Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the nomination of John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations. There are two issues at stake. First is an issue of whether this Senate will receive critical information so that we can deliberate carefully and thoroughly about Mr. Bolton's nomination. So far, the State Department, as my colleagues, Senators Dodd and Biden, pointed out, failed to provide information under the theory that they get to decide what we should know when we are casting a vote as important as ambassador to the United Nations. It is a novel theory, but it holds no water. If we allow this to go on, it will make the Senate irrelevant when it comes to major decisions about nominations and major decisions about the future policy of the country. The second issue is the qualifications of Mr. Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations. For me, this is not a particularly hard vote. I opposed Mr. Bolton's nomination to be Assistant Secretary for Arms Control. That was based upon my review of his record, his statements, and his commitment to arms control and counterproliferation. Frankly, I think over the last several years--the record is mixed, but in large part it suggests that his duties there certainly don't warrant a promotion to be ambassador to the U.N. He was instrumental in establishing the Proliferation Security Initiative, which is a potentially useful framework, but as CRS pointed out: Without greater resources, legal authority or technical tools for interdiction, the success of PSI may rest on a political commitment of like-minded states to follow through. In a sense, after all of the initial hype, there does not appear to be the followthrough necessary to make this work. That was on Mr. Bolton's watch. He also negotiated the 2002 Moscow Treaty, but this is an interesting arms control treaty. It has no verification regime. There is no requirement for either side to make adjustments in the status of nuclear weapons until the last day of the treaty, which is years from now. It has no provisions for continuing negotiations. Again, more style than substance, more press release than real progress. Secretary Rice has indicated that Mr. Bolton was involved in negotiations which led to a significant breakthrough--the renunciation of nuclear weapons by the Government of Libya. However, if you listen to British officials participating in the negotiations, they requested that the White House take Mr. Bolton off the negotiating team because he was undermining their potential for success. While Mr. Bolton was an Under Secretary for State for Arms Control, the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty, becoming the first nation since World War II to withdraw from a major international security agreement. Mr. Bolton also blocked efforts to add a verification clause to the Bioweapons Convention, blocked negotiations in the Geneva Conference on Disarmament with respect to the weaponization of space, and worked to weaken a treaty on small arms trafficking. That is not the record of somebody who is an Arms Control Under Secretary committed to ending proliferation. If you look at North Korea, when he took over, they had, at most, two nuclear weapons. Now, North Korea may have as many as eight--four times the peril and danger. That is not a record that compels a promotion. I think this is a situation in which other factors have come into play--assertions and allegations that he has pushed the envelope with respect to intelligence, about threats from Syria and other countries. Again, this is not a record that deserves promotion, a record of someone who is in a challenging world and is able to make a major, positive difference with respect to arms control, and it reflects the administration's disdain for the process of arms control and counterproliferation. Now Mr. Bolton has been nominated to be ambassador to the U.N. And once again, Mr. Bolton is reflecting the administration--this time their disdain for the U.N. I believe that is wrong. We should have recognized, after our experience in Iraq, that we cannot go it alone. As unpleasant as international organizations can be sometimes, as inefficient and unworkable as they are at times, in the long run we are better when we ally with other nations than striking out alone. Mr. Bolton has a different view of the U.N. In 1994, he stated: There is no such thing as the United Nations. . . .If the U.N. Secretariat Building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference. That is a narrowed-minded view and not historical. The U.N. has made a difference. Repeatedly, Mr. Bolton talked about his disdain for the U.N. In 1998, he was responding to the ramifications of not paying U.N. dues. In his words: Not only do I not care about losing the General Assembly vote, but actually see it as a ``make my day'' outcome. That is not the kind of cavalier attitude that will bode him well as ambassador to the United Nations, where he becomes one of the chief diplomats in our diplomatic arsenal, if you will. In an article in the New York Times, Elizabeth Jones stated: I don't know if he's incapable of negotiation, but he's unwilling. Ms. Jones believed that: ``The fundamental problem,'' if Mr. Bolton were to become U.N. ambassador, would be a reluctance on his part to make the kinds of minor, symbolic concessions necessary to build consensus among other governments and maintain the American position. In another view by Jeane Kirkpatrick, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. and referred to by my colleague from Florida, she stated: John Bolton may do diplomatic jobs in the U.S. Government, but John is not a diplomat. Frankly, the role of ambassador requires a diplomat, not someone who is an intellectual bully, not someone who is there to make a point and not to make progress, not someone there to send a message, to deride the work of his colleagues at the U.N. So I think we have a responsibility on two fronts: First, to assert rather strongly that we are relevant to this process, that we need information, and that executive agencies do not decide what information we need. And second, Mr. Bolton's record to date, his statements to date, his attitude to date suggest he will not be an effective ambassador to the United Nations. As a result, I urge that his nomination be opposed. Mr. President, I yield back my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of Brigadier General Daniel J. Kaufman, United States Army, Dean of the Academic Board at the United States Military Academy at West Point. General Kaufman is retiring on the 6th of June, 2005 after 37 years of active military service in war and peace. His military career exemplifies the finest traditions of the United States Army and demonstrates the rare combination of a combat-tested soldier and a first-rate scholar. I have had the privilege of knowing Dan Kaufman since 1967 when I entered West Point and was assigned to Company C, Second Regiment, United States Corps of Cadets. Dan was a senior, or as we say at West Point, a ``Firstie,'' shorthand for first classman. He distinguished himself to me as a serious and conscientious Cadet with a wry sense of humor. He ranked academically in the top 5 percent of his class. But, like all of his classmates, Dan's attention was focused on Vietnam as much as academics. Upon graduation in 1968, General Kaufman was commissioned as an second lieutenant in the Armored Cavalry and assigned to F Troop, 2d Squadron, 6th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Ft. Meade, MD as a platoon leader. After 6 months at Fort Meade, General Kaufman deployed to Vietnam and served as platoon leader in L Troop, 3d Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment. Later in the tour he served as the Troop's executive officer. For his service in Vietnam, General Kaufman was awarded the Bronze Star with V-device for Valor and two Purple Hearts. Upon completion of his tour in Vietnam, General Kaufman served from 1970-1971 as the Commander of E Troop, 2d Squadron, 6th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Ft. Meade, MD. General Kaufman left Fort Meade in 1971 to attend the Armor Officer Advanced Course at Fort Knox, KY. After a tour of duty as an instructor at the armor school, General Kaufman attended the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Here, we again renewed our friendship as we were both students at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. By that time, Dan had married his beloved wife Kathryn and their daughter, Emily, was born in Mount Auburn Hospital in Cambridge, MA. General Kaufman then served as an instructor and assistant professor in the Department of Social Sciences from 1974 to 1978. I joined Dan as an instructor in the Department of Social Sciences for the academic year 1977-1978. After departing West Point, General Kaufman served as Special Assistant to the Director, Planning Analysis, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) in Washington, DC prior to reporting into Ft. Bragg, North Carolina. Once at Fort Bragg, General Kaufman assumed the duties of Assistant Chief of Staff, G-3, Force Development, 82nd Airborne Division until 1979. From 1979 until 1981, General Kaufman was the S-3 (Operations), 4th Battalion (Airborne), 68th Armor, 82nd Airborne Division. Following his assignment at Fort Bragg, General Kaufman completed the Armed Forces Staff College in route to Cambridge, MA to study for his Ph.D. in political science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. After earning his Ph.D., General Kaufman rejoined the faculty at West Point as a permanent associate processor in the Department of Social Sciences. In 1990, he was appointed Professor and deputy head of the Department of Social Sciences. During this time, he served as chair for Accreditation Review Committee, Scholarship Committee, and Faculty Development Committee. From 1991 through 1995, General Kaufman served as a key member of several Department of the Army committees, including Chief of Staff of the Army transition teams for both General Sullivan and General Dennis J. Reimer, President-Elect Clinton's DOD Transition Team, as well as a special assistant to the Chief of Staff, U.S. Army (1991-1992). In 1996, General Kaufman was appointed Professor and Head of the Department of Social Sciences. There he continued the proud tradition of soldiers and scholars, first begun by GEN ``Abe'' Lincoln right after World War II, carried on by GEN Don Olvey, by GEN Amos Jordan, and General Golden, and now GEN Dan Kaufman. In June 2000, General Kaufman was selected as the eleventh dean of the academic board. As dean of the Academic board, General Kaufman envisioned an academic program relevant to the needs of the Army that contributes to the intellectual and professional development of cadets, supported by 700 first-class staff and faculty, $500 million in facilities, and a budget of $62.7 million. His visionary leadership led to the publication of Educating Future Army Officers for a Changing World, the operational concept for the Academic Program that links cadet education directly to the Cadet Leader Development System and the Army. General Kaufman oversaw several significant revisions to the academic curriculum to better prepare graduates for the challenges of a transforming Army in the post-Cold War world. The new curriculum places greater emphasis on global and cultural awareness, information technology, and curricular integration; it also offers cadets more choice in the selection of academic majors. He encouraged continued development of the academic assessment system, placing increased emphasis on performance assessments of the academic program goals. The extraordinarily positive assessment results from graduates and commanders in the field attest to the success of General Kaufman's vision. Under his stewardship, the Military Academy continued to lead the Nation and the Army in the use of information technology for education. He oversaw the installation of a secure wireless infrastructure in all academic buildings and encouraged the use of web- based course management tools. Perhaps the crowning achievement of his tenure was the design of Thomas Jefferson Hall, the Military Academy's new library/learning center. General Kaufman led the effort to secure Army support and Congressional funding for the facility and oversaw all features of the design. In support of the Global War on Terrorism, General Kaufman expanded outreach and support activities to the Army, including faculty support to combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. He personally led a