Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you. Mr. President, Social Security is the bedrock of this country's social safety net and our most effective antipoverty program for seniors and the disabled. A valuable feature of Social Security is the annual cost of living adjustment, or COLA, which was enacted to ensure that the real purchasing power of beneficiaries' checks would be preserved, and not eaten away by inflation. I would also point out that such COLA protection is missing from most private pensions. Sadly, what the JEC Democrats' report has revealed is that large increases in health care costs and the poor design of the new Medicare prescription drug plan have created a situation in which rising Medicare premiums are undermining the Social Security COLA. The problem is already serious, and we have not even begun to experience the impact of the prescription drug premium of the new Medicare Part D program that will take effect in 2006. The study shows, for example, that in the years 2011-2014, a person with a monthly Social Security benefit of $500 (in today's dollars) would see 69 percent of her COLA consumed by increases in Medicare Part B and Part D premiums. That leaves far too little of the COLA to cover increases in prices of other necessities such as food, energy, and other medical expenses. Even people with larger monthly benefits would see their COLAs substantially eroded by the increases in Medicare premiums. Finally, the study shows that by 2014, if there is no legislation to address this problem, 64 percent of beneficiaries who have their Medicare premiums deducted from their Social Security checks will lose at least 25 percent of their Social Security COLA to increases in those premiums. The JEC Democratic staff study makes a compelling case that we have a serious problem on our hands. That is why I am happy to cosponsor ``The Social Security COLA Protection Act of 2004.'' This legislation will preserve the essential safety net Social Security provides seniors, by making sure that at least 75 percent of their Social Security COLA is protected from increases in Medicare premiums and available to offset increasing cost of other goods and services seniors need in order to maintain an adequate quality-of-life.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to join with the distinguished Democratic Leader and Senator Murray in introducing the ``Social Security COLA Protection Act of 2004.'' I would also ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record the report by the Joint Economic Committee Democratic staff entitled, ``Rising Medicare Premiums Undermine the Social Security COLA.''

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 25th anniversary of both the first White House Conference on Library and Information Services and the White House Conference on Library and Information Services Taskforce, WHCLIST, as well as to applaud a booklet, ``Libraries, Citizens & Advocacy: The Lasting Effects of Two White House Conferences on Library and Information Services,'' published by WHCLIST in honor of this occasion. As a result of the WHCLIST conferences and efforts--which have brought together hundreds of thousands of citizen representatives and library professionals--many Americans have discovered their community libraries for the first time, hundreds of Friends of the Library groups have formed, and a cadre of committed library supporters has emerged. The conferences renewed our Nation's emphasis on libraries and have helped spur my efforts to improve libraries. The ``Libraries, Citizens & Advocacy'' report, which assesses the outcomes of the 1979 and 1991 White House Conferences on Library and Information Services, concludes that the WHCLIST has effectively focused the attention of the profession, trustees and advocates, and elected local, State, and national officials on the conferences' resolutions and recommendations. In the past quarter of a century, many of these resolutions and recommendations have been realized. For example, resolutions from the 1979 conference included urging libraries to play a greater role in literacy development; provide improved access for minority groups, individuals with disabilities, and other underserved populations; and serve as a community center that offers recreation, social interaction, and an independent learning center. Delegates to the 1991 conference voted the Omnibus Children and Youth Initiative as the recommendation of greatest priority, including recommendations for school libraries and children's services in public libraries, intergenerational programming, and family literacy partnerships between library and Head Start personnel. We have made significant progress toward improving the quality of school libraries. Notably, the 1996 passage of the Library Services and Technology Act made school libraries eligible to receive Federal funds for training, networks, and statewide consortium activities, and the Improving Literacy through School Libraries program, which I authored and was included as part of the No Child Left Behind Act, restored categorical funding for school libraries. I have been proud to lead the way on these pieces of legislation, which ensure access to library and information services for library patrons of all ages, support the training and recruitment of librarians, and help provide the resources libraries need to improve literacy skills and academic achievement. I am honored to continue in the spirit of Senator Claiborne Pell's strong leadership on library issues. I also wish to acknowledge the immense contributions and passionate advocacy of two other leaders from my home State: Rose Ellen A. Reynolds, current WHCLIST chair, and Joan Ress Reeves, delegate to the 1979 and 1991 conferences and former WHCLIST chair. Let us recognize the White House Conference on Library and Information Taskforce on this 25th anniversary and celebrate the role it has played in improving our communities' libraries and our Nation's literacy.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I commend and thank my colleague Senator DeWine and my colleague Senator Kennedy for this legislation. They have been in the vanguard for many years of protecting the health of all Americans, but particularly protecting the health of children. I have also been active, along with Senator Durbin and others, in this effort. Actually, in August of 1996, the FDA promulgated rules to regulate the tobacco industry. But these rules were litigated to the Supreme Court. In a very closely divided decision--5 to 4--the Court essentially said: Congress, you must make it clear that the FDA has the authority to regulate the tobacco industry. That is what the DeWine- Kennedy amendment is doing--making it very clear, very explicit that the Food and Drug Administration may regulate the tobacco industry. Now, there was a question about the law, but there was no question in the minds of the Justices about the effect of tobacco as a public health issue. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated, in her majority opinion, that tobacco was ``perhaps the single most significant threat to public health in the United States.'' Justice Breyer, who was in the minority, recognized that the FDA should already have this power because essentially their mandate is ``the overall protection of the public health.'' And this is the gravest crisis in public health we face in terms of a product that is unregulated, certainly in our economy. The DeWine amendment brings this issue to, I hope, resolution today. I hope we will give authority to the FDA to involve itself in the greatest public health issue that faces the United States; that is, the consumption of tobacco products. This DeWine-Kennedy amendment also is very timely because less than a month ago a 50-year study was published in the British Medical Journal chronicling the outcomes of almost 35,000 British doctors who smoked. This detailed, longitudinal study is the first one to clearly link cigarette smoke to lung cancer and show that on average, a life of smoking will be a decade shorter than a life without smoking. Of the 35,000 subjects, epidemiologist Richard Doll reports that almost half of all persistent cigarette smokers died because of smoking, and a quarter died before age 70. Perhaps more striking was a finding that quitting smoking can mitigate or even reverse these effects. For instance, stop smoking by the time you are 30 and you will have the same average life expectancy as a nonsmoker. Stop at 50 and you will lose only 4 years of life instead of 10. Clearly, there is still time to help, and particularly to help the children of America. But that can only be done if the FDA has the power to regulate the sale and distribution of cigarettes. That is something at the heart of the Kennedy-DeWine amendment. It will ensure that children will not have easy access to tobacco products by restricting tobacco advertising and limiting the sale of cigarettes to face-to-face transactions where the purchaser's age can be verified. It will provide for stronger warning labels and allow the FDA to change their text over time to keep their impact strong. And it would help the 46 million Americans addicted to cigarettes by authorizing the FDA to reduce or remove hazardous ingredients from cigarettes, as science allows. These are important provisions that will have a real impact on the health of all Americans, and it is no surprise that this legislation has enlisted the strongest possible support of, among others, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and the American Lung Association. We understand the dangers of cigarette smoking. This legislation will empower the Food and Drug Administration to confront those dangers head on, to confront the most significant public health problem that faces America. It will allow them particularly to protect children. It is typical of the concern and the conscientious efforts of the two principal sponsors, Senators DeWine and Kennedy. I thank them for their effort, and I join them in this endeavor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment that is before us. First, Congress has already addressed this issue in a statute that has yet to be effectively legally challenged. Second, amending the Constitution should be the last resort and not the first response when it comes to an issue of this type. Third, issues involving family law matters are and have been historically the purview of State legislatures and State courts. Finally, while there is great interest on the part of some in this Constitutional amendment, our Nation faces the far more pressing threat of terrorists committed to attacking us here on U.S. soil. There is so much more we can and should do with respect to that looming threat. Several years ago in response to developments in Hawaii and elsewhere, Congress, along with then-President Clinton's support, enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA. DOMA put into Federal law a clear and precise definition of marriage as follows: . . . the word ``marriage'' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ``spouse'' refers only to a person of the opposite sex, who is a husband or a wife. In the face of this clear language in the statute, it is amazing to me we would disregard the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and attempt to enshrine in the Constitution this principle without testing the constitutionality of this statute. Since it was first written and with the addition of the Bill of Rights in 1791, our Constitution has only been amended 16 times. The vast majority of these amendments dealt with the separation of powers and structure of our Government, the right to vote, power to tax, and other issues that, frankly, are only issues that can be decided through Constitutional amendment. The amendment that is before us today has not yet risen to this level of interest and concern. First, as I indicated, Congress has already addressed the issue of what marriage is, and that law to date has not been challenged in a meaningful way. So there is no definitive finding of the constitutionality of DOMA. Indeed, typically the first step when one seeks to pursue a constitutional remedy is to determine whether the statutes are adequate. That has not been done. Second, only one State in our Nation has recognized same-sex marriage, and that decision has yet to impact other States. I would suggest to my colleagues that now is not the time to play politics in an election year with the Constitution of the United States. I believe it is also important to note that the Founding Fathers in their wisdom established a Federal system of Government that intentionally left many critical issues to the control of State legislatures and State courts. This system has served our Nation extremely well, and I fear this amendment, if adopted, would lead to a succession of proposals to federalize family law and to federalize other issues that have been the purview of States since the beginning of our country. Also, it strikes me as a misplaced priority when it comes to all the other issues that face us today--issues of funding homeland security, issues pertaining to health care, issues that are affecting the lives of every family in the country--to be here today and debating a proposal that does not have the majority support of the American public. In an ordinary time, debating any issue might be justified, but this is not an ordinary time. As we were reminded last week by Governor Ridge and Mr. Mueller of the FBI, there are those who are plotting today to attack us in our homeland, and yet here we are talking about the issue of a relationship between two consenting adults. We have 30 days left on the majority leader's schedule, and apparently we are going to spend our time on these types of divisive issues. That is not how I think we should properly spend our time. I think we should commit ourselves to dealing with the issues that pertain to every American family--issues of health care, issues of security, both economic and international. Today we are spending time on an amendment which will not pass, which is not supported by the majority of Americans, and which defers us and deflects us from concentrating on the issues I think can help Americans. Finally, I know many of my constituents are gays and lesbians in long-term relationships. While I myself believe civil unions are perhaps the best place to begin to publicly acknowledge these relationships, I want to recognize that the impetus behind the push for gay marriage comes from a desire for security and serious, committed relationships by many adult Americans. In closing, let us heed the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. The States are simply the correct place for the regulation of marriage, and this kind of election-year politicking, which suggests an intolerance toward many of our constituents and neighbors, is plain wrong. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, Senators Smith, Dodd, DeWine, and Reid, to discuss the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act which will be introduced today. I thank and commend them. I particularly commend Senator Gordon Smith. We are here today literally because he has worked tirelessly to bring this legislation to the Senate floor, to work with us and to advocate strenuously that this legislation come to the floor of the Senate today. It is rightfully designated the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act. Garrett, unfortunately, struggled for years and sadly took his own life last September. We heard this afternoon the heartfelt words of his father talking about this wonderful young man. We all sense that as Garrett struggled, he did it with loving and caring parents. As my colleague Senator DeWine pointed out, the Smiths have taken their pain and transformed it into purposeful action to ensure that other families and other young people do not have to suffer and endure even today the pain that lingers at the loss of this fine young man, and I thank the Senator for his leadership and for his decent and gallant heart. We are here today because we are responding to an extraordinary problem, a problem that seems to many of us to be difficult to comprehend: why a young person, in the prime of life, with so much ahead, would take their own life. Sadly, suicide takes the lives of over 4,000 children and young adults each year. It is now the third leading cause of death among 10 to 24 year olds in America. The rate of suicide has tripled from 1952 to 1995. Yet despite the astounding statistics, we still do not fully understand what is driving so many young people to the extreme of taking their own life. What we hope to achieve with this legislation is to show them that there is an answer, that suicide is not the way out, that there is help for whatever is troubling them, and that they can live lives that are full, happy, and complete. A Chronicle of Higher Education survey found that rates for depression in college freshmen are on the rise. Without treatment, the Chronicle points out, depressed adolescents are at risk for social failure, social isolation, promiscuity, self-medication with drugs and alcohol, and suicide. That is a description of failure, not a description of successful living. A 2003 Gallagher's Survey of Counseling Center Directors found that 85 percent of counseling centers on college campuses are reporting an increase in the number of students in need of services. Mr. President, 81 percent were concerned that increasing numbers of students are there with severe psychological problems; 67 percent reported a need for more psychiatric services, and 63 percent reported problems with growing demand for services without an appropriate increase in resources. That is why, working with Senator DeWine, working with my colleagues Senator Dodd and Senator Smith, we have incorporated in this act support for college counseling centers. It is not coincidental that Garrett was beginning his first year at the University of Utah, had left home, was in a new environment, was struggling with all of the powerful forces of independence and of change young people experience when they go off to school. That is a particularly vulnerable time. We understand college is a time of great intellectual development, but it is also a time of extraordinary personal and interpersonal growth and change. When children go off to college, we need to make sure they have the support they need during this critical transitional period. Additionally, there are many adults going to college and they have a particular dilemma of balancing their studies with their family responsibilities. Yet campus after campus lacks the resources to support their counseling staffs to deal with these real issues, these real psychological issues. Part of what we seek to do through the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act is ensure colleges and universities around the country have the resources to reach out to students, to provide essential mental and behavioral health services, and to educate families about potential signs of trouble. Part of this process is not only treating the youngster, it is making parents aware of these signs so they can intervene successfully and in a timely fashion. Our colleges and universities are struggling to address the wide range of problems experienced by students--drug and alcohol problems, eating disorders, depression, schizophrenia, suicide attempts. With insufficient resources, many schools offer limited or very cursory services to students. We hope to begin to change that with this legislation. We hope through this legislation to begin to shine a light on the growing problem of youth suicide. This legislation provides resources and technical assistance to States to develop and implement robust early intervention and suicide prevention strategies across the Nation. It also seeks to address the overwhelming need for mental and behavioral health services on college campuses, as I have discussed. This is an important bipartisan measure and a tribute, a fitting tribute to Garrett and to the faith and dedication and decency of the Smith family, Gordon and Sharon. I again express my thanks to Senator Dodd and Senator DeWine. When you look at legislation in this body that attempts to provide practical support and help to young people, you usually find two names on the legislation--Dodd and DeWine. It is always a privilege to join these gentlemen. I also want to thank Senator Harry Reid, who spoke movingly of his own experience, the death of his father through suicide. Senator Don Nickles similarly gave a moving tribute to Sharon and Gordon. Let me also thank Dr. Harsh Trivedi, a fellow in my office, a psychiatrist who is now on a fellowship up in Boston. He did most of the work on the Campus Care and Counseling Act, which is the legislation incorporated in this act. I also thank Lisa German of my staff, who does so much to help us on these issues, and also Catherine Finley on Senator Smith's staff, who has been of remarkable help and assistance. Let me thank the leadership, Senator Daschle, Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Senator Nickles, because they let us bring this bill to the floor today to move forward to pass it. This is an example of the kind of work we can do when we work together, the kind of work the American people demand of us. It is, as I said, a fitting tribute to Garrett and I hope an enduring tribute to his father who worked so hard to get it to the floor today and to pass it. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, my fellow Rhode Islanders, and our Cape Verdean community in celebration of Cape Verde Independence Day. Every country is rich with its own history and unique story of how it achieved democracy, and Cape Verde is no exception. In 1462, Portuguese settlers arrived at Santiago and founded the first permanent European settlement city in the tropics. In 1951, Portugal changed Cape Verde's status from a colony to an overseas province in an attempt to blunt growing nationalism. Five years later, a group of Cape Verdeans, led by Amilcar Cabral, and a group from neighboring Guinea-Bissau organized the clandestine African Party for the Independence of Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde, PAIGC, demanding improvements in economic, social, and political conditions in Cape Verde and Portuguese Guinea. This important action formed the basis of the 2 nations' independence movements. By 1972, the PAIGC controlled much of Portuguese Guinea despite the presence of the Portuguese troops, but did not disrupt Portuguese control in Cape Verde. It was not until the April 1974 revolution in Portugal that the PAIGC and Portugal signed an agreement providing for a transitional government composed of Portuguese and Cape Verdeans. On June 30, 1975, Cape Verdeans elected a national assembly, which received the instruments of independence from Portugal on July 5, 1975, making it the official national day of independence. For its first 15 years of independence, Cape Verde was ruled by one party. Then in 1990, opposition groups came together to form the Movement for Democracy. Working together they ended the 1-party state and the first multi-party elections were held in January 1991. Cape Verde enjoys a stable democratic system where 4 parties share seats in the National Assembly. It is an example to other nations as to what can be accomplished. These democratic changes meant better global integration as the government has pursued market-oriented economic policies and welcomed foreign investors. Today there are close to 350,000 Cape Verdean-Americans living in the United States, almost equal to the population of Cape Verde itself. These Americans hold a special right since the Cape Verdean Constitution formally considers all Cape Verdeans at home and abroad as citizens and voters. Thus, July 5th is a day of independence for all Cape Verdean-Americans as well as those in Cape Verde. Recently we celebrated the independence of our own country, reflecting on the personal sacrifices many have made to ensure our own freedom and democracy. It is fitting we do the same with Cape Verde and I urge my colleagues to join me in wishing all those with direct and ancestral ties to Cape Verde a happy Independence Day.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, last week, the Senate by a vote of 94 to 3, passed the Reed-Hagel-McCain amendment to increase the Army's end strength by 20,000. This overwhelming vote was an acknowledgement that the administration has consistently underestimated and tried to avoid publicly admitting the real number of troops needed to win the peace in Iraq. That amendment was one step to bring our Iraq policy in line with the realities of Iraq. However, the Defense authorization bill and the Defense appropriations bill before us today both continue to sidestep the budgetary realities of our military involvement in Iraq. Just 2 days ago, Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz testified that ``it's entirely possible'' that U.S. troops could be stationed in Iraq for years. If a long-term deployment of U.S. troops is ``entirely possible'', then the administration and Congress have a duty to properly budget for it. When we know we are adding more troops and we know that we have significant commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Colombia, and elsewhere, we should put those costs into the annual Defense appropriations bill, not a supplemental appropriations bill or a contingency fund as the administration calls it. By making these known costs subject to supplemental appropriations, we not only pretend that these costs are not long term, we also create an ongoing budget problem for the Army. This situation is all the more shocking when one considers the consistent claims from both sides of the aisle that we will provide our military with whatever it needs to win the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, since the Iraq war began, the Army has had to continuously cobble together the resources to pay for more troops out of its regular budget. So instead of replacing or repairing destroyed equipment, buying HUMVEEs or body armor, or fulfilling other obligations, the Army has had to eat its seed corn. It is true that the Army has also gotten supplemental funds on occasion to pay for additional soldiers, but only after it has exhausted all of the reprogramming options I just mentioned. In the short run, reprogramming and supplemental appropriations are an option, but Iraq, Afghanistan and Korea are not options. They are real, and the pressure on the Army's budget is real. Unless, we increase the size of the Army's regularly appropriated budget to include the costs of the Army's real personnel levels, I fear that the Army will continue to delay needed expenditures, put off necessary investments, all so the administration can attempt to minimize the costs of the war on terror. I want to be clear, this is not the fault of the Appropriations Committee. It has done its job well and has continually worked to make the Army whole. But, the committee and the bill before us are constrained by the administration's inflexibility and demands that known, long-term costs must be hidden in contingency reserve accounts and other budgetary maneuvers. It would be my desire to increase the size of the Army's personnel budget by moving the $2 billion in supplemental funds for this very purpose into the Army's annual fiscal year 2005 appropriation. I believe it would be more appropriate to take the $2 billion we know we'll spend out of the supplemental section of this bill and put it into the Army's regular budget just like all of the Army's other long term costs. In deference to the chairman and ranking member and the fact that such a proposal would likely require waiving the Budget Act as well as the Senate's endorsement of my amendment and Senator Levin's amendment that calls on the administration to put the true costs of Army end strength in its fiscal year 2006 budget request, I did not offer this amendment. However, if the administration persists in trying to sweep these costs under the rug, Congress must act to include these funds in the regular budget of the Army. I am also concerned that this year's bill has consolidated the Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program under a single line item. While the peer review programs are united in their goal of improving detection, treatment and hopefully one day, prevention of deadly diseases such as leukemia, prostate, ovarian and breast cancer, they are each unique in their design, focus and stage of development. However, there is a valid concern that placing these programs under a single line item may inevitably pit them against one another. The fledgling Ovarian Cancer Research Program, which was only established in 1997 and has been level funded at $10 million per year, will be competing with the much larger breast cancer program that has been in operation for over 12 years and is funded at a healthy $150 million. I hope that I and other Senators can work with the Chairman and ranking member to find a way to protect the critical and specific health research on cancer that the Department of Defense has been able to support in the past.