Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Preparing, Recruiting, and Retaining Education Professionals Act of 2004 to ensure high quality preparation, induction, and professional development programs for teachers, early childhood education providers, principals and administrators in order to improve learning and achievement for all students. As Congress turns to the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we need to increase support for prospective, new, and experienced educators in early childhood education programs, elementary schools, and secondary schools. My legislation challenges teacher preparation programs to make improving student achievement the engine that drives all activities, training, and support for teachers. The goal here is not to be punitive but to put students and their achievement first. We know that strong teaching skills make a difference. Studies have shown that students who attend classes taught by high-quality teachers perform significantly better on assessments. The No Child Left Behind Act requires that all teachers be highly qualified. To be so deemed, in general, a teacher must hold a bachelor's degree, be fully certified by a State, and demonstrate content knowledge of the subjects taught by the 2005-2006 school year. New teachers must meet this standard now. Yet, according to the U.S. Department of Education, only 54 percent of our Nation's secondary school teachers were highly qualified during the 1999-2000 school year. The percentage of highly qualified teachers varies widely by State and by subject matter. For example, a 2003 survey by the Council of Chief State School Officers found that only my home State of Rhode Island, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, and Minnesota have more than 80 percent of their math teachers with college majors in math and full certification. Seven States report having more than 10 percent of their teachers on waivers; that is, teaching with emergency, temporary, or provisional licenses. The Preparing, Recruiting, and Retaining Education Professionals Act modifies and strengthens the current State, partnership, and recruitment grants contained within title II of the Higher Education Act to focus on improving teaching skills of prospective, new, and experienced teachers and early childhood education providers as well as improving the capacity of principals to provide instructional leadership and classroom support for teachers. My legislation ensures States hold institutions of higher education and entities that provide alternative routes to State certification equally accountable for preparing highly qualified teachers and highly competent early childhood education providers via reforms to ensure preparation program effectiveness. The goal is to provide teachers and early childhood education providers the scientific knowledge of teaching skills needed to understand and respond effectively to diverse student populations, including students with disabilities, limited- English proficient students, and students with different learning styles or other special learning needs; the ability to integrate technology into the classroom; strategies to effectively use assessments to improve instructional practices and curriculum; and an understanding of how to communicate with and involve parents in their children's education. The Higher Education Act's existing partnership grants are strengthened by improving the effectiveness of the teaching skills and learning practices taught through inclusion of academic departments such as psychology, human development, or one with comparable expertise in the disciplines of teaching, learning, and child and adolescent development. Partnerships are expanded to include pre-service clinical, field, or practicum components whereby the prospective teachers receive close supervision and mentoring. A residency program would be created to provide ongoing training support during new teachers' first 3 years. Professional development opportunities would have to be provided for experienced teachers to encourage continual retraining to further their skills. Managerial skill development is also included to improve the capacity of principals to provide instructional leadership and classroom support for teachers. The time for action is now because too few of the teachers that we have prepared choose to enter the schools and stay. According to the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, after 3 years, 33 percent of beginning teachers have left teaching and after 5 years, 46 percent have left. Not surprisingly, the turnover rate in high poverty schools is approximately one-third higher than the rate for all teachers. During the 1999-2000 school year, 232,000 new teachers were hired, but schools lost more than 287,000--a net loss of 24 percent. Teacher attrition undermines teacher quality and drives teacher shortages. Investing in the preparation of our educators and their continued professional development is critical for addressing these needs which, in turn, will improve outcomes and results for all children. One of the primary reasons for such high attrition, according to the Commission, is the lack of support once a teacher is hired. Approximately one-third of those teachers who expressed dissatisfaction cited poor administrative support, a lack of faculty influence and inadequate planning and collaboration time. By providing mentoring and support during the pre-service experiences, the early years of teaching, and through ongoing professional development opportunities for experienced teachers, we can substantially reduce the terrible turnover rates that our Nation experiences. There are also extensive teaching vacancies in schools nationwide. The General Accounting Office has found that 23 of 37 State officials reported teacher shortages in high-need subject areas such as mathematics, science, bilingual education and special education. My legislation focuses recruitment activities where high teacher turnover and shortages exist, where there is great difficulty meeting academic standards, or where there is great difficulty demonstrating that teachers are highly qualified. The grants also allow funds for outreach to encourage recruitment in inner city and rural areas. The State, partnership, and recruitment grants are currently funded at only $90 million a year--far too little of an investment for this critical enterprise. The stakes are too high, not just in terms of meeting the highly qualified requirements of No Child Left Behind, but for real kids in real classrooms. My bill significantly boosts this funding, authorizing $500 million for these vital programs. The PRREP Act is supported by a diverse array of education organizations, including the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, American Psychological Association, Center for Civic Education, Council for Exceptional Children, Higher Education Consortium for Special Education, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Association of Secondary School Principals, National Association of State Directors of Special Education, National Association for the Education of Young Children, National Council of Teachers of English, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, National Science Teachers Association, and National PTA. I urge my colleagues to join me in this essential endeavor by cosponsoring this legislation and working for its inclusion in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record. Additionally, I am pleased to be joining Senator Bingaman, who is introducing the CLASS Act. This legislation shares the PRREP Act's spirit of improving teacher preparation and therefore, student achievement. In addition to encouraging the development of data systems to measure teacher quality, the CLASS Act authorizes pilot studies to evaluate the impact of teacher preparation programs on student achievement and to identify the specific practices that result in achievement gains. The legislation also seeks to improve minority teacher recruitment and retention. The PRREP Act, Senator Bingaman's bill, and the bill we joined Senator Kennedy in introducing last year--S. 1793, the College Quality, Affordability, and Diversity Improvement Act--will all go a long way toward ensuring the high quality preparation, induction, and professional development that our Nation's educators--and students-- deserve.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Will my colleague yield for another question?