team of senior faculty members to help reopen Baghdad University after decades of repression and isolation. During General Kaufman's tenure, USMA cadets won 43 international scholarships; the Military Academy was named an Institution of Excellence, and the Center for Advancement of Leader Development and Organizational Learning was established to provide professional forums for company-grade officers throughout the Army. BG Kaufman's awards include the Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Bronze Star Medal for Valor, Purple Heart, 2 awards, Meritorious Service Medal, 2 awards, Army Commendation Medal, 2 awards, Vietnam Service Medal, 4 campaigns and other service awards. The Academic Program at the United States Military Academy has never been stronger and more connected to the Army. General Kaufman has set the course for officer education into the first half of the 21st century. His dedication to excellence and his unsurpassed devotion to duty, honor, and country have marked his distinguished service over the past 37 years. For the past 5 years, he has profoundly shaped the intellectual future of the officer corps. And he has not done this alone. By his side at every step in his career has been his wife Kathryn. They have a wonderful family, including their daughter, Emily, and their son, David. Emily is a proud wife of Steve Thomas. They have brought to the Kaufman family the youngest Kaufman, baby Emma. Dan is a great soldier, a brave scholar, a devoted husband and father, and a steadfast friend. Dan has used his intellect and wit and devotion to the Army and the country to nurture a generation of cadets who will emerge as the leaders of our Army and our Nation. Because of Dan they will be ready for the daunting challenges that lie ahead. His legacy will be felt in 1,000 places around the world for decades to come. Whenever a leader of our Army uses his intellectual and ethical power of his or her education at West Point to defend the Nation, protect our soldiers, and advance our ideals, his legacy will be felt in a thousand places. West Point has never had a more faithful son or a better dean. And I have never had a better friend. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of Colonel Russ Howard, head of the department of social sciences and director of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. Colonel Howard is retiring June 3, 2005, after 37 years of Active and Reserve military service. In his previous position, he was the deputy department head of the department of social sciences. Prior to that, Colonel Howard was an Army chief of staff fellow at the Center for International Affairs at Harvard University. Formerly, Colonel Howard was the commander of the 1st Special Forces Group (Airborne) at Fort Lewis, WA. Other recent assignments include assistant to the Special Representative to the Secretary General during UNOSOM II in Somalia, deputy chief of staff for I Corps, and chief of staff and deputy commander for the Combined Joint Task force, Haiti/Haitian Advisory Group. He also served as the administrative assistant to ADM Stansfield Turner and as a special assistant to the commander of SOUTHCOM. When Colonel Howard was commander of 3rd Battalion, 1st Special Warfare Training Group (Airborne) at Fort Bragg, NC, he developed the curriculum for the first ever graduate degree program for the Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations officers. Prior to Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, Colonel Howard took a mobile training team to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to train the ``lost boys,'' newly appointed Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations officers already deployed to the Persian Gulf. The newly trained officers performed superbly during operations and 3rd Battalion won the Army Superior Unit Award, largely due to the efforts and foresight of Colonel Howard. As a newly commissioned officer, a much younger officer, Colonel Howard served as ``A'' team commander in the 7th Special Forces Group from 1970 to 1972. He left the Active component and served in the U.S. Army Reserve from 1972 to 1980. During this period, he served as an overseas manager, American International Underwriters Melbourne, Australia, and China tour manager and Canadian Pacific Airlines. He was recalled to active duty in 1980 and served initially in Korea as an infantry company commander. Subsequent assignments included classified project officer, U.S. Army 1st Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, and operations officer and company commander 1st Battalion, 1st Special Forces Group in Okinawa, Japan. Colonel Howard earned a bachelor of science degree in industrial management from San Jose State University, bachelor of arts degree in Asian studies from the University of Maryland, a master of arts degree in international management from the Monterey Institute of International Studies, and a masters of public administration degree from Harvard University. Colonel Howard was an assistant professor of social sciences at the U.S. Military Academy and a senior service college fellow at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University. During his extraordinary career of public service, Colonel Russ Howard was a dedicated leader, enlightened visionary, effective operator, and exemplary role model for cadets, soldiers, and civilians. For the past 7 years, he made enormous contributions to the U.S. Military Academy, its graduates, and to the Nation through his relentless pursuits of excellence in the department of social sciences and his advancement of education, research, and policy development in the global war on terror. He was the right person at the right time in exactly the right job as the Academy and the Nation responded to the events of 9/11 and the global war on terror. Building on his extraordinary skills as a researcher and educator, he knew the intellectual response to the war on terror would have to be as significant as the operational response and set a course for the department and the Academy to lead this response. Building on an exceptional experience as a Special Forces officer who commanded at every level from team leader to Special Forces Group, he was able to integrate the intellectual issues of understanding terrorism with the practical issues of countering terrorism and include them in the curriculum, and eventually led to the establishment of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. He inspired support from the academy leadership, from General-retired Wayne Downing, Mr. Vinnie Viola, Mr. Ross Perot, and many others, so that the U.S. Military Academy has become the international leader in undergraduate terrorism education and research. Simultaneously, Colonel Howard enhanced all aspects of the academy and the Department of Social Sciences by supporting a robust teaching program. He taught more than 15 different courses, created 4 new ones, published 3 books and 15 articles, and encouraged and cultivated resources for other faculty to follow his example. His support for faculty and cadet development through the scholarship, debate, model U.N., domestic affairs forum, finance forum, sports, and a myriad of other activities was exceptional. Most importantly, he is a trusted, caring, concerned, and dedicated leader who evokes the best from everybody with whom he comes in contact. It has been my privilege to know Colonel Howard for many years, to respect him as a soldier and a scholar, and to at this moment congratulate him on a career of exceptional service to the Army and to the Nation. As he parts for other venues and other responsibilities, I wish him well. I yield back my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the time I consume come out of my time postcloture.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 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, I ask unanimous consent that Claire Steele, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of today's session.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, first, I commend my colleague for his wise words. I thank Senator Bayh. This morning I had the occasion to meet with members of the press and the public at the Old State House in Providence, RI, the seat of Rhode Island Government for many years in the early days of this country. In fact, in 1790, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson enjoyed a banquet in that building to celebrate the Constitution of the United States--that careful balancing of majority power and minority rights. Unfortunately, these days in Washington, we are on the verge of upsetting that balance, of using majority power to undermine minority rights. In doing so, we are stilling the voices of millions of Americans--the millions of Americans that we represent--and not just geographically represent--the poor, the disabled, those who fight vigorously for environmental quality--all of those individuals will see their voices diminished and perhaps extinguished if we choose this nuclear option. The Senate was created to protect the minority. It was also clearly envisioned to serve as a check on Presidential power, particularly on the power to appoint judges. Indeed, it was in the very last days of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 that the Founding Fathers decided to move the power to appoint Federal judges from the control exclusively of the Senate to that of a process of a Presidential nominee with the advice and consent of the Senate. Indeed, in those last days, there was a shift of power, but not a surrender of power. This Senate still has an extraordinary responsibility to review, to carefully scrutinize the records of those individuals who would serve for a lifetime on our Federal courts. It is very important that the American people, when they come before the bar of Federal justice, stand before a judge of the United States, feel and know that that individual has passed a very high test, that that individual is not a Republican judge or a Democratic judge, not an ideologue of the right or left, but they received broad-based support in the Senate, and they stand not for party, but for law and the United States of America. We are in danger of upsetting that balance, of putting on the court people who are committed to an ideological plan. We are seeing people who are being presented to us who will, I think, undermine that sense of confidence that the American people must have in the judges they face in the courts of this land. Indeed, it is also ironic that today as we discuss this issue of eviscerating minority rights in the United States Senate, we hear our leaders talk about the necessity--the absolute necessity--of protecting the minority in Iraq. If you listen to the President, Secretary of State Rice, and others, they talk about how essential it is to ensure that there are real procedural protections for the Sunni minority in Iraq. In fact, what they are trying to do in Iraq they are trying to undo in America by stripping away those procedural protections that give the minority a real voice in our Government. In a recent National Review article by John Cullinan, a former senior policy adviser to the U.S. Catholic Bishops, he said it very well. He posed a question in this way: Will Iraq's overwhelming Shiite majority accept structural restraints in the form of guaranteed protections for others? Or does the majority see its demographic predominance as a mandate to exercise a monopoly of political power? This, in a very telling phrase, sums it up: Does a 60-percent majority translate into 100 percent of the political pie? The question we will answer today, tomorrow, and this week: Does the 55-vote majority in the Senate translate to 100 percent of the political pie when it comes to naming Federal judges? Just as it is wrong in Iraq, I believe it is wrong here because without minority protections, without the ability of the minority to exercise their rights, to raise their voice, this process is doomed to a very difficult and, I think, disastrous end. We have today measures before us that threaten the filibuster, and I believe this is not the end of the story if this nuclear option prevails because I think the pressure by the interest groups that are pushing this issue--the far right who are demanding that this nuclear option be exercised--will not be satisfied by simply naming judges because that is just part of what we do. They will see in the days ahead, if this nuclear option succeeds, opportunities to strike out our ability to stop legislative proposals, to stop other Executive nominees. They will be unsatisfied