estimated that 4.6 million units of low-income housing would need to be created in order to take care of this problem. As rents have soared and affordable housing units have disappeared from the market during the past five years, even more working Americans have been left unable to afford housing. So why should the Federal Government work to help prevent and end homelessness? Simply put, we cannot afford not to solve this problem. Homelessness leads to untold costs, including expenses for emergency rooms, jails and shelters, foster care, detoxification, and emergency mental health treatment. It has been almost twenty years since the passage of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, and we have learned a lot about the problem of homelessness since then. There is a growing consensus on ways to help communities break the cycle of repeated and prolonged homelessness. If we combine Federal dollars with the right incentives to local communities, we can end long-term homelessness. This bipartisan legislation will do just that. It will reward communities for initiatives that prevent homelessness, promote the development of permanent supportive housing, and optimize self-sufficiency. The Community Partnership to Help End Homelessness Act of 2005 will set us on the path to meeting an important national goal. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this bill and other homelessness prevention efforts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Community Partnership to Help End Homelessness Act of 2005 be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I introduce, along with Senators Allard, Collins, Sarbanes, Bond, Murray, Chafee, Mikulski, Dodd, Akaka, Schumer, Corzine, Landrieu, and Clinton, the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act of 2005 (CPEHA). This legislation would reauthorize and amend the housing titles of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. Specifically, our bill would realign the incentives behind the Department of Housing and Urban Development's homelessness assistance programs to accomplish the goals of preventing and ending long-term homelessness. During the past several weeks, stark pictures of the reality faced by many in the wake of Hurricane Katrina have made more of the country aware of the day-to-day pressures faced by those who are homeless. Unfortunately, as many as 3.5 million Americans experience homelessness each year. Ten to 20 percent are homeless for long periods of time. Many of these Americans have severe disabilities. Many have worn a uniform for our country, with the Veterans Administration estimating that at least 500,000 veterans experience homelessness over the course of a year. Statistics regarding the number of children who experience homelessness are especially troubling. More than one million children experience homelessness each year; that is one in ten poor children in the United States. We have learned that children who are homeless are in poorer health, have developmental delays, and achieve less in school than children who have homes. Many of those who are homeless have a simple problem--they cannot afford housing. Using the most recent census data, 56 percent of extremely low-income families are paying more than half their income for housing. Between 1990 and 2000, shortages of affordable housing for these families worsened in 44 of the 50 States. In 2000, it was estimated that 4.6 million units of low-income housing would need to be created in order to take care of this problem. As rents have soared and affordable housing units have disappeared from the market during the past five years, even more working Americans have been left unable to afford housing. So why should the Federal Government work to help prevent and end homelessness? Simply put, we cannot afford not to solve this problem. Homelessness leads to untold costs, including expenses for emergency rooms, jails and shelters, foster care, detoxification, and emergency mental health treatment. It has been almost twenty years since the passage of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, and we have learned a lot about the problem of homelessness since then. There is a growing consensus on ways to help communities break the cycle of repeated and prolonged homelessness. If we combine Federal dollars with the right incentives to local communities, we can end long-term homelessness. This bipartisan legislation will do just that. It will reward communities for initiatives that prevent homelessness, promote the development of permanent supportive housing, and optimize self-sufficiency. The Community Partnership to Help End Homelessness Act of 2005 will set us on the path to meeting an important national goal. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this bill and other homelessness prevention efforts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Community Partnership to Help End Homelessness Act of 2005 be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, headlines across the Nation warn of an impending disaster facing American families this winter--rising energy prices that could wipe out working-class families and seniors. The New York Times reports: Energy Prices Lead Inflation, Overcoming Salary Increases. The Wall Street Journal states: Soaring Natural-Gas Prices Point to Record-High Electricity Costs. USA Today states: Heating Prices Loom as Problems this Winter. Prior to Hurricane Katrina's devastation in the gulf region, Americans were facing record prices for oil, natural gas, and propane. Hurricane Katrina exacerbated these costs by damaging production platforms and ports and curtailing production at refineries in the Gulf of Mexico. Now Hurricane Rita threatens further damage and, in turn, price increases. Natural gas prices are hitting all-time highs, and crude oil and gasoline prices are again on the rise. Consumers are feeling the price increases at the pump. But with winter looming, the full effect of these costs has