Mr. REED. First, the Pell Grant Program is in jeopardy because of its low funding levels. As you and Senator Kennedy have pointed out so accurately, the maximum award has not been raised, contrary to the President's promise. In addition, the $3.7 billion shortfall exists today. We have taken a step on our side to remedy the shortfall, but it is unclear what the other side and the conferees will do. So that is another detriment to the Pell Grant Program. But I will ask a final question of the Senator. The President's budget not only inadequately funds the Pell Grant Program, but it eliminates the LEAP Program--Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnerships--a collaboration between the State and Federal governments to provide need-based grants to low-income students. The President's budget also zeroes out funds for the Perkins Loan Capital Contributions, which provides low-interest loans to millions of low-income college students. Additionally, the President's budget fails to increase funding for the campus-based programs, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants and Federal Work-Study, as well as the early awareness programs, TRIO and GEAR UP. I again inquire whether the Senator is aware that in addition to the blows that have been taken to the Pell Grant Program, so many other Federal programs that aid particularly low-income Americans are not being adequately funded. I think that goes directly to your point, I say to the Senator, that 200,000 young Americans with talent, ambition, and drive are unable to go to college because we are not providing the resources.

Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, you were speaking about increasing the Pell grant, which strikes a chord with me. Senator Pell was my predecessor, the architect of this great program. I am sure you are aware, but if you can confirm this awareness, the Pell Grant program has a $3.7 billion shortfall because of an increase in the number of students who have qualified for the Pell grant since our economy has not produced jobs over the last several years and has been dead in the water until very recently. We, in our budget, included the $3.7 billion, but I am told this funding might be in jeopardy in the conference, which would be a grievous blow to the Pell Grant Program in addition to what you have described. Are you aware of this difficulty?

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, on Sunday, March 28, 2004, Rhode Island, the judicial community and the entire Nation lost a great pioneer who was a superb jurist and a powerful inspiration. Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Florence Kerins Murray passed away after decades of breaking new ground for women in the United States. She was 87 years old. Justice Murray, the first woman appointed to the Rhode Island Superior and Supreme Courts, was a lifelong resident of Newport. The daughter of John and Florence Kerins, Murray attended Rogers High School in Newport and went on to attend Syracuse University, where she would later serve on the Board of Trustees and was the only woman in the 1942 graduating class at Boston University Law School where she would become a member of the board of visitors. Throughout her life Justice Murray sought ways to serve the community. She began her professional career as a teacher in a one-room schoolhouse on Prudence Island, in Narragansett Bay. Later, she joined the Women's Army Corps and was promoted to lieutenant colonel before leaving the service in 1947. Again, Murray broke ground when she was the youngest woman to achieve that rank at the time. Upon leaving the Army, she opened a one-woman law firm above a grocery store on Thames Street. She was the only female lawyer in Newport when she opened her firm. She later practiced law with her now- deceased husband, Paul F. Murray, who went on to serve as U.S. Attorney for Rhode Island from 1977 to 1981. Paul and Florence had a son Paul M. Murray. Continuing her traditions of giving back to her community and public service, Murray served as both a State Senator from Newport and member of the city's School Committee. Murray was the only woman in the Rhode Island Senate during her years in the State House from 1948-1956. While there, she sponsored legislation to abolish wage differences based on gender and for equal pay for teachers throughout the State. She also introduced a bill making it easier for a parent to get child support if a former spouse leaves the State, and another that led to the creation of State facilities for the care and treatment of alcoholics. In 1956, Murray was sworn in as the State's first female superior court judge. She became the first female chief judge of the superior court in 1978, and when she was elected by the General Assembly to the State Supreme Court in November 1979, she became the first woman on that bench. She authored more than 500 opinions during her time on the Supreme Court before retiring in 1996. Supreme Court Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg, who was appointed to Murray's seat on the high court upon her retirement, praised her ``for having broken down so many barriers that were previously closed to women. I believe her greatest accomplishment is that, before she boldly marched into uncharted territory, she paused, turned around and beckoned the rest of us to follow.'' During her four decades on the bench, Murray displayed an incredible work ethic and modest demeanor. In a 1997 interview with the Providence Journal she spoke about how she approached her job, ``I haven't got any special attributes. I just do a job as well as I can do it, and I seek to keep myself well-informed about whatever my field of work is.'' When she was not at work, Murray found dozens of other ways to contribute. She was a member of the Rhode Island Heritage Hall of Fame, a recipient of a Citizen of the Year Award from the Rhode Island Trial Lawyers Association, and a Judge of the Year Award from the National Association of Women Judges. The American Bar Association honored her in 2002 for pioneering work, in the late 1950s, that led to the establishment of Rhode Island's Family Court. She served on numerous judicial and civic boards over the years, among them, Salve Regina College and Bryant College and she founded the Newport Girls Club. In her retirement, Murray was appointed by President Clinton to serve on the board of directors of the State Justice Institute and remained active in National Judicial College affairs. Murray was honored in 1990 when the Newport Court House was renamed the Florence K. Murray Judicial Complex. It was an excellent and fitting way to honor a great woman. And when we honor Justice Murray, we must remember to honor the greatness of her achievements. Not because she was a woman, but because her accomplishments were spectacular for any person, man or woman. My deepest condolences go out to her friends and family, especially her son, Paul. Justice Murray was an incredible woman who was bound by no barriers. She was a patriot and a pioneer, a public servant and a mother. In her quest to improve herself, she improved the world around her. We will miss her dearly. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 Leigh Ann Simmons-Wescott, a legislative fellow in Senator Kennedy's office, be granted floor privileges during the remainder of the day and cloture vote on the TANF reauthorization.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Senators Boxer and Kennedy to raise the minimum wage. The last time we increased the minimum wage was in 1997, and workers have already lost all of those gains of that increase. To have the purchasing power the minimum wage had in 1968, the minimum wage would have to be more than $8 an hour, not the $5.15 today. In 1968, we could afford it. In 1968, we could provide the wages that would enable Americans to save for homes, to purchase homes, to save for college education, and to educate young people. Today, working Americans do not have that opportunity because the minimum wage is not sufficient to support a family and support the aspirations that all Americans have to better themselves and their children. Indeed, what is very startling is if we had increased the minimum wage at the same rate CEO compensation had increased, the minimum wage today would be $22 an hour. In fact, it raises the fundamental question we will address over many months and years ahead, which is whether the rest of the world is going to become like the United States with a strong middle class with opportunities to move forward or will we become more like the rest of the world with a huge divergence between the very wealthy and those who are working for very little. I believe we have to have a society that continues to produce a strong middle class, that continues to make work something that allows an individual to provide for their families and to aspire to all of the dreams of American home ownership, education for their children, and a comfortable and secure retirement. Indeed, the fact that the minimum wage has relatively decreased has contributed to a doubling of poverty. A minimum wage earner for a family of three who works 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year