and unhappy that in the course of debate and deliberation here, we are not willing to accept their most extreme views about social policy, about economic policy, about the world at large. The pressure that is building today will be brought to bear on other matters. So this is a very decisive moment and a very decisive step. I hope we can avoid stepping over it into the abyss. I hope we can maintain the protections that have persisted in this Chamber in one form or another for 214 years. The rules give Senators many opportunities to express themselves. It is not just the cloture vote. There are procedures to call committee hearings, to call up nominees that have been appointed, that also give Senators an opportunity to express themselves. I need not remind many people here that at least 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees never received an up-or-down vote, and it is ironic, to say the least, that many who participated in that process now claim a constitutional right for an up-or-down vote on a Federal nominee to the bench. In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service, since 1945, approximately 18 percent of judicial nominees have not received a final vote. By that measure, President Bush has done remarkably well by his nominees--218 nominees, 208 confirmations, a remarkable record, which shows not obstruction but cooperation; which shows that this Senate, acting together, with at least 60 votes, but still exercising its responsibility to carefully screen judges has made decisions that by a vast majority favor the President's nominees. That is not a record of obstruction, that is a record of responsibility. Again, at the heart of this is not simply the interplay of Senators and politics. At the end of the day, we have to be able to demonstrate to the American public that if they stand before a Federal judge, they will be judged on the law; they will be judged by men and women with judicial temperament, who understand not only the law and precedent, but understand they have been given a responsibility to do justice, to demonstrate fairness. If we adopt this new procedure and are able to ram through politically, ideologically motivated judges, that confidence in the fairness of federal judges might be fatally shaken and that would do damage to this country of immense magnitude. The procedure that is being proposed is not a straightforward attempt to change the rules of the Senate because that also requires a supermajority. No, this is a parliamentary ploy, an end run around the rules of the Senate, a circumvention, and a circumvention that will do violence to the process here and, again, I think create a terrible example for the American public. We have difficult choices before us. There are those who suggest that it is somehow unconstitutional not to provide an up-or-down vote. Where were they when the 60 judges nominated by President Clinton were denied an up-or-down vote? No, the rules of the Senate prevailed at that time, as they should prevail at this time because the Constitution clearly states that each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. And we have done that in a myriad of ways and will continue to do that. The right to unlimited debate in this Senate is one of the rights that has been protected by rules that have been in force for many years. We are involved in a debate that has huge consequences for the country and for the Senate. I believe this institution must remain a place where even an individual Senator can stand up and speak in such a way and at such length that he not only arouses the conscience of the country, but, indeed, he or she may be able to deflect the country away from a dangerous path. In the 1930s, President Roosevelt also had problems with the court system, he thought. He decided he would pack the courts. He would propose the expansion of the U.S. Supreme Court. Even though it was supported by the majority leader at that time, it was brought to this floor, and a small band of Senators stood up and spoke and convinced the public of the wrongness of that path and saved this country and saved President Roosevelt from a grave mistake. Today, once again, we are debating the future of our judicial system, and I believe without the filibuster, we will make grave mistakes about who goes on our courts and what will be the makeup of those courts. It might be that I have a particular fondness for the ability to represent those who are not numerous. I come from the smallest State, geographically, in the country, Rhode Island. We have two Senators, and we have two Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. But myself and my colleague, Senator Chafee, can stand up and speak and have the force of any of the larger States in this country. That is an essential part of our Federal system, an essential part of the Constitution that provided this wise balance between majority power and minority rights. We are in danger of seeing that power--I believe arrogantly displayed--potentially undercutting the rights of one Senator or two Senators or eight Senators to stand up, to speak truth to power, to challenge the views, to awaken the conscience of the country, to prevent the accumulation of so much power that we slowly and perhaps imperceptibly slide to a position where there is no effective challenge, and that would do great harm to this constitutional balance. Mr. President, this is a serious debate--a very serious debate. It is one in which I hope cooler heads prevail. It is one in which I hope we all step back and recognize that what we do will affect this institution and this country for a long time. I hope that we will refrain from invoking this nuclear option, that we recognize the traditions of the Senate not out of nostalgia but because they have served us well, and will continue to serve us well. They will ensure that we can speak not just as an exercise in rhetoric, but to have real effect in this body, the greatest deliberative assembly the world has ever known. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor to my colleague from Michigan.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce two bills to expand access to college. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Collins, Kennedy, and Murray. We are slated to reauthorize the Higher Education Act this Congress, after being unable to do so in the 108th Congress. Over the course of this time, the discussions on higher education have not focused on proposals that would help the neediest students attend college. This is troubling, particularly as more and more students are being priced out of college, which shortchanges their future and that of our Nation. An individual's climb up the economic ladder is directly related to the amount of education he or she receives. Given the strong correlation among educational attainment, employment, and wages, the cost of not going to college is just too high. And yet, too many college students are underprepared, underfinanced, and overworked. Those who make it through are saddled by huge loans. But as reports such as Empty Promises by the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance have shown, many more cannot afford the cost of college at all. Even though there have been gains due to the Higher Education Act, the current approach to student aid is not working to close the gap in college attendance between our lowest and highest income students or the gap between the aid low-income students receive and the actual cost of attendance. Indeed, about seven times as many students from high- income families graduate from college by age 24 as students from low- income families. Low-income, college-qualified high school graduates have an annual ``unmet need'' of $4,000 and rising in college expenses. A decline in real dollars spent on grants and sharp increases in the cost of college have been key causal factors of this unfortunate situation. Indeed, there has been a steep decline in the purchasing power of the Pell Grant, which was established by my predecessor, Senator Claiborne Pell, to ensure higher education was not an ``unachievable dream.'' According to the State PIRGs' Higher Education Project, the maximum Pell Grant covered 84 percent of average four-year public tuition costs in 1976. Today, the maximum Pell Grant of $4,050 covers only about 39 percent. Over the last 10 years, tuition and fees at public and private 4-year colleges rose 51 percent and 36 percent, respectively, (after adjusting for inflation), which is a more rapid growth rate than consumer prices. Students have felt the bite as states have drastically cut funding for public colleges. In 2008, the largest number of students in our history will graduate from high school. Another demographic reality is that our nation will need to ensure a steady stream of replacement workers as college- educated baby boomers begin to retire in increasing numbers. This crisis calls out for action. An educated citizenry and a world class workforce should be a national imperative. Our nation cannot afford to lose out on the countless returns from a robust education investment. Today we introduce two bills to expand college access. The first bill, the ACCESS--Accessing College through Comprehensive Early Outreach and State Partnerships--Act, focuses on a program I have long worked with Senator Collins and the other cosponsors to save, reinvigorate, and fund the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership or LEAP program. LEAP is the only program in which the federal and state governments are partners in extending higher education opportunities to financially needy students. The ACCESS Act forges a new Federal incentive for States to do even more to help low-income students by creating within LEAP an access and persistence partnership program. States will be rewarded--via higher levels of federal matching dollars--for creating vibrant partnerships with colleges, early intervention and mentoring programs, foundations, and businesses and providing cohesion and coordination among these entities. Access and persistence partnerships have three main goals: to provide low-income students with a grant that fills the gap of their unmet need; to increase participation of low-income students in early information, intervention, mentoring, and outreach programs; and to provide early notification to low-income students of their eligibility for financial aid. Research has shown that successful college access programs are those that offer early intervention and mentoring services coupled with early information about estimated financial aid awards and adequate grant funding to make the dream of higher education a reality. Students participating in such programs are more financially and academically prepared, and thus more likely to enroll in college and persist to degree completion. The second bill we introduce today, the FAFSA--Financial Aid Form Simplification and Access Act--has several key components designed to make the college application process both simple and certain. As the advisory committee's recent report, The Student Aid Gauntlet, has shown, students today confront an overly burdensome and complex financial aid application process. Our legislation would simplify this process by allowing more students to qualify for an Automatic-Zero-- auto-zero--Expected Family Contribution by aligning its eligibility with the standards of other federal means-tested programs, like free school lunch, SSI, and Food Stamps. Students and families should not have to prove over and over again that they are low-income, and asking students to fill out lengthy forms when they already meet the eligibility level for Pell Grants is a burden we should ease. In a similar vein, the legislation establishes a short, paper EZ- FAFSA application form for students qualifying for the auto-zero; phases out the printing of the long paper form and utilizes the savings to bridge the digital divide for students without web access; requires the utilization of smart technology to create a tailored web-based application form that ensures students answer only the questions needed to determine financial aid eligibility in the State in which they reside; and creates a free telefile system for students without Internet access. Additionally, the FAFSA Act requires the Secretary, in cooperation with states and colleges, to develop a system for students to get early estimates of aid from multiple sources, learn if they qualify to fill out an EZ FAFSA, and notify those participating in Federal means-tested programs of their potential eligibility for a maximum Pell Grant. Simplified forms and an early information system providing details on what filling out these forms means to students is critical, particularly given the American Council on Education's findings that one of every five dependent low-income students and one of every four independent low-income students failed to take advantage of financial aid programs because they did not submit a FAFSA. The FAFSA Act also expands college access for low-income students, in part by simplifying the application process for students with special circumstances, including students in foster care and emancipated youth; ensuring the equitable treatment of prepaid tuition and college savings plans; and reducing the work penalty. The current income protection allowance levels are unrealistically low, creating a disincentive for students to work in order to pay college costs. We must act on these bills and others to make sure that every student who works hard and plays by the rules gets the opportunity to live the American Dream. I was pleased to work with the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance and a host of other higher education organizations and charitable foundations on these bills. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor these bills and work for their inclusion in the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of these bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, or TRIA. This law is necessary to make our economy function smoothly and effectively and to protect it from the risk of a terrorist attack. After 9/11, we enacted a number of measures including the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, to enhance and stabilize the security of our citizens and our economy. TRIA provided a high-level Federal backstop that allowed private insurance and reinsurance markets to return and to allow American businesses to overcome the shock of September 11. TRIA seems to have performed exactly as we intended, but as we all know the program expires at the end of this year. I am getting concerned that we are fast approaching the point where we need to move forward and reauthorize the TRIA. We can't allow this program to expire without a short-term extension or longer term solution to be put in place. But as we consider whether to extend TRIA, we should look closer at the two main goals we tried to accomplish with the law. First, as I just noted, we wanted to make sure that the market and the economy functioned in the wake of 9/11 and in the face of the threat of terror. After 9/11, the insurance companies looked at their risk for the first time in the context of a mass casualty destructive act that would destroy buildings, that would kill perhaps thousands of people, and they decided that they alone could not take this risk. In light of the new conditions, the passage of TRIA, provided a necessary backstop, and allowed the private insurance companies and the market to function effectively. One of the areas that I became concerned about was workman's compensation. Most people would say: What does that have to do with a major attack that falls upon a large building or a major city or some other key facility? The point is thousands of workers are covered by workman's compensation. Those deaths and injuries would trigger workman's compensation. That is just one example of the situation caused by 9/11, the situation of uncertainty, the situation of potentially huge losses which never before were fully calculated by the insurance companies. That part of the purpose of TRIA has worked very well. Our insurance markets are functioning smoothly today. But there is a second important reason, and that second important reason is that many of us felt that we needed to have a policy in place all the time to allow the economy to rebound more quickly in the unfortunate event of another terrorist attack here in the United States. Let me just remind you, as we left this Chamber yesterday morning, as we moved to assembly areas, as we evacuated all these buildings, the notion of a further terrorist attack was not something hypothetical or remote. For an instant there, there was real concern that we would be struck again. And if we are struck again and we do not have in place a terrorism reinsurance program, the insurance industry will once again face the same dilemma we saw on 9/11: we can't cover these risks; we are overexposed; we can't provide insurance in the future. That slows the economy down and potentially in many different ways. TRIA has to be in place. As long as we are sincerely persuaded that there is a terrorist threat, and I know I am, then we have to have this TRIA program in place. Some opponents of the extension argue that TRIA should be a temporary program because by ending it private terrorism insurance markets will be forced to stabilize and provide adequate capacity to meet the demand for coverage. I do not think that will happen. I think the markets will stabilize because companies will not write risks. And if you are trying to build a major building in a major city, guess what? Try to get insurance. If you propose to put in a major office complex with thousands of workers, try to get workman's compensation insurance. You will not get it. That is the way the market will respond to the uncertainty caused by the potential attack of terror, and that will hurt our economy grievously. I think we have to recall and realize that we still are under the threat. I think we have to also be conversant with the fact that there will be dramatic economic effect even if a small attack is waged by terrorists because the psychological dimension is just as important in many respects as the physical damage. So we have to have in place this terrorism reinsurance program, and we are running out of time to do it right, carefully, thoroughly, and get it done before the end of the year. As you may know, the Treasury Department is required to report to Congress by June 30 of 2005 on issues associated with the act and its purposes. While I am looking forward to the conclusion of the Treasury Department study, it will have little, if anything, to do with the second aim of the law; namely, having a policy in place in the event there is another attack in the United States. It is this ``preparedness'' reason that most compels me to believe that we need to continue a Federal terrorism insurance program. This Congress, Senator Dodd and Senator Bennett reintroduced the extension bill, S. 467, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005, of which I am an original cosponsor. In addition to extending TRIA to 2007, this bill establishes a Presidential working group on financial markets to submit a report to Congress containing recommendations to address the long-term availability and affordability of terrorism risk insurance. The administration thus far has been silent on extending TRIA. It is essential that the administration lead rather than follow in this process of legislative deliberation. Furthermore, vacancies in key administration positions have led to a vacuum in leadership and communication needed for good policymaking as we approach deliberations on TRIA. Extending TRIA is absolutely the right thing to protect the economic security of our country. I urge my colleagues to take a close look at this legislation and join us in supporting it. I thank the Chair. I yield back my time.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to be recognized 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, today I introduce two bills to expand access to college. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Collins, Kennedy, and Murray. We are slated to reauthorize the Higher Education Act this Congress, after being unable to do so in the 108th Congress. Over the course of this time, the discussions on higher education have not focused on proposals that would help the neediest students attend college. This is troubling, particularly as more and more students are being priced out of college, which shortchanges their future and that of our Nation. An individual's climb up the economic ladder is directly related to the amount of education he or she receives. Given the strong correlation among educational attainment, employment, and wages, the cost of not going to college is just too high. And yet, too many college students are underprepared, underfinanced, and overworked. Those who make it through are saddled by huge loans. But as reports such as Empty Promises by the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance have shown, many more cannot afford the cost of college at all. Even though there have been gains due to the Higher Education Act, the current approach to student aid is not working to close the gap in college attendance between our lowest and highest income students or the gap between the aid low-income students receive and the actual cost of attendance. Indeed, about seven times as many students from high- income families graduate from college by age 24 as students from low- income families. Low-income, college-qualified high school graduates have an annual ``unmet need'' of $4,000 and rising in college expenses. A decline in real dollars spent on grants and sharp increases in the cost of college have been key causal factors of this unfortunate situation. Indeed, there has been a steep decline in the purchasing power of the Pell Grant, which was established by my predecessor, Senator Claiborne Pell, to ensure higher education was not an ``unachievable dream.'' According to the State PIRGs' Higher Education Project, the maximum Pell Grant covered 84 percent of average four-year public tuition costs in 1976. Today, the maximum Pell Grant of $4,050 covers only about 39 percent. Over the last 10 years, tuition and fees at public and private 4-year colleges rose 51 percent and 36 percent, respectively, (after adjusting for inflation), which is a more rapid growth rate than consumer prices. Students have felt the bite as states have drastically cut funding for public colleges. In 2008, the largest number of students in our history will graduate from high school. Another demographic reality is that our nation will need to ensure a steady stream of replacement workers as college- educated baby boomers begin to retire in increasing numbers. This crisis calls out for action. An educated citizenry and a world class workforce should be a national imperative. Our nation cannot afford to lose out on the countless returns from a robust education investment. Today we introduce two bills to expand college access. The first bill, the ACCESS--Accessing College through Comprehensive Early Outreach and State Partnerships--Act, focuses on a program I have long worked with Senator Collins and the other cosponsors to save, reinvigorate, and fund the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership or LEAP program. LEAP is the only program in which the federal and state governments are partners in extending higher education opportunities to financially needy students. The ACCESS Act forges a new Federal incentive for States to do even more to help low-income students by creating within LEAP an access and persistence partnership program. States will be rewarded--via higher levels of federal matching dollars--for creating vibrant partnerships with colleges, early intervention and mentoring programs, foundations, and businesses and providing cohesion and coordination among these entities. Access and persistence partnerships have three main goals: to provide low-income students with a grant that fills the gap of their unmet need; to increase participation of low-income students in early information, intervention, mentoring, and outreach programs; and to provide early notification to low-income students of their eligibility for financial aid. Research has shown that successful college access programs are those that offer early intervention and mentoring services coupled with early information about estimated financial aid awards and adequate grant funding to make the dream of higher education a reality. Students participating in such programs are more financially and academically prepared, and thus more likely to enroll in college and persist to degree completion. The second bill we introduce today, the FAFSA--Financial Aid Form Simplification and Access Act--has several key components designed to make the college application process both simple and certain. As the advisory committee's recent report, The Student Aid Gauntlet, has shown, students today confront an overly burdensome and complex financial aid application process. Our legislation would simplify this process by allowing more students to qualify for