yet to hit us. In New England, the average heating cost for a family using heating oil is projected to reach $1,666 during the upcoming winter. This represents an increase of $403 over last winter's prices and $714 over the winter heating season of 2003-2004, almost a $1,000 increase in 2 years. For a family using natural gas in the Midwest, prices are projected to hit $1,568, representing an increase of $611 over last year's prices and $643 over the heating season of 2003-2004. The Mortgage Bankers Association expects steep energy costs could increase the number of missed payments and lost homes beginning later this year. Yesterday, the State energy directors released a survey about the choices that LIHEAP households make when they face unaffordable energy bills. Of course, LIHEAP is the Low-Income Heating Assistance Program that we have authored and supported for many years in Congress. LIHEAP assists low-income Americans and seniors to ensure they can face these prices. According to the survey by the State energy directors, 73 percent of the households surveyed reported they reduce expenses for other necessities because they do not have enough money to pay for their energy bills. These other necessities are food, prescription drugs, rent, or mortgage payments. In fact, one in five LIHEAP households reported they went without food at least 1 day over the last 5 years due to unaffordable energy bills. Twenty-four percent used their stove or oven to provide heat because they could not fill the tanks to provide heat. On Monday, I visited the home of Aram Ohanian, an 88-year-old veteran who lives in Rhode Island and whose monthly income consists of $779 in Social Security payments. Money is so tight that Mr. Ohanian sometimes eats at his daughter's house or goes to a local soup kitchen for food. He also gets help from a local food bank. Last year, Mr. Ohanian received a total of $600 in LIHEAP grants to help him keep his home safe and warm. But even with that assistance, he had to close off parts of his house to reduce energy costs. In communities throughout this Nation, Mr. Ohanian's story repeats itself. The warning has been issued. We know that prices for energy products are on the rise. We can all foretell the next disaster facing American families. The question is, What will we do to protect these Americans from this upcoming energy storm? We saw the most vulnerable Americans overwhelmed by rising waters in New Orleans. If we do nothing, we can see other vulnerable Americans overwhelmed by rising energy prices this winter. First, Senator Collins and I, joined by 39 colleagues, are calling on the President and Congress to support $1.3 billion in emergency LIHEAP funding in the comprehensive supplemental appropriations package for Hurricane Katrina. This funding will provide our Nation's most vulnerable low-income families, seniors, and disabled individuals with affordable energy this winter. This is the additional funding--let me stress additional funding--needed for LIHEAP to maintain the purchasing power it had last year. This money is on top of the $3 billion we are seeking for the LIHEAP State grant program in the fiscal year 2006 Labor-HHS appropriations bill; the regular LIHEAP funding, if you will. States are bracing for a crisis caused by the lack of affordable energy, and this funding will ensure low-income families and seniors have warm homes this winter. Last year, a Rhode Islander receiving $400 in LIHEAP funds could buy approximately 235 gallons of heating oil, almost a full tank. At $2.60 a gallon, $400 will only buy about 150 gallons of oil, a little over half a tank, which might only last about 2\1/2\ weeks. And, indeed, the $2.60 price in Rhode Island is a hard price to find now from oil dealers. Rhode Island's LIHEAP program estimates the State needs $21 million to serve the 27,000 households it helped last year. I urge all of my colleagues to join Senator Collins and me to support our efforts to secure $4.3 billion for LIHEAP funding this winter. Second, we need to invest in energy efficiency. The Weatherization Assistance Program is vital to these efforts. The Weatherization Assistance Program has weatherized 5.3 million homes in the United States during its history, including 30,500 in my State of Rhode Island. The program, on average, saves families $274 per year and reduces heating bills by 31 percent. Rhode Island's program alone has saved the United States an equivalent of 43 days' worth of oil consumption, or an equivalent of 81 days of gas consumption over the course of the life of this program. Now is the time to expand this and other energy efficiency programs to serve these families. This is one of those programs that benefits not only individuals of the family by keeping them warm, by saving them money, but collectively benefits this country because one of our great problems is our accelerating demand for energy which drives up prices. If we can control that demand, if we can be more efficient in the use of energy, we can go a long way to help moderate the prices of energy that we face. In America--one of the wealthiest nations in the world--no family should have to choose between heating their home and putting food on the table for their child. No senior citizen should have to decide to either buy lifesaving prescription drugs or pay their electric bill. But, unfortunately, our Nation's most vulnerable households--working families, seniors living on fixed incomes, and disabled individuals-- have to make those very choices. Third, we need to pass Senator Cantwell's Energy Emergency Consumer Protection Act, of which I am a cosponsor. The legislation would ban price gouging at the gas pump in the wake of natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, and would empower Federal regulators to ensure greater market transparency and go after market manipulation of oil and gas prices on an everyday basis. The administration also must begin to rethink its bankrupt energy policies. Reliable, affordable