earns $10,700. That is $4,500 below the poverty line. Today, if you are working 40 hours a week for minimum wage, you are in poverty. The proposed increase would bring the minimum wage to $7 an hour, and even this modest increase would only raise the annual salary of families to about $14,000. It is not sufficient to replace what people had in 1968. It is not sufficient to ensure all families are above poverty. But increasing the minimum wage will at least give more opportunity, more hope, and more sustenance to the families in America. Today, one in five children lives below the poverty line in our Nation. This is the richest Nation in the world. That poverty has an effect on them; indeed, in the long run, it has an effect on everyone. There is an adage: You can pay now or you can pay later. We are not paying now and we will pay later. We pay later in terms of children who do not have the educational skills or the health to become the most constructive workers in our society they could become. In fact, some of them, unfortunately, wander into crime and other areas which cost us immensely. We have to be able to ensure people can afford to live in this country. One of the other aspects of the minimum wage is a family earning a minimum wage in this country cannot effectively afford a two-bedroom apartment in any of the major metropolitan areas and in many rural areas. That is unfortunate. Without proper housing, how can one ensure family stability and the opportunity to move up in society? We all understand and we all praise the hard-working Americans who, day in and day out, go to their jobs and labor for their families and communities. But too many of them are working at wages that do not reward this great effort. We can do something and should do something about that by increasing the minimum wage. We should recognize and understand by increasing the minimum wage, we are not likely to have any negative impact on our economy. In fact, we will probably stimulate our economic activity. In the 7 years after the last minimum wage increase was enacted, there were nearly 11 million new jobs added at the pace of 218,000 jobs per month. There was no break in employment because the minimum wage went up. There were more Americans with more disposable income, buying more goods and services in our economy. Most people, through my experience, who are working in jobs that pay the minimum wage or slightly above the minimum wage, tend to spend a good deal of their income on taking care of children, on taking care of their rent, on taking care of things that put money into our economy today. We have to do this. Indeed, it would benefit our economy, not just those recipients of increased wages. There are about 7 million workers and a third of working women who will benefit. I hope we can move forward and ensure this minimum wage is increased.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my concerns about the course of our military operations in Iraq. I returned about 10 days ago from a trip to Iraq with my colleagues. After a brilliant offensive campaign to destroy the Iraqi military forces, we have settled into a very dismal and dangerous occupation. In the last few hours, five more American military personnel were killed by an improvised explosion device. There were four more civilians who were killed. Iraqi security forces have died in much higher numbers. The administration has not responded appropriately to the military demand within Iraq today. One of the leading points that illustrates this, I think, irresponsible approach to Iraq is the failure to budget properly to fund this effort. The operation in Iraq costs approximately $4 billion a month. Yet in the 2005 budget that was submitted by the administration, there is no money for operations in Afghanistan or Iraq. They are still working off the supplemental that was passed last year. But the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps testified they are seriously concerned that on October 1 they will begin to run out of money. They are already being forced to reprogram funds, to rob Peter to pay Paul in order to continue this operation. Having committed ourselves to Iraq, we must prevail, and to prevail, we must fund all of the requirements for our military. We must do it adequately and promptly, and the administration is doing neither. We have a requirement for many pieces of equipment. But probably emblematic of the difficulties of this operation, the two most pressing items of equipment are body armor and armored vehicles, principally uparmored Humvees. When we went into this operation, we did not understand the consequences of the occupation, the threats to our troops, the political rivalries in Iraq, the ethnic and sectarian divisions of the country. As a result, we found ourselves with troops in the field without proper equipment. Many lacked body armor, the kind of sophisticated armor with ceramic insert plates that provide a margin of safety for our troops. The Army and Department of Defense claimed they fixed it. But as late as March 26, reports in the San Diego Union, Boston Globe, and USA Today stated soldiers in Iraq are calling home and asking their families to buy them body armor and send it to them, or they are buying it before they deploy. That is unacceptable. That is one example. With respect to uparmored Humvees, last July I got off of the aircraft in Baghdad and approached the military policemen from the 118th Military Police Battalion from Rhode Island. The first request I had was: Get us uparmored Humvees. We are driving through these dangerous cities and we need that protection. We have not reached the number of uparmored Humvees we need for critical troops in Iraq. This might be accomplished by November of this year, but it is a long time from the need of over a year ago and finally filling the requirement. We also have to armor other Humvees, and armor kits have been provided to do this armoring. Again, the administration's budget is not sufficient. The Secretary of the Army said: We are going to get all this equipment done. We are going to run the production line at top speed. Yet the money is not there in the budget. We have to do more. Last September, Senator Hagel and I offered an amendment to the supplemental to increase the size of the Army by 10,000 troops. This was vehemently objected to by the Secretary of Defense, but I think they eventually got the message. A few months ago, the Department of the Army announced they were going to increase the size by 30,000 troops. But they are not going to ask for the money in the budgetary process. They are once again going back to the supplemental--to take money from the supplemental, which already is strapped to pay for operations. As a result, we will have, I hope, additional forces in the military, but we will not have the ordinary budget authority they need to continue to be funding when we run out of this supplemental. Those are examples of some of the failures on our part, but they are failures multiplied with the situation with respect to Iraqi security forces. Our plan is to transfer, we hope one day, security operations to the Iraqis. Yet we have not provided sufficient equipment for these forces. Senior commanders in Iraq have commented persistently about the lack of adequate equipment for the security forces, and a March 22 New York Times article stated: Senior American commanders in Iraq are publicly complaining that delays in delivering radios, body armor and other equipment have hobbled their ability to build an effective Iraqi security force that can ultimately replace United States troops here. MG Charles Swannack, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, has returned from Iraq and his frustrations on this point are extremely significant. He said, in retrospect, if he knew the equipment was not coming, he would have used his own resources to buy body armor, radios, and vehicles for these Iraqi security forces. We are not doing enough to provide replacement for our own forces, and we are not adequately funding our present forces in the field. Those points are examples, I believe, of the failings in terms of occupation planning and military occupation of Iraq. But there are also political failures. We are less than 100 days away from transferring authority to an interim government, and yet no one can tell us what that interim government will look like. Will it be an increased governing council with 20, 30, 40 more people? Is it going to be a three-person presidency with a prime minister? We are 100 days or less away from that transfer of authority. We have yet to have a nominee to be the new ambassador to Iraq. Mr. Bremer leaves on June 30, but we have yet to have a name submitted to us for consideration and confirmation for someone who will have extraordinary challenges, extraordinary responsibilities. And