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise as an original cosponsor of the Improving Access to Assistive Technology for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004. This important legislation reauthorizes the Assistive Technology, AT, Act, which helps States strengthen their capacity to address the assistive technology needs of individuals with disabilities and supports loan and device demonstration programs, for six years. This legislation improves current law in several ways which will help individuals with disabilities gain access to the assistive technology devices and services that will help them lead full and productive lives. Importantly, the legislation removes the sunset provision included in the last reauthorization and increases the minimum State allotment to $500,000, ensuring that all States can continue this vital work. Assistive technology devices and services are increasingly necessary, particularly as our population ages and for soldiers returning from battle with injuries that used to be life ending. I am particularly pleased that this legislation contains language I sought to address areas of need that I heard from assistive technology users, providers, advocates, and administrators in my State of Rhode Island. First, the bill enhances training activities to improve the capacity of local education, early intervention, adult providers, and employers to assess, implement, and integrate AT devices. Secondly, funding is authorized for inventing and developing new AT devices and adapting, maintaining, servicing, and improving existing AT devices. Finally, the bill makes great strides to promote interagency coordination and collaboration to effectively deliver assistive technology devices and services. I want to thank Senators Gregg, Kennedy, and Harkin for working so closely with me and my staff on this bill. It is my hope that we will be able to maintain this same cooperative, bipartisan spirit in which this bill was crafted as the reauthorization process moves forward.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise as an original cosponsor of the Improving Access to Assistive Technology for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004. This important legislation reauthorizes the Assistive Technology, AT, Act, which helps States strengthen their capacity to address the assistive technology needs of individuals with disabilities and supports loan and device demonstration programs, for six years. This legislation improves current law in several ways which will help individuals with disabilities gain access to the assistive technology devices and services that will help them lead full and productive lives. Importantly, the legislation removes the sunset provision included in the last reauthorization and increases the minimum State allotment to $500,000, ensuring that all States can continue this vital work. Assistive technology devices and services are increasingly necessary, particularly as our population ages and for soldiers returning from battle with injuries that used to be life ending. I am particularly pleased that this legislation contains language I sought to address areas of need that I heard from assistive technology users, providers, advocates, and administrators in my State of Rhode Island. First, the bill enhances training activities to improve the capacity of local education, early intervention, adult providers, and employers to assess, implement, and integrate AT devices. Secondly, funding is authorized for inventing and developing new AT devices and adapting, maintaining, servicing, and improving existing AT devices. Finally, the bill makes great strides to promote interagency coordination and collaboration to effectively deliver assistive technology devices and services. I want to thank Senators Gregg, Kennedy, and Harkin for working so closely with me and my staff on this bill. It is my hope that we will be able to maintain this same cooperative, bipartisan spirit in which this bill was crafted as the reauthorization process moves forward.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield myself 8 minutes. My amendment would condition the acquisition of interceptors 21 through 30 for the ground-based midcourse national missile defense system on the implementation of operational evaluation and testing under the auspices of the director of testing in the Pentagon. I will try to give a brief explanation of where we are with this system that is to be deployed. It is a combination of existing elements and some brandnew technology. The existing elements, first, the defense support system, a satellite system, is a cold war system designed to pick up the initial lift-off of missiles. That is in place. Then there is a group of Aegis ships that are out around the potential threat area of North Korea. That is a relatively new application of these ships. They were designed to intercept and detect cruise missiles and aircraft. Now we are attempting to expand that to track, at least partially, the flight path of an ICBM coming from a threat, specifically North Korea. Then there is the Cobra Dane radar, an older radar system. It is not particularly well adapted at discriminating, so it is therefore not the best radar we could have. The administration has canceled the X-band radar system, which is better. Then there are the interceptors with the kill vehicles on top. The subject of this amendment is the interceptors. For many years, this ground-based system was designed to deploy 20 interceptors. Today, we are taking five for this deployment. But 20 was a rather significant number for technology that has not yet been proven. What the administration did this year is say, well, we want to go beyond that 20; we want 40. We want to buy 10 more, 21 through 30, and have long lead-time acquisition funds for 31 through 40. Well, the Congress in its wisdom already terminated the long lead time for 21 through 40, but we still have to budget this money for 21 through 30. I don't propose to take that money away. I want to simply fence it, make as a condition to spend that money that this system will begin testing and evaluation. We had a vigorous debate about imposing this operational testing scheme. The result was now the Secretary of Defense is required to promulgate some criteria for operational testing and conduct these tests by October of 2005. My amendment differs, and I think significantly so. It says we cannot depend upon the Defense Secretary's criteria and evaluation--a self- evaluation by the Missile Defense Agency. We need to get this program back into the traditional system of operational testing and evaluation, which is conducted by an independent agency in the Pentagon which designs, supervises the tests, and makes sure the tests will do what we want to do: deliver to the field a system that