energy is critical to the social and economic well-being of our Nation. Total energy spending for the Nation this year will approach $1 trillion, 24 percent higher than in 2004. Energy will claim the biggest share of U.S. output since the end of the oil crisis 20 years ago. This is not good energy policy. Americans deserve a better energy bill than the one President Bush signed this summer. They deserve an energy bill that raises fuel efficiency standards and provides for oil savings, an energy bill that invests valuable tax dollars--those currently being handed out unnecessarily to oil and gas companies--into the development of renewable fuels and energy efficiency. Oil and natural gas companies are making record profits while energy prices are overcoming workers' salary increases. These companies do not need billions of dollars from the Federal Treasury. The American public deserves greater accountability to ensure oil companies are not engaging in anticompetitive behavior, such as closing down refining capacity to drive up prices. Hurricane Katrina demonstrated the economic, social, and racial divides that exist in America. As a nation, we must step back and reevaluate our priorities. Now is not the time to cut funding for or underfund social programs, such as LIHEAP, Medicaid, and food stamps, that support working families and seniors while the President proposes tax breaks for casinos, as the Washington Post reported this morning. We must prioritize, and the most vulnerable amongst us must be considered first. Hurricane Katrina upset the lives of millions, displacing families from their homes and inflicting severe economic damage. The people of the gulf region deserve our continued support as they rebuild, and as Hurricane Rita threatens the gulf coast of Texas, we must also be prepared to help those Americans affected in its wake. We cannot, however, forget the millions of Americans who struggle each day to make ends meet. They also deserve our support. I hope the President and the Congress will heed this warning and help build an energy safety net for all Americans beginning with adequate funding for LIHEAP, increasing investment in weatherization, passing sensible legislation such as the Cantwell bill, and revisiting our overall energy policy to make a stronger, more fair, and a more decent place for all of us. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of MG Reginald Centracchio, the Adjutant General of the State of Rhode Island and the commanding general of the Rhode Island National Guard. Major General Centracchio retired on September 1, 2005, after 48 years in the Rhode Island Army National Guard. He is the only adjutant general from Rhode Island to serve his entire career within the Rhode Island National Guard, rising from private to the position of adjutant general. Major General Centracchio enlisted as a private in the National Guard in September 1957. He graduated from Officer Candidate School in 1962, and was commissioned a second lieutenant, Air Defense Artillery. Over the past four decades, Major General Centracchio held a wide variety of important command and staff positions, including platoon leader and battery commander on various missile sites throughout Rhode Island; field artillery tactical intelligence staff officer and adjutant; recruiting and retention manager; plans, operations and military support officer; director of personnel and administration; and director of plans, operations and training, Rhode Island Army National Guard. Major General Centracchio was appointed the Adjutant General, State of Rhode Island, and Commanding General, Rhode Island National Guard, by Gov. Lincoln Almond on August 1, 1995. On August 1, 2002, he achieved the State rank of lieutenant general. On July 1, 1996, he was appointed director of the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency, RIEMA, merging the National Guard and Emergency Management Agency. On January 21, 2003, he was reappointed by Gov. Donald L. Carcieri as the Adjutant General of Rhode Island; he was then appointed Rhode Island Homeland Security Advisor. Major General Centracchio is the first adjutant general to hold all three positions simultaneously. During his tenure as Adjutant General and Commanding General of the Rhode Island National Guard, Major General Centracchio's leadership and commitment were essential in ensuring the Rhode Island National Guard trained, equipped, and deployed soldiers and airmen in support of United States military missions at home and abroad. His experience and knowledge were constantly sought during numerous State emergencies in which Rhode Island National Guard troops were employed to ensure public safety. Under his direct supervision, the Rhode Island National Guard mobilized and deployed over 3,500 troops in support of Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom. This represents the largest deployment of Rhode Island National Guard Troops since the First World War. General Centracchio exemplifies what it means to be a ``soldier.'' He was utterly committed to accomplishing his mission and completely dedicated to the welfare of his troops. He led by example. His service and sacrifice sustained the men and women of the Rhode Island National Guard and will continue to inspire them in the years ahead. I also want to commend his wife, Linda. She also served by his side to provide for the men and women of the Rhode Island National Guard. Together they made an extraordinary contribution to our Nation and to Rhode Island. Major General Centracchio's superb sense of duty and responsibility provided the citizens of Rhode Island with solid evidence of the National Guard's commitment to the State and Nation. On behalf of the residents of Rhode Island, I thank Major General Centracchio for a lifetime of selfless service. I wish him well and salute him with the title that he has earned and honored. ``Sir, you are a soldier.''

Mr. REED

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