yet we are 100 days or less away from the new ambassador of the United States to Iraq taking his or her post. Probably most emblematic, most symbolic of the political difficulties is the de-Baathiciation program. One of the key problems of this program is it is being run by Chalabi. Chalabi is an individual in the Iraqi National Congress who provided most of the misinformation to the administration as they made their judgments about the imminence of a threat in Iraq. He has been on our payroll to the tune of about $300,000 a month funneled through the Iraqi National Congress for many years. He is still on the payroll. He has seized all the security files of the former Iraqi security agency which perhaps are a treasure trove of names of people who collaborated both inside Iraq and outside Iraq with the Saddam Hussein regime. But most importantly for the moment, he is in charge of vetting former Baathists to take positions in this new government. He is sitting at the crossroads of billions of dollars of contracts from his position on the Iraqi Governing Council. He is also an individual who has the right to deny people their civil rights, if you will, in Iraq, and he is someone whose record does not, I think, suggest he is capable of discharging those responsibilities in the interest of Iraq or in the interest of the United States. The key to Mr. Chalabi is self-interest and always has been. As a result, we are giving this individual inordinate power. This is not just a theoretical political argument. When I was in Iraq last November, I spoke to the division commander, and he complained to me he had 1,000 schoolteachers who could not teach because they had been nominal members of the Baath Party. Back in the days of Saddam Hussein, in order to have a job in Iraq of any consequence, you had to have a Baath affiliation. These people cannot work. Schools cannot open. And so this new Iraq we are desperately trying to build based upon not just security, but also economic development and education, has not yet taken off. This is just one example of the political miscalculation I believe in which the provisional authority, Ambassador Bremer, has engaged in Iraq. All of this is very important. We are, again, weeks away from transferring authority to some form of government of which we know not the exact details. We are also in a situation where each day we see the cost in terms of American lives. Let me make one final point. When I was in Iraq talking with American soldiers about 10 days ago, the palpable concern they had with these explosive devices was obvious. We have soldiers who are paying Iraqis to put some type of armor on their doors because canvas doors do not stop a lot of small arms rounds or anything else. We owe much more to those troops. We owe a budget that is real and timely, and we owe leadership here that will respond to their needs. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 183rd anniversary of Greek Independence and pay tribute to the contributions of Greece and our Greek-American community. It was on this day in 1821, that Greek patriots rose up against the Ottoman empire and began an 8- year struggle that culminated in a new Greek Republic. It is fitting that we take this day to reflect on the enormous contributions the Greek people have made to the modern world. Our own democratic principles have their very foundation in the practices of the ancient Greek republic. Indeed, the ancient Greeks developed the concept of democracy, in which the supreme power to govern was vested in the people. Our own Founding Fathers modeled the American government on the principles of Greek democracy. Thomas Jefferson studied the Greek classics in his youth and was inspired by their philosophy throughout his life, most dramatically when he crafted the Declaration of Independence. When formulating his vision for this country, Jefferson specifically referred to the integrated assertions, theories, and aims of the classic Greek world. Today, our admiration for Greece continues. Greece and the United States, partners in NATO, are at the forefront of the effort for freedom, democracy, peace, stability, and human rights, forging a close bond between the two nations. We look forward to working closely with Greece in the coming years as we examine ways to bring full peace, stability, and prosperity to all the nations of Europe and the world. As we celebrate Greek independence, we must also remember the history of those who sacrificed their lives to preserve American freedom and democracy. Greek Americans have served proudly and honorably in every U.S. engagement and war. It is through their efforts and others that we maintain a Nation committed to fighting and winning this war or terrorism. Today, we join the world in anticipating the momentous 2004 Summer Olympic Games, which will be held in Athens, the birthplace of the Olympic tradition. This event not only highlights the achievements of thousands of world athletes, but signifies the importance of working together to provide greater opportunity and freedom for the citizens of the world. I am proud to join many of my colleagues as a cosponsor of S. Res. 308 designating March 25, 2004 as Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy. We value our friendship and continuing partnership with the government and people of Greece. I would especially like to offer all Greek Americans my best wishes as they celebrate this day of independence. Finally, I ask all citizens to reflect on the many important contributions to freedom, democracy, peace, and stability Greece and Greek Americans have made to this country and our world.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Campus Care and Counseling Act along with my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith and my colleague from New York, Senator Clinton. The recent rash of suicides on college campuses has highlighted a mental health crisis. Just this past week, Diana Chien, a 19 year old student at New York University ended her life by jumping off a building. Our own colleagues, the Senator from Oregon, suffered a tragic loss when his son, Garret, took his life last September. Suicides take the lives of over 4,000 children and young adults annually. It is now the third leading cause of death among 10-24 year olds. The rate of suicide has tripled from 1952 to 1995. How many more of our children will be lost before we take action to prevent their untimely demise? When will we start to say to them that there is an answer; that suicide is not the way out; that we can help them feel better; that they can live happier and healthier lives? College is a time of great intellectual development--and it is also a time of exponential personal and interpersonal growth and change. When children go off to college, we need to be sure that they are going to a place that will help them reach their boundless potential. We also need to make sure that it will also support them through the transition to adulthood and during their greatest hour of need. Additionally, many more adults are going to college, and they too face challenges, particularly in balancing school, work, and family responsibilities. We can and should do more to address the significant lack in this area. A Chronicle of Higher Education survey found that rates for depression in college freshmen have nearly doubled from 8.2 percent to 16.3 percent. Without treatment, the Chronicle reports that ``depressed adolescents are at risk for school failure, social isolation, promiscuity, self-medication with drugs and alcohol, and suicide.'' A 2003 Gallagher's Survey of Counseling Center Directors found that 85 percent of college counseling centers are reporting an increase in the number of students in need of services, 81 percent were concerned about increasing numbers of students with severe psychological problems, 67 percent reported a need for more psychiatric services, and 6.3 percent reported problems with growing demand for services without an appropriate increase in resources. Clearly, many students with serious needs do not have access to psychiatric or other mental and behavioral health services. This is an issue that my office has been working on with the American Psychological Association since 2002. In light of the forthcoming debate on the Higher Education Act Reauthorization and the recent spate of college campus suicides, I am introducing the ``Campus Care and Counseling Act.'' This bill amends the Higher Education Act to authorize $10 million in peer-reviewed competitive grants to institutions of higher education to increase access and enhance mental and behavioral health services for our college students. Grants may be used for the prevention, screening, early intervention, assessment, treatment, management, and education activities related to mental and behavioral health problems. Taking into