actually works. I don't think it is unreasonable. In fact, I think it is entirely appropriate to say that before we buy these additional interceptors--10 more--we are at least in a situation where this rudimentary system has been entered into operational testing. Let me specifically highlight the issue of the interceptors. The operation of the interceptor and kill vehicle is brand new. Neither has been tested in an interceptor test. We have not tried to fly them with a kill vehicle even against a target. Yet we are buying 10 more of them. It would be prudent to say let's wait and at least do a few tests with these new interceptors and kill vehicles. The new version of the kill vehicle, by the way, where the warhead would actually impact the incoming enemy missile, has never even been flight tested. We don't know what it will look like. In fact, problems with the kill vehicle have delayed the scheduled flight test from March until July 31 of this year; and, frankly, we are weeks away from that and it is entirely plausible that this would be delayed even further. So we are deploying a system in which we have not yet even tested in flight one of the most critical aspects of the system, let alone the fact that the rest of the system has been cobbled together by existing pieces of technology being used in new ways. That is a strong argument, in my mind, to say how serious are we about saying this is deployment. But it is more compelling, in my mind, to say at some point we have to get operational testing and evaluation--not some improvised form by the Secretary of Defense being implemented by the Missile Defense Agency but a traditional system where the director of test and evaluation at the Pentagon does evaluation and testing. This amendment would do that. It would take no money away. It would simply say we cannot spend the money on the next 10 interceptors--21 through 30--until we have entered the traditional mode of operational test and evaluation. This amendment makes a great deal of sense. There are examples of how useful operational testing is. The Patriot PAC-3 system--probably the closest analogy to this, even though it is a theater missile system--is designed to go against targets that are not as fast and don't leave the atmosphere. But it is the same hit-to-kill technology. In fact, I was bemused years ago when they would show the film clips of how successful we are in this new technology, and they would use PAC-3 film clips about the hit-to-kill technology. The PAC-3 system was being tested developmentally. Then it went into operational testing and it failed four consecutive operational tests against a realistic target, one in which you try to simulate the conditions of battlefield use. Even though it was successful in the developmental tests, it failed four consecutive operational tests. Why are we buying missiles today that have the potential of duplicating the PAC-3 experience? Frankly, we could be in the unenviable position where the first time we try to fly this against a potentially real target, it fails. We have to have operational testing and the PAC-3 is a very good example. These operational tests are extremely useful in finally coming up with a system that is much more reliable. So, as a result, I urge my amendment strongly. It doesn't take the money away. It simply lays out as a condition that we not spend it until we at least have operational testing. By the way, we are already buying 20 missiles. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute.

Mr. REED. I respect the chairman and the chairman of the subcommittee who have engaged in this debate. The question to me is: Will this system work? We really do not know if it will work. If we do not know it is going to work, why are we buying 10 additional interceptors at a price of about $500 million? So this is not the same amendment, the amendment written over and over again. This is an amendment about scarce resources--will we devote them to these interceptors that are untested or will we devote them to other issues? I point out that there is nothing in this amendment that slows up the program. There is nothing in this amendment that would take away funds. It simply says, let us get into an operational testing mode before we buy these additional systems. Final point. This system has been plagued by delays, but they are technological delays. The reason we are not having a test--we did not have one in March, and we are having it in July--is because this kill vehicle is not ready for such testing. There is nothing about our amendment or about our procedures. This is a hard technology, but let us make sure it works.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, it actually did lead to changes in the operational use of the system, and those changes were very valuable once deployed in a combat situation.

Mr. REED. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. REED. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Corzine be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues Senators Warner, Levin, Gregg, Hollings and McCain for working with Senator Kohl and I on this important amendment preserving the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, Program. I particularly want to thank Senators Hollings and Gregg for their strong support of the MEP Program and their efforts to restore funding to a program that is vital to our Nation's small manufacturers. I look forward to working with them this year to ensure funding is restored in fiscal year 2005. Senator Kohl and my amendment clarifies that the Secretary of Commerce has the ability to transfer and reprogram $21.8 million to the MEP Program this fiscal year in order to assist our nation's small manufacturers. Senator Gregg, Hollings, Kohl and I believe that the Secretary already has the ability to transfer and reprogram this funding; however, rather than honor the request of 55 Senators and work with the Senate and Congress to help reprogram funds, the Department of Commerce has chosen to hide behind a legal interpretation that it lacks such authority. Small manufacturers have a direct impact on national security. Small manufacturers are the backbone of our defense production capacities. Firms with fewer than 500 employees comprise more than 80 percent of the defense supply chains. Small businesses are responsible for a significant share of defense contracting. They receive 21 percent of prime contracts and 41 percent of the subcontracts awarded to businesses by, or on behalf of, the Department of Defense. The National Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing in a 2002 report identified five key challenges that confront the defense industrial base. First, the loss of small and medium-sized firms that participate in the defense supply chain is taking its toll on our Nation's defense readiness as many makers of components and spare parts for the larger defense contractors have left the marketplace or are ill-prepared to respond to swift increases in orders. There is no known source of supply for over 11,000 products used by the Department of Defense. Second, our Nation needs to maintain sufficient surge production capacity to meet unanticipated national defense needs. The production of platform