an Automatic-Zero-- auto-zero--Expected Family Contribution by aligning its eligibility with the standards of other federal means-tested programs, like free school lunch, SSI, and Food Stamps. Students and families should not have to prove over and over again that they are low-income, and asking students to fill out lengthy forms when they already meet the eligibility level for Pell Grants is a burden we should ease. In a similar vein, the legislation establishes a short, paper EZ- FAFSA application form for students qualifying for the auto-zero; phases out the printing of the long paper form and utilizes the savings to bridge the digital divide for students without web access; requires the utilization of smart technology to create a tailored web-based application form that ensures students answer only the questions needed to determine financial aid eligibility in the State in which they reside; and creates a free telefile system for students without Internet access. Additionally, the FAFSA Act requires the Secretary, in cooperation with states and colleges, to develop a system for students to get early estimates of aid from multiple sources, learn if they qualify to fill out an EZ FAFSA, and notify those participating in Federal means-tested programs of their potential eligibility for a maximum Pell Grant. Simplified forms and an early information system providing details on what filling out these forms means to students is critical, particularly given the American Council on Education's findings that one of every five dependent low-income students and one of every four independent low-income students failed to take advantage of financial aid programs because they did not submit a FAFSA. The FAFSA Act also expands college access for low-income students, in part by simplifying the application process for students with special circumstances, including students in foster care and emancipated youth; ensuring the equitable treatment of prepaid tuition and college savings plans; and reducing the work penalty. The current income protection allowance levels are unrealistically low, creating a disincentive for students to work in order to pay college costs. We must act on these bills and others to make sure that every student who works hard and plays by the rules gets the opportunity to live the American Dream. I was pleased to work with the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance and a host of other higher education organizations and charitable foundations on these bills. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor these bills and work for their inclusion in the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of these bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois not only for the time but also for his eloquent statement about this legislation, and particularly the REAL ID bill. The emergency supplemental bill we are considering today provides needed funding for our men and women in uniform who are engaged in combat operations in Afghanistan and in Iraq, as well as emergency assistance to the victims of the tsunami. This aid and assistance cannot wait because it is a demonstration of our Nation's good will towards those who have been devastated by natural disaster, and also our commitment to our soldiers in combat. These noble goals are unfortunately tainted, however, by the decision of the Republican leadership to include a controversial piece of legislation known as the REAL ID Act. Senator Durbin has gone into great detail to show how unwieldy it is and perhaps how unnecessary it is. There are other ways to more effectively and efficiently verify the identity of individuals. Also, this kind of back-door legislating is symptomatic of the majority's near total disregard for the precedents and procedures of the Senate that have served our Nation so well and for so long. I hope the American people realize this maneuver is yet another example of the majority's desire to pass the most controversial legislation by sliding it into a bill which cannot be amended and is subject only to an up-or- down vote. With no Senate debate, and very little review, the REAL ID Act makes significant and harmful changes to our Nation's immigration system, as well as our system of licensure of automobiles and drivers throughout the United States. Like many, I believe immigration is an issue we cannot and should not ignore. However, the REAL ID Act is not the comprehensive immigration reform that we have gone far too long without. Instead, it vastly alters our Nation's established asylum procedures, placing the burden of proof on the applicants by requiring them to document their torture or persecution. Potential asylum seekers are already thoroughly investigated, and those suspected of engaging in terrorist activities are already prohibited from being granted asylum under our current system. Yet the REAL ID Act will make it increasingly difficult for those escaping political persecution and torture to seek refuge. In addition, the REAL ID Act would suspend habeas corpus review of orders of removal for aliens in the United States. Essentially, this change eliminates the right of aliens facing deportation to ask the court to review their deportation, a right which the Supreme Court has already upheld. This provision will deny innocently detained aliens the opportunity to plead their case before a judge. This goes against the core principle upon which our Nation was founded. It is unfortunate these unsound provisions will be enacted as part of this bill. It is my hope that in the very near future we will be able to have a national discussion on immigration in a comprehensive, thoughtful, and deliberate way that will provide real solutions to real problems. It is not possible to solve our immigration problems by simply removing those who seek legitimate help from our Nation, or by raising the bar for those who are immigrating here legally. As a nation of immigrants and a global leader on human rights, the inclusion of the REAL ID Act in this bill and in this manner is unacceptable, and I will work with like-minded colleagues to reverse this law. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the budget resolution conference report that is before us this evening. In spite of an expected fiscal year 2006 deficit of $382 billion, this resolution calls for an additional $106 billion of tax cuts over the next 5 years. Reasonable tax cuts focused on energy incentives or educational incentives would not need special reconciliation instructions to protect them because they enjoy widespread bipartisan support. They would actually help our economy. But this resolution contains $70 billion of unsound tax cuts that would be protected under reconciliation. They would require only 51 votes without any meaningful amendments or debate to become law. As part of these cuts, there would be $9 billion to accelerate estate tax relief and $23 billion for additional capital gains and dividend tax cuts. That amounts to $32 billion in tax cuts over the next 5 years that will benefit only the very wealthiest members of our society, and those tax cuts are paid for by cuts in programs that are vital to working men and women and families across this country, such as $10 billion in cuts to Medicaid. Preliminary analysis of this budget by the Democratic staffs of the Joint Economic Committee and the House Budget Committee finds that well over 90 percent of the benefits from these $32 billion worth of tax cuts would be received by families in the richest fifth of the income distribution, whereas almost half of the Medicaid cuts come at the expense of families in the bottom fifth of the distribution. This is very clear and very disturbing: tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of health care for the poorest Americans. That is what is in this budget. It is wrong. It is unfair. It is unjust. Nearly three-quarters of the Medicaid cuts hurt the poorest 40 percent of families, and there are also cuts in discretionary spending that will hit middle-income families. In addition to these very difficult and unwise cuts, there are special reconciliation instructions to increase the debt limit. This is an attempt to disguise the irresponsible fiscal policy of the Republican administration and this Republican Congress. We understand that this budget, as the Senator from North Dakota pointed out, is going to increase our deficits without limit over the next several years. Increased deficits hurt our economy. They erode investment. They necessitate foreign borrowing from countries such as China and Japan. Eventually, we will have to pay back what we have borrowed and eventually this foreign borrowing and lack of investment will undercut our quality of life and our standard of living. Large budget deficits are now also forcing us to make the unfair budget cuts I just discussed, cuts to Medicaid and other programs that are essential to families throughout this country. We are asking the most vulnerable people in our country, those least able to afford denial of these benefits, to pay for tax cuts of the very wealthiest. At a time when the number of uninsured Americans is growing and our health care system is in a crisis, as health care is becoming increasingly more expensive and unaffordable, the Republicans are proposing a $10 billion cut in Medicaid. This will force States to abandon thousands of Americans who currently now depend on these programs for health care. The poor, the sick, and the disabled are paying for tax cuts for wealthy Americans. These effects are not just on these individuals, but they will affect whole communities. In 2003, the Institute of Medicine prepared a report called A Shared Destiny, and it pointed out as one cuts away at the foundations of health care in this country, the Medicaid system, the public health system, that we pay for it in terms of the declining quality of our overall health care system. We pay for it in terms of our reduced access to care in emergency rooms due to overcrowding, and we pay for it in terms of lost productivity as Americans without health care become sick and do not work because they cannot work. A recent State-by-State analysis by Families USA found that the impact in my home State of Rhode Island of cutting Medicaid by $10 billion would be 600 fewer seniors served and an $11 million reduction in Medicaid reimbursements. These reductions will be devastating for my State and other States. It will be unlikely that my State can as easily handle its commitments through innovative programs such as the medical assistance program and its employer subsidy program called RIte Share, which is designed to help small businesses pay for the health care of their workers so that these workers are not exclusively dependent on State and Federal programs. I have been visited over the last few weeks by hospital administrators, doctors, disability groups, and countless patient advocacy groups. They have one message: Do not cut Medicaid. It is vital to people. It is essential to our States. But that is exactly what this budget does. It does not represent the priorities of the American people. The vast majority of Americans understands we have to provide at least a minimum level of health care for our citizens. This budget is also going to result in deep cuts to community development programs and housing programs. Although CDBG funds have been restored, it cuts deeply at other programs, over $100 million in cuts from Housing for Persons with Disabilities; $14 million from Housing for Persons with AIDS; $24 million from Rural Housing and Economic Development; $24 million from Brownfields programs; almost $286 million from HOPE VI Programs; $226 million from Section 8 Project-Based Assistance; $252 million from the Public Housing Capital Fund; and on and on. This budget hurts the most vulnerable members of society to benefit the wealthy. It is not fair, it is not just, and it is not wise policy. This budget also had a chance to do something positive, to retain the Kennedy amendment to help fund educational programs such as TRIO Upward Bound, TRIO Talent Search, GEAR UP, and LEAP. It did not support the Kennedy amendment and indeed it seeks $7 billion in additional cuts to student loans. This program reflects irresponsible fiscal policies that have been with this administration from the beginning. When the President took office in 2000, the public debt was $3.4 trillion and falling. If we take this budget resolution and pass it, the face value of public debt will be $6.2 trillion by 2010 and rising. In fact, the more realistic assessment will probably put it higher. We are adding to the