consideration that education creates awareness, these funds may also be used to educate parents, to hire staff, and to expand training. To address the stigma of mental illness, programs funded through this grant will need to focus their efforts on developing outreach strategies to reach those students most in need of services. My colleagues in the Senate, this is an important bipartisan measure which will help to ensure that our nation's college students will have access to quality mental and behavioral health care so that they receive the help needed to not only survive through their difficult times in college, but also to excel and accomplish all that is within their reach. I want to also thank the American Psychiatric Association and other organizations for their assistance in shaping this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join myself and Senators DeWine and Smith in enacting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Campus Care and Counseling Act along with my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith and my colleague from New York, Senator Clinton. The recent rash of suicides on college campuses has highlighted a mental health crisis. Just this past week, Diana Chien, a 19 year old student at New York University ended her life by jumping off a building. Our own colleagues, the Senator from Oregon, suffered a tragic loss when his son, Garret, took his life last September. Suicides take the lives of over 4,000 children and young adults annually. It is now the third leading cause of death among 10-24 year olds. The rate of suicide has tripled from 1952 to 1995. How many more of our children will be lost before we take action to prevent their untimely demise? When will we start to say to them that there is an answer; that suicide is not the way out; that we can help them feel better; that they can live happier and healthier lives? College is a time of great intellectual development--and it is also a time of exponential personal and interpersonal growth and change. When children go off to college, we need to be sure that they are going to a place that will help them reach their boundless potential. We also need to make sure that it will also support them through the transition to adulthood and during their greatest hour of need. Additionally, many more adults are going to college, and they too face challenges, particularly in balancing school, work, and family responsibilities. We can and should do more to address the significant lack in this area. A Chronicle of Higher Education survey found that rates for depression in college freshmen have nearly doubled from 8.2 percent to 16.3 percent. Without treatment, the Chronicle reports that ``depressed adolescents are at risk for school failure, social isolation, promiscuity, self-medication with drugs and alcohol, and suicide.'' A 2003 Gallagher's Survey of Counseling Center Directors found that 85 percent of college counseling centers are reporting an increase in the number of students in need of services, 81 percent were concerned about increasing numbers of students with severe psychological problems, 67 percent reported a need for more psychiatric services, and 6.3 percent reported problems with growing demand for services without an appropriate increase in resources. Clearly, many students with serious needs do not have access to psychiatric or other mental and behavioral health services. This is an issue that my office has been working on with the American Psychological Association since 2002. In light of the forthcoming debate on the Higher Education Act Reauthorization and the recent spate of college campus suicides, I am introducing the ``Campus Care and Counseling Act.'' This bill amends the Higher Education Act to authorize $10 million in peer-reviewed competitive grants to institutions of higher education to increase access and enhance mental and behavioral health services for our college students. Grants may be used for the prevention, screening, early intervention, assessment, treatment, management, and education activities related to mental and behavioral health problems. Taking into consideration that education creates awareness, these funds may also be used to educate parents, to hire staff, and to expand training. To address the stigma of mental illness, programs funded through this grant will need to focus their efforts on developing outreach strategies to reach those students most in need of services. My colleagues in the Senate, this is an important bipartisan measure which will help to ensure that our nation's college students will have access to quality mental and behavioral health care so that they receive the help needed to not only survive through their difficult times in college, but also to excel and accomplish all that is within their reach. I want to also thank the American Psychiatric Association and other organizations for their assistance in shaping this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join myself and Senators DeWine and Smith in enacting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment would create a $3.1 billion reserve fund to boost student financial aid programs, programs such as the LEAP program, leveraging opportunities, a partnership with the Federal Government to provide resources for young people of modest means to go on to college, the work-study program, the TRIO program, the GEAR UP program, and the graduate assistance program. Every time we talk about our economy and talk about our future, we inherently come back to education and higher education as a key. This budget does not fund these programs sufficiently. This proposal has been embraced and supported by the Student Aid Alliance, a coalition of more than 60 organizations representing students, colleges, and universities. At a time when costs of colleges are going out of sight, when literally hundreds of thousands of young people are not able to go to school or must defer their chances to go to school, we have to do more. I hope we can support the amendment. At this point, let me say I will be prepared to accept a voice vote at the conclusion of the debate. I urge support for this amendment. I also ask unanimous consent to add Senator Sarbanes as a cosponsor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. REED. I will accept a voice vote.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I offer this amendment together with Senators Kennedy, Clinton, Murray, Mikulski, Bingaman, Dodd, Schumer, Lincoln, Corzine, Pryor, Levin, Rockefeller, Biden and Nelson of Nebraska. And I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Kohl, Lautenberg, and Akaka as cosponsors.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Yes.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Murray amendment to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act. This is an important amendment. It will keep our commitment to educational reform in the United States. There are two keys to the success of the No Child Left Behind Act: effective implementation by the Department of Education and robust funding. Both are presently lacking. Without the needed resources, we will not meet the law's goals of closing achievement gaps and ensuring an excellent education and opportunity for all children. When the President signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law 2 years ago, he pledged to support greater Federal investment in education. That pledge has not been kept by this President. He has proposed eliminating some of the No Child Left Behind Act programs, cutting others and only increasing title 1 by $1 billion. That is over $7 billion short of the authorized level of $20.5 billion. The No Child Left Behind Act was a fundamental change in the way we do business. Part of that change was a commitment to fund all of our aggressive ambitions to help every child succeed. What has been left are the requirements on children but insufficient resources for school systems throughout this country to implement them. It is no wonder general assemblies across this country, in Utah, in Virginia, Republican assemblies, are revolting against these provisions, not because it is not a good effort at reform. Rather it is because we have not provided the resources to accomplish the reforms. Senator Murray's amendment would provide the needed resources. I believe we have to go ahead and fund these programs, and we will not do so unless the Murray amendment is accepted. I urge support of the Murray amendment. This is not just about giving individual opportunity to every child. That is central and crucial. This is also about our economic future. If we do not fully fund education now in the elementary and secondary years, we will fall further behind in a very competitive world economy. This is about giving every child a chance and making sure our economy and our society works. I commend the Senator for doing that, and I yield the floor to Senator Murray.