systems, components and munitions is constrained by the surge capacity of prime contractors and the capabilities of the supplier base. Being able to provide for these defense needs is vital to our military. Third, outdated and aging manufacturing systems and processes are involved in the production of major weapon systems. The need for quality and technology improvements along with increased productivity and cost reduction makes the shortage of capable small manufacturers more problematic. Fourth, large defense companies often have the knowledge and resources to make investments in productivity and efficiency improvements; however, small manufacturers frequently lack the necessary technical knowledge, staff and resources to take advantage of new techniques and technology. Lastly, to increase participation in defense production, small manufacturers need assistance adapting commercial production practices and techniques to the needs of the defense industrial base. The MEP program can help our Nation address these challenges. MEP Centers have a strong track record of solving supply management issues. MEP helps preserve and strengthen domestic production of unique defense technologies and provides a strong strategic edge over threats to national security. MEP is active within U.S. defense supply chains assisting small sub-tier suppliers to cut costs, boost productivity, integrate technology and accelerate delivery times. Officials from Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon expressed their reliance on MEP for cost and quality improvements at small manufacturing firms on which they rely for component parts and assemblies. To date, the actions of the Department of Commerce have been unacceptable. The administration needs to make resources available to help our Nation's small manufacturers. The administration should immediately reprogram $21.8 million to support the MEP Centers this year as directed by Senator Kohl and my amendment. Given the broad bipartisan and national support for this program, the administration should send a Budget Amendment to Congress to support $106.9M for the MEP program in fiscal 2005. fuel cell program

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate passed legislation, H.R. 3942, earlier this month to redesignate the U.S. Post Office in Middletown the ``Rhode Island Veterans Post Office Building,'' and I thank Congressman Patrick Kennedy for introducing this important legislation in the House of Representatives. I recognize the important contributions and sacrifices that our military veterans have made for our country. The celebration of the 60th anniversary of the D-Day invasion at Normandy this month again highlighted the great sacrifices that our brave soldiers have made, and continue to make today in Afghanistan, Iraq and throughout the world. I am proud to support naming the U.S. Post Office in Middletown in their honor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you.

Mr. REED. I understand, as the system is eventually designed to be. But, if you will indulge me, I also understand that other radars have to be put in place beyond Cobra Dane, beyond the Aegis systems that they have not yet put in place. There are other elements that have to be in place for a more comprehensive system. The other point on which I raise a question is the simple fact reflected in Mr. Christie's letter. This isn't a question of logic as much as technology. He seems to be saying the system is so premature or has a lack of maturity such that you can't do operational testing. I must say, I find it difficult, then, to say we can't do operational testing but we are going to put it in operation. That is the situation we face in September. But that is more of a comment than a question. I thank the Senator for his kindness.

Mr. REED. I want to understand and make sure that I am accurate. In reference to the system being deployed this September in Alaska, my understanding, which I stated, is that it would only provide coverage for essentially the North Korean threat. And then I heard you say the system--it might be in the future--but the system would cover all threats. My sense is that this system that will be deployed would cover North Korea.

Mr. REED. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I understand my amendment has been reported and we are on the amendment now. Let me endeavor to explain the amendment and do it as quickly as possible. The amendment I support today would provide a condition on the acquisition of interceptors 21 through 30 of the national missile defense. The condition would be that the operational testing would be completed--or initiated, at least--prior to the acquisition of these missiles. In a sense, it embraces two issues. The first issue is the unwise acquisition of another 10 missiles beyond the 20 that already have been designed for this initial rudimentary deployment of the national missile defense system. That issue is one. The second issue, again, is the issue of making sure we have realistic operational testing. Yesterday we engaged in a very vigorous debate. I believe the debate was productive. My legislation, as amended by that of Chairman Warner, would require realistic testing. In fact, it set a date of October 1, 2005, to complete such testing. But I do believe it is important to once again look at this issue of testing, particularly in the context of the acquisition of these additional missile systems. Initially, when the administration talked about the rudimentary deployment of a national missile defense system, they conceived of a system with 20 interceptors. Suddenly, this year, they have moved forward and added an additional 10 interceptors, interceptors 21 through 30. More than that, they requested an additional long lead time funding for interceptors 31 through 40. That is an unwise use of very scarce resources at a time when we are trying to expand the size of the Army, when we are trying to do so many things that are putting huge pressure on the bottom line of the Department of Defense. It is unwise. We are talking about an extremely premature acquisition of missiles before we have ``proved out'' the system. I was struck yesterday when Senator Allard submitted a letter from Thomas Christie, Director of the Office of Director, Operational Test and Evaluation at the Pentagon. Dr. Christie said: The Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element is currently at a maturity level that requires continued developmental testing with oversight assistance from operational test personnel. Conducting realistic operational testing in the near-term for the GMD element would be premature and not beneficial to the program. We have the chief testing official in the Department of Defense saying this system is so immature that we cannot even do operational tests. Yet in this proposal, the administration is asking to go ahead and buy additional interceptors that have not yet been adequately proven and adequately tested. Once again, it is a misuse of very scarce resources. I have no qualm today with acquiring the 20 interceptors initially planned for the system. But to go beyond that is a mistake in terms of using scarce resources for, basically, unproven interceptors. It is