burden of our country. We are adding to the burden of the next generation of Americans. These irresponsible fiscal policies are hurting us and this budget contributes to those policies. It jeopardizes our future as it undercuts the safety and security of so many families today. I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I will speak on the issue of the so-called nuclear option. We are at an important crossroads in our Nation's history today. I believe my Republican colleagues should think long and hard about the long-term effects of what they are proposing on the vitality and utility of this institution that we call the U.S. Senate. As Thomas Paine once stated: He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach himself. I believe that this so-called crisis is really an artificial crisis. The Senate has confirmed 206 of President Bush's judicial nominees and rejected 10. The Senate has confirmed 95 percent of the President's nominees. We have the lowest court vacancy rate since the administration of Ronald Reagan. As almost everyone in this body is aware, President Clinton had over 60 judicial nominees and 200 executive branch nominees blocked by the Republicans. Many of these nominees were not even granted the courtesy of a hearing, let alone a vote. We call this ``pocket filibustering'' in the Senate. It was according to the rules, and we followed the rules and did not attempt to change the rules. That is the difference today. The Republicans are trying, through extralegal means perhaps, to change the rules of the Senate. Senator Frist and many of my other Republican colleagues have been involved in both filibustering and pocket filibustering of judicial nominees, and they did not object to their own actions or purport to suggest that their own actions were unconstitutional or in any way violated the spirit or the rules of the Senate. In 2000, Clinton nominee Richard Paez was filibustered by a number of my colleagues, but Democrats and Republicans defeated the filibuster by finding common ground and, under the rules of the Senate, moved to a vote. Although almost every Senator in this Chamber believes that bipartisan improvements could and should be made to the nomination process, this President and the majority have not made any such attempts. For example, returning to the tradition of allowing home State Senators and/or home State advisory boards to make recommendations to the President regarding eminent lawyers and jurists he should consider when nominating men and women for lifetime appointments on Federal courts would be one possible way to make this whole process less partisan. If we want thoughtful, intelligent men and women to even want to take on the job of Federal judge, we would all benefit from depoliticization of the judicial process. There are many ways President Bush and the Republicans in the Senate could work with Democrats to make the judicial nomination process work more smoothly. But in light of the rejection of the minority leader's proposal and the subsequent proposal made by the majority leader, it is clear this debate is not really about making the process work better. This whole debate should be seen for what it is--a grab for power. This is not the first time a President, with the help of his own party, has attempted to grab complete and total power over the judicial nomination process. In 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, sent a bill to Congress that would have drastically reorganized the judiciary and added up to six more justices on the Supreme Court. Why? Because he didn't like what the Supreme Court was doing to his legislative proposals. Although the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected the bill, finding it, in their words, ``essential to the continuance of our constitutional democracy that the judiciary be completely independent of both the executive and legislative branches of Government,'' the majority leader, Joseph Robinson, supported the bill and brought it to the floor. A determined group of Senators, using the filibuster for 8 days, defeated this proposal. It was the right to free and open debate that defeated President Roosevelt's attempt to consolidate his power over the judicial branch of Government. It is that same right we are talking about today. It is the right that allows the Senate to play its unique role in our constitutional democracy. One of the most basic concepts behind the construction of the Constitution is the concept that absolute power corrupts. After fighting a revolution to escape from the tyranny of an absolute monarch, the Founding Fathers were very focused on coming up with a system of government that would prevent one ruler or one faction of people from controlling all of the mechanisms of power. James Madison believed that ``the causes of faction cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.'' As he stated in Federalist Paper No. 10: ``Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of factions.'' He further goes on to state that ``Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens . . . that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.'' It was the desire of the Founding Fathers to protect the rights of the minority from ``the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority'' which caused them to create three branches of Government. Because of the skills and temperament required of a judge, the Founding Fathers decided that judges would not be elected like the other two branches of Government but would be nominated by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Article II, section 2 states that the President: . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law. . . . In effect, Madison and the Founding Fathers believed that the independence of the judiciary was so important that lifelong judicial appointments needed to be made by consensus between the executive and legislative branches. Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist Paper No. 78 that: This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community. Resonating throughout the Federalist Papers is the notion that the test of this Government is not the success of the majority but the fact that minority rights are protected. Minority rights on this floor could be extinguished if the rules of this Senate are disregarded. This is why I am here today on the floor of the Senate to speak out. It is important that we do not let another President try to pack the courts. The Senate cannot become merely a rubberstamp for any President. The independence of the courts is critical to protecting the Constitution and the rights of individuals. It is for this reason that preserving the right to open and free debate in the Senate is so important. Indeed, if the Founding Fathers wanted a system of pure majority rule, they would have only created one Chamber. These decisions should not be made on a political whim. The impact of judicial appointments outlasts party changes in both the executive and legislative branch of Government. Indeed, some Members of the other party have complained about the abuse of power by ``activist'' judges. Frankly, I cannot think of a better way to protect against activist judges than by protecting the current cloture rule. If two-thirds of the Senate believes a nominee is qualified for the position and will do the job well, that candidate is probably not going to be an activist judge on either the right or the left. Opponents of the filibuster have questioned its constitutionality. However, time and again, the courts have shown a reluctance to interpret the rules of either House of Congress or to review the application of such rules. The Founding Fathers stated in article I, section 5, clause 2 of the Constitution: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings. Much of the current debate around the Republican leadership's proposal to change a 200-year-old Senate tradition regarding the right to unlimited debate revolves around rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate. This rule is clearly constitutional. Rule XXII is about the precedence of motions. The relevant part is as follows: Is it the sense of the Senate that debate shall be brought to a close? And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly sworn-- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting--then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of. This rule encapsulates an agreement between the majority and minority that an amendment to the Senate rules is so important that it requires a two-thirds vote--the same number of votes required to vote on treaties, overcome a Presidential veto, and impeach a President--to change the Standing Rules of the Senate. And beyond all the current maneuvers on the floor, the real goal of the Republican majority is to change the rules of the Senate. In addition to the filibuster, the Senate has adopted other practices to protect minority rights, including unanimous consent rules, holding legislation or nominations in committee, and the blue-slip process. When some of these procedures, in addition to the filibuster, have been challenged, the courts have given deference to the Senate to make its own rules on how to deliberate. Clearly, if the majority party is arguing that the filibuster is unconstitutional, then certainly all other methods of blocking a nomination, including never holding a hearing or vote in committee, would be as well. I daresay the same individuals arguing for the end of the filibuster because it is unconstitutional would not state that they acted unconstitutionally in blocking 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees. In fact, the Constitution is notably silent on what advice and consent means on a Presidential nomination. The majority are interpreting this to mean that each nominee deserves a vote, but the Constitution is actually silent on this issue. It is left to the Senate to determine what advice and consent really means. I think we are well served by the current rule and 200 years of checks and balances, and we should not give up our right to debate without realizing the serious consequences this will have on our institution, not just today but for decades, in fact, the history of this country going forward. Finally, let me talk briefly about the claim that unlimited debate or the filibuster has never been used against a judicial nominee. That is simply untrue. The first recorded instance occurred in 1881 when Republicans were unable to end the filibuster of Stanley Matthews to the Supreme Court. There were nine other occasions in the 19th century when the Senate held no floor votes on Supreme Court nominations. More recently, the nomination of Associate Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Homer Thornberry to be an Associate Justice failed when they were filibustered on the Senate floor by Republican Senator Robert Griffen and others. Our predecessors also believed that certain judicial nominations were too problematic to be approved. If we are focused on improving the judicial nomination process right now, there is much we can do together to make it work better. This should be the issue before us today, not taking away the voice of the minority in one of the most important decisions we are asked to make as Senators, protecting the independence of the judiciary. I also think we should be talking about real crises on the Senate floor, such as a $422 billion deficit, a historic trade deficit, the devastating budget the majority will be presenting to us this afternoon, and the need to stabilize a country in the Middle East that we have been engaged in for more than two years and has cost us American lives and billions of dollars. I urge the majority to reconsider this ill-advised abuse of power and work with us to forge some solutions to these real crises and to maintain the balance and integrity of our democratic institutions. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I, along with the Armenians in Rhode Island and throughout the United States, as well as those around the world, recognize the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. On the night of April 24, 1915, nationalists in the Ottoman Empire rounded up and executed 200 Armenian community leaders, sparking an 8- year campaign of tyranny that impacted the lives of every Armenian in Asia Minor. By 1923, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were murdered, and another 500,000 were exiled. The U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morganthau, Sr., unsuccessfully pleaded with President Wilson to act. Morganthau later remembered the events of the genocide. ``I am confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this,'' the Ambassador wrote in his memoir. ``The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915.'' Unfortunately, the United States, and the world, did not intervene. Today, on the 90th Anniversary, I am proud to be one of 32 Senators who urged President Bush to refer to the mass murder of Armenians as genocide in his commemorative statement. Failing to do so, does not properly commemorate this tragedy. Accurate acknowledgment of this event in human history is a small, but necessary, step to take. Today, dozens of Armenian soldiers are deployed to Iraq, carrying out humanitarian operations in Karbala and al-Hilla, working as truck drivers, bomb detonators, and doctors. Armenian soldiers are also serving in Kosovo, performing peace support operations. I believe their response of helping others in need is part of the healing process. These Armenians did not allow others to be left as helpless as they were generations ago. As a Nation, we must respond to acts of oppression to ensure that victims of hatred and prejudice did not perish in vain. We must stand as witnesses to protect people from persecution for the simple reason they are different. Thus, we must be committed to properly remembering the Armenian Genocide. Menk panav chenk mornar. (We will never forget.)