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, first, I thank the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, Senator Bennett, for arranging this discussion on the economic aspects of the budget before us. Also, I thank him for his gracious and very thoughtful chairmanship of the committee. In 1992, it was popular to say, ``It is the economy, stupid.'' I think circa 2004 the saying is, ``It is jobs, stupid.'' I think the economy can be measured in many different ways. It can be measured by GDP, which seems to be moving along at a healthy pace. It can be measured in terms of productivity. But for most families, the true measure is a very simple one: Do I have a good job? Will I keep this job for the next several years, hopefully until I retire? Will my children, who I have attempted to educate and give advantages to, be able to realize even better job opportunities and be able to hold those jobs in the future? Frankly, for families across this country, those questions are very uncertain at this moment as a result of the record of the last several years in terms of job creation, the record of the administration in terms of its economic stewardship of the most critical factor, and that is jobs for Americans. There is much discussion about these numbers. For example, this morning, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, pointed out that in 1996 the unemployment rate was the same as it is now, 5.6 percent. He then stated that Democrats at that time argued that achieving that rate of unemployment was good news, but today we seem to be unsatisfied with the 5.6 percent unemployment rate. First, the Senator from Kentucky is right about that fact. In January 1996, 3 full years into President Clinton's term, the unemployment rate was 5.6 percent. Now, 3 full years into President Bush's term, the unemployment rate is 5.6 percent. But that is where the similarities end. When President Clinton took office in January 1993, he really did inherit a weak economy. The unemployment rate was 7.3 percent. Three years later, it was 5.6 percent, a drop of 1.7 percentage points. Of course, Democrats regarded that 5.6 percent unemployment rate as a significant improvement, and based on the experience of the Reagan-Bush years when the unemployment rate was always above 5 percent, it was about as good as it seemed to get. What has been the experience under this President Bush? He inherited an economy that was definitely slowing down from the very strong growth achieved in the late 1990s. But the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent when he took office in January, 2001. The unemployment rate had been below 5 percent for 3\1/2\ years prior to his inauguration. So 3 years later, when the unemployment rate was 1.4 percentage points higher than when he took office, a 5.6 unemployment rate doesn't look very good at all. That is because it is a sign of continued weakness in the economy. The unemployment rate has been above 5.5 percent for over 2 years. Put simply, under President Bush, unemployment went up. Under President Clinton, it went down. Families throughout this country recognize the difference. Let's look not just at unemployment rates, but at job creation. When the unemployment rate stood at 5.6 percent in 1996, the economy had already created nearly 7 million new jobs under President Clinton. As we all know, the unemployment rate may be the same for President Bush at a comparable point in his Presidency; but instead of presiding over the creation of 7 million jobs, he has presided over the loss of 2.2 million jobs--one of the most significant records of job loss of any President of the United States in our history. My colleagues on the other side sometimes think it is unfair to compare President Bush's job record with President Hoover's. We are not saying that the economy today is the same as it was in 1930. We are saying what the facts show. This is the most persistent jobless recovery since the 1930s. The unemployment rate is lower now, but we are not creating jobs. One of the worst aspects of the job slump we are experiencing is a large faction of the unemployed have been unemployed more than 26 weeks and are no longer eligible for regular State unemployment insurance benefits. This morning, Senator McConnell argued that the President and our Republican colleagues were justified in not reviewing the Federal temporary extended unemployment compensation program because the unemployment rate was so low. But here again, the numbers tell a different story. When President Clinton discontinued the temporary Federal extended benefits in 1994, the unemployment rate was 6.4 percent, as Senators McConnell and Bennett said. But the economy was creating jobs at a rapid pace at that time. The situation is starkly different now. The official unemployment rate may be 5.6 percent, but when you include people who want to work but have dropped out of the labor force and people who are working part-time because of the weak economy, you are talking about an unemployment rate that is 9.6 percent, and that is a function of one I think important point that must be made again and again: The way we measure unemployment in the United States is based upon the number of people who are in the workforce who are actively seeking work, either have work or are actively seeking it. What the number really disguises is the number of people--hundreds of thousands of people--who have given up or are working part time. Let me say this again. If we were looking at all the people who historically, in the last several years, have been in the workforce, and we looked at the number of jobs, the rate of unemployment would be closer to 9.6 percent. That is the difference between creating jobs in the mid-1990s when the waiting period for a job was much shorter and today when very talented, highly trained individuals are having a very difficult time to find any employment whatsoever. With respect to the budget resolution at hand, the President's economic policies have failed, and the budget being proposed by the majority will lock us into that failed policy. What the economy has needed for the past few years is short-term job- creating policies and long-term growth-creating policies. What we have instead are tax cuts that go disproportionately to upper income taxpayers and create a legacy of large budget deficits and mounting debt. Those tax cuts have provided very little job-creating stimulus relative to their huge costs, and they will depress growth in the long run. All of the economic analysis I have seen says that when the economy is in a slump with excess unemployment--which is the situation we have been in for several years now--the immediate policy objective is to stimulate job creation. Giving tax cuts to high-income taxpayers who are more likely to save those tax cuts than to spend them is exactly the wrong approach. If this is an investment recession, then our policies have not been particularly geared to stimulating directed investment. These large income tax cuts to wealthy Americans have not translated into jobs. If we really were interested in creating jobs, we could have targeted much more of these tax cuts to lower income Americans who would consume and thus drive up demand. We could give specific incentives to industry to provide investments in new plant and equipment. This approach, which would make much more sense if you are trying to deal with a lack of demand and an investment slump, could have been done, but it was not. Last year, when we debated a similar stimulus package, the President's Council of Economic Advisers estimated that nearly 2 million jobs would be created in the second half of last year, with about half a million of those jobs coming as a direct result of the tax cuts. Again, these are the projections of the Council of Economic Advisers: 2 million extra jobs and a half million jobs directly related to the tax cut. In fact, however, in that period, only 124,000 jobs were created. We got the tax cuts--actually most of the tax cuts went to the wealthiest Americans--but we did not get the jobs. I do not know when we will see a truly sustainable job-creating recovery, but I know it will not erase the legacy of large structural budget deficits that the policies of the past 3 years have produced. Economic analysis tells us that persistent structural deficits are bad for the economy. They drain national savings and slow down or crowd out private investment. That means our standard of living grows more slowly and becomes more costly. Analysis by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation has found that tax cuts that add to the budget deficit are, on net, harmful to long-term growth. Some have tried to distract our attention from the deteriorating long-term budget