useful to review the situation of this midcourse ground system and where we are in terms of the system. First, as I mentioned yesterday, one of the key elements is a DSP satellite system that will monitor the initial launch of a missile. That is from a cold war legacy system. It is reliable; it is limited. You simply identify the lift-off of the aggression missile. The second part of the system is the Aegis ships which have been pressed into service. They were originally designed simply to track and to defend against cruise missiles and aircraft. Now they have been given this extra task of trying to monitor the target as it rises out of the North Korean peninsula headed toward--we hope never but at least hypothetically--the United States. A third element is the Cobra Dane radar, another system of 1970 vintage, designed not for missile defense but for looking at Russian missiles and their missile rangers. It is not even capable, most people concede, of tracking effectively a missile bound for Hawaii. It has been upgraded but still it is not the X-band radar, the big powerful radar originally designed for the system. Then there is the interceptors element which is the subject of this amendment. Originally, as I indicated, the plan was to have 20. Now the administration is talking about 40. The interceptors have not been tested together with the new ``kill'' vehicle. In fact, the new kill vehicle, the warhead that sits on top, has not even been flight tested. As a result, we are rushing into this deployment. In fact, the whole system has not been tested. So bits and pieces have been tested. It is premature to go ahead now and ramp up production of these missiles. If it turns out there is a systematic flaw in the missiles, and they have been acquired and deployed, if they have not been worked on in the silo, they will have to be removed from the silo and transported. It is very expensive. I beg the obvious question. If we have not tested the system adequately, if we are planning for years now to have a 20-interceptor structure of our missiles, why are we rushing ahead now and buying additional missiles? My amendment says, at least before we get to this point of buying the additional missiles, we should be in the area of planning and carrying out realistic operational testing. Yesterday, again, we had a very good debate. We were able to make some progress. But I point out again, the amendment proposed by Senator Warner, and adopted to change my language, moves the responsibility from the Office of Director of Operational Test and Evaluation of the Pentagon to the Secretary of Defense. It takes away that objective independent voice, which is the traditional way in which we evaluate any weapon system, not just the missile defense system. I hope by the time we get around to making these acquisitions, acquiring interceptors 21 through 30 and 21 through 40, that we would not have the specialized testing regime under the Secretary of Defense, and that we would be back in a situation where we are doing operational testing the way it was designed and carried out. That is the essence of my amendment. It would not in any way inhibit the deployment of the system. It would not in any way try to shrink the number below 20, which has been the plan for years. It would not decrease funding for missile defense. If this operational testing regime was in place, then these 21 through 30 interceptors could be acquired. It is really designed to first highlight and underscore the fact that we are rushing ahead, not just in terms of deployment but in actually building out this system way beyond what has been proven by testing; and, second, also, to emphasize the need for a thorough testing not beyond, frankly, what was required in yesterday's amendment. Although I think yesterday's amendment was a good step forward, operational realistic testing by October 1 of 2005 is a very laudable goal. I hope we can follow through and carry it out. Ultimately, we want to get the whole system back into the situation of practically every other major defense program; that is, before deploying the system, build the system, go to production, and that you have actually done operational testing, independent operational testing, supervised, conducted, monitored by Dr. Christie and his colleagues in the Defense Department Office of Director of Operational Testing and Evaluation. One other point I make, in the discussion yesterday, there was some mention of how this system was going to protect us from threats around the world, including threats from Iran. This system is exclusively designed to protect from a missile launch from North Korea. It will provide no protection from a missile launch from any other point on the globe, as far as I can tell. It is not a comprehensive system defending the United States. It is a limited system focused on North Korea. One can fairly ask, if North Korea is such a dangerous threat that requires this very hasty emergency deployment of a missile system, why are we withdrawing troops from North Korea, ground forces that could complement our diplomacy? We are we not taking aggressive diplomatic steps to try and disarm North Korea when they have made it clear they have nuclear material. They very well may have fashioned multiple nuclear weapons in the last year while we have been trying to negotiate but doing so unsuccessfully. Again, this raises the whole question of how do you deal with these threats through this very expensive, very limited missile defense system or through other means complementing the development of the system. I argue, of course, that we have to be much more aggressive diplomatically with the North Korean situation; that we have to do it from a position of strength. That position is not enhanced when we take out troops. I also suggest if we did that, we would have the time to develop this system properly, to declare it deployed--not now, but when we have had a test of the entire system, of all the elements, so that we know this system will work and it will work effectively. An interesting final point I make is that in the discussion yesterday about operational testing, there was an example given about the Patriot system, which is the PAC-3 system. That is a complicated missile system, hit-to-kill technology, the same basic technology that will be employed in this national missile defense system. We talk about this midcourse system. It did extremely well in all its developmental tests, and then it had operational tests. They had four consecutive operational test failures; that is the PAC-3. Now, certainly we do not want a situation where the first operational test is the acquisition of an incoming missile from a hostile power, and we don't know if we are going to have the PAC-3 record of four failures in a row or we are going to do much better. I think that, essentially, is where we are today. So my amendment, in summary, which will be disposed of next week, would condition the acquisition of interceptors 21 through 30--the new requirement that sprung up this year, after years of looking at 20--it would condition it on having operational testing according to the standard procedures that are in place in the Department of Defense. With that, I yield the floor.