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I object.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President. I rise today on behalf of my fellow Rhode Islanders to commemorate the 2549th Anniversary of the Buddha, the Khmer New Year. This 3-day anniversary, which begins today, highlights the rich heritage of Cambodian Americans, while recognizing contemporary Khmerian accomplishments. Specifically, the New Year's festivities celebrate the ancient dance, music, and religious traditions of the Cambodian community. The event also provides older Cambodian Americans with an opportunity to pass their customs down to future generations while simultaneously allowing all Khmerians to share their culture with other Americans. This celebration traditionally serves as a respite between the Khmerian harvest and the weeks colloquially referred to as the ``rainy season.'' Traditionally, the Anniversary of the Buddha affords Khmerians a chance to give thanks, reflect, and welcome the spirit Tevada Chhnam Thmey. Also, in accordance with tradition, scores of Cambodian-Americans will gather with friends and family to visit local monasteries. While there, the Khmerian people will proffer food to their clergymen, pray for ancestors, give charity to the less- fortunate, forgive the misdeeds of others, and thank elders for their knowledge and care. The Khmerian ceremonies and activities occurring this week demonstrate that each year brings new opportunities for charity, peace, and happiness. Rhode Islanders witnessed the realization of one such opportunity this year. I was fortunate to work with Miriam Hospital in Providence and Representatives Kennedy and Langevin to obtain visas to reunite Cambodian-Rhode Islander Minea Meas with his family. Three long years after Minea received political asylum in our country, his wife, Chantol Lim, and his children Monita, Sovannra, and Sinvath joyfully relocated from Cambodia to build a positive future with Minea in Rhode Island. Consequently, the Meas family will never forget the Year of the Monkey. As we commemorate this important time, let us reflect on recent international affairs and our Nation's continued efforts to promote universal human rights and fundamental democratic ideals. Let us also take this opportunity to honor the Cambodian Americans currently serving in our Nation's military, for helping to preserve the liberties we all enjoy. Finally, I would like to wish all Cambodian Americans happiness, prosperity, and good health in this, the Year of the Rooster.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to express my deep concern about the negative impact the President's proposals that carve out private accounts will have on our Social Security system and also on our mounting Federal debt and the solvency of our Social Security Program in general and, ultimately, the economic prosperity of the Nation over many years. President Bush's plan to create private accounts within Social Security would lead to the following, I believe, very unfortunate effects: It would require a massive increase in Federal debt. It would weaken the Social Security solvency. It would not increase national savings and could lower it. National savings is a key function of our economy. Without national savings, we do not have the pool of capital we need for investment, innovation, and economic progress. Finally, it would sharply cut the guaranteed Social Security benefits under the President's preferred full plan. Let me go into some detail on these issues, drawing upon the excellent work of the Democratic staff of the Joint Economic Committee. I am very privileged to be the ranking member of the Joint Economic Committee. We have assembled a staff of professionals who have looked at all of these issues in great detail. They have concluded, as I suggested, that there are serious problems, not only in terms of solvency of the fund, not only in terms of the increase in Federal debt, but also large cuts in the guaranteed benefits of all of the beneficiaries. That will be a very unfortunate and, indeed, unnecessary consequence of any proposed reform of Social Security. Let's take a look at this first chart. It lays out the debt issue with respect to Social Security. First, the President has proposed that his plan for private accounts and Social Security reform would begin in the year 2009. He has put no money into his budget or his long-term budget. Typically, when we budget, we at least look ahead 10 years. In that first 10-year increment, which would be precisely from 2006 to 2015, there would be an increase of $754 billion as a result of these private accounts. Again, beginning in 2009 and essentially stretching to 2015, you would accumulate almost $1 trillion, $754 billion of debt. But the real staggering number is the first 20 years of these programs if the private accounts are made law. That increased debt would be $4.9 trillion, an extraordinary amount of money. Again, I believe it is appropriate to look at least 20 years. We are talking about solvency for the fund for 75 years. Just in the 20 years, we would have almost $5 trillion in additional Federal debt. The other issue that is important to point out is that this debt is on top of existing debt. This chart just describes the rapid increase of Federal debt as a result of private accounts from the year 2010 to the year 2060. By 2060, 35 percent of GDP will be equal to the debt we have accumulated for private accounts. I think we will stop for a moment: 35 percent of GDP; the debt will equal 35 percent of gross domestic product in the year 2060, but add that to current debt, the debt we are funding to operate our Government, and by 2060, the staggering total of debt relative to GDP is 70 percent. We have not run those debt levels since the end of World War II in which we all know we dedicated every resource we had to defeat the Axis. This is a much different world than 1945 and 1946. In 1945 and 1946, we were at the sanctuary, if you will, of economic productivity for the world. Our infrastructure had not been destroyed. We had tooled up to create the most technologically advanced military force in the world. We quickly transitioned our tanks to Oldsmobiles and Chrysler automobiles and washing machines. Now we are in a world of intense competition, global competition, and if we believe we can live with debt equal to 70 percent of our gross domestic product, I think that is a fanciful notion, but that is the consequence of the President's proposal for private accounts. The other point we should note, too, is that this proposal for private accounts actually accelerates the insolvency of the Social Security fund. Again, the President's proposal is premised on saving Social Security, of making it more solvent. His private accounts would accelerate the insolvency date. This chart shows current law. Again, it is a function of GDP, but it shows where the fund's assets cross the zero line, and that is about 2042. The President's proposal of private accounts would drive the funds into insolvency much earlier--about 2030. It makes no sense to me, if your goal is to increase the solvency of the fund, to have a proposal that actually weakens solvency. In a sense, searching for an analogy, if the boat is leaking, don't break a big hole in the bottom and have more water come in. That is not the way you save a leaking ship. Turning away from the charts, let's go to the mathematics of how this all works. The current Social Security shortfall, an estimate by the trustees, the actuaries of the Social Security Administration, is minus $4 trillion. That is how much money we would have to have today to cover the shortfall for the next 75 years. Here is what the President's plan for private accounts does: First, it costs $4.7 trillion, so that is an additional $4.7 trillion. But what the President proposes is that there is essentially a privatization tax, that those private account holders will have to pay back some money at the time they exercise their retirement benefits. That is $3.1 trillion. Still we have a gap of $1.6 trillion, the net cost of the private accounts. Add that to $4 trillion and now we have a shortfall of $5.6 trillion. We have created a bigger problem; we have not solved the problem. The next table also suggests the possible consequences on national savings. Again, national savings is a key macroeconomic construct when it comes to progress in terms of our economy because it is from those national savings which we draw the investment capital and resources to train people, to innovate new equipment, to invest in new plant and equipment. This is what happens, and national savings is a simple function of private savings, what you and I, our households are saving, together with public savings, what the Government is saving. We have stopped saving. We were saving, which means we had a surplus, until 2000, 2001, and now we are in a huge deficit, about $450 billion a year. Let us see what would happen with these private accounts. First, the public borrows more money. Public savings go down. Private savings go up because we give that money back to people and say now put it into the stock market. The net effect is zero at best, but it could even be worse than that because something could happen in terms of public behavior. First, they could reduce their current savings saying, well, I do not have to save anymore for contingencies because now I have this private savings plan. It is a possibility. To what extent it happens in reality, it is a projection, but that is a possibility. The second is early retirements for these funds. My sense is, every time we have constructed some type of retirement benefit we have found ways to allow people to borrow from it for emergencies. We will probably do the same here. But even if those factors do not take place, zero national savings at best. We need to develop policies that encourage national savings. We should not be devoting huge tax cuts for wealthy Americans. We should be devoting tax cuts to encourage average Americans to save more, and we cannot do both if we have a deficit. My preference obviously would be to encourage average Americans to save more. Now, chart No. 5 walks through the effect on individuals. The President has not offered a plan yet. He has been talking about it around the country, but the suggestions, the intimations are that in order to help address the solvency problem he is going at benefit payments. Essentially, the Commission to Strengthen Social Security put out the blueprint, and this blueprint would suggest cuts in benefits. One proposal was moving away from wage replacement to simple cost-of- living increases in benefits. That would effectively be a cut over time. If we look at the combination of guaranteed benefits and the best estimates of the yield on private accounts, here is what happens over time. This is from the Congressional Budget Office. The average earner retiring in the year 2005 is protected. I think we recognize that because we have not made a change yet. By 2015, however, if one is participating in private accounts, they are doing worse than this 2005 beneficiary, and it goes down all the way. We can see as the guaranteed benefits decrease, the private accounts do not make up the difference, and