outlook by talking about cutting the deficit in half in 5 years. Such an approach completely ignores the real story, which is what happens to the budget when the baby boom generation starts to retire in just a few years. In my opinion, the charts Senator Bennett showed historically looking back at the highs and lows of deficits miss a very important point. In the mid-sixties, in the mid-seventies, and even in the mid-eighties, we were not on the cusp of a huge number of Americans being entitled to Social Security benefits and Medicare benefits in the foreseeable future. I think failing to recognize the onset of the baby boom generation into these programs and reserving funds to deal with it is a tremendous mistake. I read, as many did, a book about Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill's tenure in the Bush administration, and I was struck by the fact that he and Chairman Greenspan apparently saw this onslaught of the baby boom generation with respect to Social Security, and they were working very diligently to reserve $1 trillion from our surplus to do the structural reforms about which so many talk. But what happened on the way to structural reforms? That trillion-dollar surplus turned into a trillion-dollar deficit, and our opportunity to deal honestly and in a timely fashion with Social Security, and also Medicare, evaporated along with the evaporating surplus. The budget before us represents a continuation of the failed policies of the past 3 years. It has no effective programs to provide short-term job-creating stimulus and does nothing to address the problems faced by large numbers of American workers who see their jobs disappearing. By making the tax cuts permanent, it locks us into a legacy of deficits that could leave us unprepared to deal with the demographic challenge of the baby boomers' retirement. Those deficits will depress future standards of living by draining national savings, discouraging investment, and adding to our foreign indebtedness. This is a situation that argues for different policies. I agree, I think, with the Senator from Utah that we are in a different type of economic climate. The information technology has transformed radically what we do in our economy, but the policies and programs espoused by the President and embraced by this budget do not recognize, in my view, this new reality, and certainly I do not think we can content ourselves with the view that in the long run everything will be fine because, as Maynard Keynes pointed out, in the long run we are all dead. Our constituents expect us to act in the short run prudently and realistically to help them, and I hoped we could be here debating a budget that would invest in our people, would reassure the American people that we are working to help stimulate the creation of private jobs in this economy. Finally, I point out what was most alarming to me in the last report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics last Friday is that not only was there negligible job growth--21,000 jobs--virtually none of these were in the private sector. They were public sector jobs. We can do more, and we should do more, to ensure that every family in this country feels confident in their job and in the ability of their children to obtain meaningful work in this country. That should be the first priority of any government. This budget does not represent that type of priority. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield myself 20 minutes from the time allocated.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Equity in Law Enforcement Act, to extend to sworn, licensed, or certified police officers serving private institutions of higher education and rail carriers, the same Federal benefits that apply to law enforcement officers serving units of State and local government. Each day, thousands of law enforcement officers put their lives on the line to protect the public's safety on our Nation's university and college campuses and our railways. The attacks of September 11, 2001, marked a significant change in the way the United States regarded the threat of terrorism against our homeland. These events also highlighted the important role of the nation's law enforcement officers in the security of our country. Sworn officers on private university campuses protect the public's safety and secure assets similar to those that are found on public university campuses, including nuclear laboratories and critical research and development infrastructure. Events such as last year's bombing at Yale University have highlighted the risks facing our nation's college and university campuses. In addition, the protection of our transportation systems, such as our railways, is now more important than ever. Railroad police officers are charged with enforcing State and local laws in any jurisdiction in which the rail carrier owns property. They attend the same police academies as State and local police in the state in which they are domiciled, and most come from law enforcement backgrounds. The Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) Act of 1976 was enacted to aid in the recruitment and retention of law enforcement officers and firefighters, by providing a one-time financial benefit to the eligible survivors of public safety officers whose deaths are the direct result of traumatic injury sustained in the line of duty. Specifically, Congress enacted this legislation to address concerns that the hazards inherent in law enforcement and fire suppression, and the low level of State and local death benefits, might discourage qualified individuals from seeking careers in these fields. The same risks also apply to police officers protecting our private universities and railways. Indeed, names of 59 railway officers are inscribed on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, D.C. Of these 59 officers, 44 of them were shot to death, and the rest were killed in the line of duty. Since 1878, the Union Pacific Railroad has suffered the loss of 16 police officers, 10 of those killed by gunfire, and the Norfolk Southern Railroad has lost another 14 officers in the line of duty. All but one of these 14 officers were killed by gunfire. These sobering facts are evidence of the dangers faced by these officers every day. Similar dangers face many police officers serving private institutions of higher education. Take the case of Tulane University Police Sergeant Gilbert J. Mast. On January 20, 1996, Sergeant Mast was killed while on patrol, when he was struck by a hit-and-run vehicle. The driver surrendered to officers of the New Orleans Police Department several days later. Although Sergeant Mast had bravely served as a law enforcement officer on Tulane's campus, and the Director of Public Safety at Tulane had filed the required paperwork for survivor benefits, his family was denied because he was not employed by the public sector. Sergeant Mast is just one example of the many brave police officers who protect our railways and college and university campuses every day, yet who are not covered under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act, and are thus excluded from receiving the same Federal death benefits as law enforcement officers serving units of State and local governments. I am pleased that Senators Leahy and Cornyn have joined me in introducing the Equity in Law Enforcement Act, to help remedy this discrepancy in death benefit payments for law enforcement officers. This bi-partisan legislation will extend Federal benefits to law enforcement officers who serve private institutions of higher education and rail carriers, including line-of-duty death benefits under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program, and eligibility for Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grants through the Department of Justice. The bill would ensure that these public safety officers have access to the protective equipment they need, and that they and their families receive benefits if an officer is killed or seriously injured. The bill would apply only to sworn peace officers who receive State certification or licensing, and is supported by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the International Association of Campus Law enforcement Administrators (IACLEA). Indeed, the benefits of this legislation far outweigh the costs. A recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office has found that there would be no significant budget impact by its enactment. The importance of police officers on our campuses and railways is more apparent than ever. I believe that it is necessary that these brave men and women are able to receive the same benefits as their counterparts in State and local law enforcement units, and I am pleased that this legislation has also been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Chris Bell, along