this is some of the work of CBO. So we have a situation that, frankly, is not a good deal for the retirees and not a good deal for the country when the debt is increased so precipitously. More national savings are not encouraged. A situation is created in which the problem is not getting fixed but is being made worse in so many different dimensions. When we look at this issue of benefit payments, many people fail to recognize that this is not just about retirees. I have a retiree here. There are a significant number of Americans who collect Social Security because they are disabled. They will not have the benefit of private accounts because by definition they cannot work. They are disabled. So they are not going to be taking their paycheck each month and putting it into their private account. All the most vulnerable Americans are going to see is a benefit reduction, and that is not fair. It is not smart either. Moreover, there is a suggestion that this is just an issue for seniors and that is all. The Social Security Administration has an interesting statistic, at least I found it very interesting. Their estimate is, of the cohort of 20-year-olds who are out there today just joining the workforce, who are healthy and running around, who have no immediate cares for retirement like middle-aged people, that 3 out of 10 will become disabled before they reach 65 years old. So I ask, where are they going to get the disability insurance to cover the benefits that today Social Security pays to people who become disabled? They cannot afford it. They will not buy it. There will be some disability program, but it will not be the kind of program that today provides at least some modicum of support for individuals who have been disabled through no fault of their own. This is a topic that will be discussed again and again, but it is important to look at these issues and to make a practical and pragmatic assessment. That is what the American people are doing today. They are looking at the proposal of private accounts. They are seeing it jeopardize our economic future and seeing it eventually cut their prospects for retirement or for protection if they become disabled, and they are rejecting it out of hand. I think they should. We have to continue to keep the focus on this particular proposal. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues, Senators DeWine, Dodd and Burr to introduce the Services for Ending Long-Term Homelessness Act, (SELHA). It is estimated that two to three million Americans experience a period of homelessness in a given year. While the majority of these individuals find themselves homeless for a brief period of time, a growing segment are experiencing prolonged periods of homelessness. Roughly 200,000 to 250,000 Americans fall under the category of chronically homeless. In March 2003, former Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson issued a report from a work group and an interagency subcommittee that was assembled to define the issues and challenges facing the chronically homeless and develop a comprehensive approach to bringing the appropriate services and treatments to this population of individuals who typically fall outside of mainstream support programs. Similarly, the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health recommended the development of a comprehensive plan to facilitate access to permanent supportive housing for individuals and families who are chronically homeless. However, affordable housing, alone, is not enough for many chronically homeless to achieve stability. This population also needs flexible, mobile, and individualized support services to sustain them in housing. The legislation we are introducing today is critical to the development and implementation of more effective strategies to combat chronic homelessness through improved service delivery and coordination across Federal agencies serving this population. It directs the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to coordinate their efforts not only with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, but with other Federal departments and the various agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services that provide supportive services. Mr. President, SELHA is an important bipartisan measure which will help to ensure that the growing number of Americans experiencing chronic homelessness have access to the range of supportive services they need to get them back on their feet, living in permanent supportive housing and taking the steps necessary to become productive and active members of our communities again. I look forward to working with my colleagues toward expeditious passage of this legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues, Senators DeWine, Dodd and Burr to introduce the Services for Ending Long-Term Homelessness Act, (SELHA). It is estimated that two to three million Americans experience a period of homelessness in a given year. While the majority of these individuals find themselves homeless for a brief period of time, a growing segment are experiencing prolonged periods of homelessness. Roughly 200,000 to 250,000 Americans fall under the category of chronically homeless. In March 2003, former Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson issued a report from a work group and an interagency subcommittee that was assembled to define the issues and challenges facing the chronically homeless and develop a comprehensive approach to bringing the appropriate services and treatments to this population of individuals who typically fall outside of mainstream support programs. Similarly, the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health recommended the development of a comprehensive plan to facilitate access to permanent supportive housing for individuals and families who are chronically homeless. However, affordable housing, alone, is not enough for many chronically homeless to achieve stability. This population also needs flexible, mobile, and individualized support services to sustain them in housing. The legislation we are introducing today is critical to the development and implementation of more effective strategies to combat chronic homelessness through improved service delivery and coordination across Federal agencies serving this population. It directs the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to coordinate their efforts not only with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, but with other Federal departments and the various agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services that provide supportive services. Mr. President, SELHA is an important bipartisan measure which will help to ensure that the growing number of Americans experiencing chronic homelessness have access to the range of supportive services they need to get them back on their feet, living in permanent supportive housing and taking the steps necessary to become productive and active members of our communities again. I look forward to working with my colleagues toward expeditious passage of this legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today many Americans in communities across the Nation are being left behind in our economy. Federal community and economic development programs, such as Community Development Block Grants, Community Development Financial Institutions, and Economic Development Administration grants, have a history of ``being there'' for communities--providing funding for housing rehabilitation, job creation, and infrastructure. I thank Senator Sarbanes for offering his amendment to save these important programs from elimination, and I am glad to be a cosponsor. Senator Sarbanes' amendment will restore funding to these vital programs by closing tax loopholes that the majority of the Senate supported closing in the FSC/ETI bill. The President's Strengthening America's Communities Initiatives, SACI, would fundamentally change Federal economic and community development programs serving our communities. The President's fiscal year 2006 budget eliminates 18 successful programs serving low-income urban, rural, and Native American communities. It reduces the Federal commitment to funding community development by 33 percent, cutting funding from $5.6 billion to $3.71 billion. And the President's proposal will also reduce the number of communities served. A program that serves fewer Americans with less resource can only place more families and low-income neighborhoods at risk, rather than create vibrant and strong economies as CDBG, CDFI, EDA, the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative and Section 108 loan guarantees are doing. The real issue with federal community development assistance is the lack of financial resources for the thousands of communities struggling to remain economically competitive, not the current structure of the existing programs. While the budget resolution includes funding for tax loopholes that the Senate voted to close last year, it fails to adequately fund programs that provide affordable housing to American workers, programs that create or retain jobs in the economy, and programs that provide vital public services to our senior citizens. In fiscal year 2003, the economy lost 486,000 jobs. CDBG projects created or retained 108,700 jobs for Americans. CDBG also has a strong record in business retention. While businesses have left American shores for other countries, CDBG ensured that over 80 percent of the businesses assisted through this program were still in operation after 3 years. There is overwhelming opposition to the Strengthening America's Community Initiative. Mayors, local and State community development agencies, housing assistance agencies, and others from Rhode Island to Utah, and from Michigan to Texas, have written letters to Congress and to the administration opposing these devastating cuts and changes to Federal economic and community development assistance. They know that CDBG, CDFI, and EDA programs are the foundation of strong communities-- these programs are literally the building blocks of community development. A unified grant program, as proposed by the administration, will leave gaping holes in community and economic development assistance. CDBG is the glue that holds other Federal programs serving low-income communities together. On the 30th Anniversary of CDBG in 2004, HUD Deputy Secretary Roy Bernardi said the following about the program: HUD has a long history of 'being there' and providing help for people, particularly those with the greatest needs--our lower income constituents. CDBG has certainly been there, during boom years and most importantly in times of tightening budgets, which place greater demands on existing services. We must continue to support and build upon programs that work, those that have a proven record of flexibility and the ability to fit in with locally determined needs. CDBG is such a program and ranks among our nation's oldest and most successful programs. It continues to set the standard for all other block grant programs. I want to tell my colleagues about CDBG's history of ``being there.'' In Rhode Island, CDBG was there when the West Elmwood Housing Development Corporation, a not-for-profit community based organization, needed to build and renovate affordable homes. CDBG gave Rhode Island families, who would otherwise be unable to achieve the American dream of homeownership, the chance to own their own home. In Florida, Congress turned to CDBG to provide relief after last year's devastating hurricane season, and in New York City, CDBG helped the city rebuild after the September 11 tragedy. In New Hampshire, CDBG is there for the Concord Area Trust for Community Housing to layer with Low-Income Housing Tax Credits to build affordable housing. In Ohio, Community Development Financial Institutions are there for communities across the State helping to finance businesses and microenterprises that support new jobs in the economy. And EDA was there to provide planning and technical assistance to help save 466 existing jobs and create 78 new jobs near Billings, MT. There are no other Federal programs or tax loophole that have the history of ``being there'' like CDBG, CDFI, and EDA. Senator Sarbanes' amendment to restore funding to these programs deserves the full support of my Senate colleagues, whether Republican or Democratic, representing an urban state such as Rhode Island or a rural state such as Montana. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for Senator Sarbanes' amendment so that all workers, families, neighborhoods, and communities can participate in our Nation's economic growth.