with 3 bi-partisan cosponsors. I urge my colleagues to join me, and Senators Leahy and Cornyn, in co-sponsoring and passing the Equity in Law enforcement Act, to ensure that the brave officers that serve our private college and university campuses and railways receive the benefits that they deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED. Madam President, we are on a very important piece of legislation. We also, on a daily basis, are confronted with a very important situation internationally, and that is our continued struggle in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today Senator Hagel and I have announced legislation that would increase the end strength of the U.S. Army by 30,000 soldiers to meet these responsibilities worldwide. This legislation will address a serious shortcoming in our Nation's defense policy, ensuring that we have sufficient forces to carry out all of our missions around the globe, in Iraq and in Afghanistan. This legislation would increase and authorize the end strength of the U.S. Army from its present total of 482,400, to a total of 512,400. I am introducing this legislation today not only with Senator Hagel, but also with Senator McCain, Senator Akaka, Senator Bill Nelson, and Senator Clinton. End strength is the number of personnel permitted to serve in the military. Retired GEN Gordon R. Sullivan once stated that the objective of end strength is: To have enough soldiers to execute Army missions at the right time and the right place, have enough in the total to have both tactical and operational flexibility and to have adequate depth in numbers to support leader development, required force structure manning and the requisite balance needed across the ranks. Each year in the Defense authorization bill, Congress authorizes the end strength of each branch of the military service, including the National Guard and Reserves. The importance of the authorized end strength is that it is the number of soldiers the budget funds. On average, each soldier costs $329 a day or about $120,000 a year to fully house, pay, train, and equip. Last October, when we were debating the emergency supplemental for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Senator Hagel and I offered an amendment to increase the active-duty end strength of the Army by 10,000 soldiers and to pay for that increase out of the supplemental. At that time, the administration vehemently opposed the amendment. The Pentagon argued that an increase was not necessary, that it was too expensive, and using funds from the supplemental would disrupt current plans to win the war in Iraq. The Army stated in its message, ``Increasing end strength is a last resort to fix the challenge'' of balancing forces properly to win the war in Iraq and the global war on terrorism. Yet on January 28 of this year, a mere 3 months later, Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker announced he had received emergency authority to add 30,000 soldiers over the next 4 years to help ``rebalance the force.'' Moreover, the Army would pay for these additional troops with funds from the fiscal year 2004 supplemental. Needless to say, I am happy the Department of Defense has adopted the position Senator Hagel and I had last October. Indeed, they have raised our request of 10,000 up to 30,000. But it is one thing to have the soldiers--it is an important thing--but, unfortunately, the Department of Defense is using the supplemental process to avoid putting these troops in the budget, and I think that is the appropriate way to pay for it. Our Army is the finest fighting force in the world, but it is in danger of being overextended and, in the process of that overextension, degraded in its quality and its effectiveness. Despite the heroic efforts of soldiers every day--men and women--who sacrifice themselves for our benefit, without the assistance, the resources, the support they need, they will find it more and more difficult to do the job. In January 2004, the National Journal summed up the serious situation facing our Army: The occupation of Iraq, the largest single deployment since the Vietnam war, is lasting longer than expected, and comes on top of major deployments elsewhere around the globe. Tens of thousands of reservists have been sent away on lengthy tours that they never expected. Emergency ``stop loss'' orders have prevented soldiers from leaving the services once their enlistments are up. . . . [and] demoralized families are demanding relief. The legislation we propose will address the major portion of that relief. On January 21 of this year, LT GEN John Riggs, the director of the Objective Force Task Force, or the Army of the future, told the Baltimore Sun: You probably are looking at substantially more than 10,000-- Meaning 10,000 personnel. I have been in the Army 39 years, and I've never seen the Army as stretched in that 39 years as I have today. . . .It's not my intent to be provocative but to be intellectually honest with my feelings on the strategy and commitment of the Army. It is not Senator Hagel's and my intent to be provocative but to be intellectually honest. In a November 23, 2003, article in the Wall Street Journal, retired GEN Barry McCaffrey stated: The U.S. Army is stretched to the breaking point. We do not need more U.S. troops in Iraq. We do need to increase active- duty strength of the U.S. Army in order to sustain the current effort in both Iraq and Afghanistan--while remaining prepared to counter North Korea. Many of us are concerned that we won't be able to carry out the strategy we've embarked on in Iraq because we won't be able to sustain it. Next summer, we could be saying that we're breaking the U.S. Army, and that we can't do a third rotation. I would disagree with General McCaffrey on the need for additional troops in Iraq. This week's experience of almost 200 civilian casualties and suicide attacks on Shi'a pilgrims suggests there is perhaps a need for more U.S. security, as well as better Iraqi security. The major point he makes is the point we are making: We have to increase the overall size of the Army if we want to carry out the strategy we embarked upon. Jeffrey Record of the Army's Strategic Studies Institute stated in a report published in December of 2003 that the ``groundforce requirements in Iraq have forced the U.S. Army to the breaking point.'' He goes on to say that: The Army appeared incapable of sustaining a commitment of 16 of its 33 active-duty combat brigades in Iraq absent a reduction in commitments elsewhere or an expansion of its force structure. Since 1989, the Army's military end strength has been cut by more than 34 percent and civilian end strength by more than 45 percent while undergoing a 300-percent increase in mission rate. Their force structure is going down both in terms of military and civilian personnel, but their operations tempo has increased dramatically, and they are being stretched and stretched to the breaking point. Today the Army presently has 492,242 soldiers serving on active duty. This has been the average rate for the past few weeks. This means that on the average, the Army needs 8,000 more soldiers each day to accomplish its mission than Congress has authorized and budgeted for. We already know there is a shortfall in troops, and unless we adopt increases as we have proposed, this shortfall will become a huge chasm between the missions and capabilities to carry out those missions. The situation in Iraq remains uncertain, but what is certain is the Army is already planning to have a force of slightly more than 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2006. This is not just a quick spike, a month or two that you can carry out through some emergency funding mechanisms, something temporary; this is several years. Indeed, I would suggest many years to complete the missions. In order to address the stresses caused by Iraq, the Army is intent on rebalancing its force, or transforming it. The transformation is what General Schoomaker says requires the additional forces. The Army is caught in a very difficult situation. They have to modernize and transform themselves into a more agile, more technologically sophisticated units, but still they have responsibilities of nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those responsibilities are not amenable to high-tech solutions. They require the old-fashioned solutions: troops on the ground, troops talking to civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, gathering intelligence, analyzing intelligence and having the force, both the perception of that force and the reality of that force, to ensure our adversaries are in check. I am glad that today the Department of Defense now agrees with the proposal that was offered last fall by Senator Hagel and myself and 51 of our colleagues who supported us that the Army needs more soldiers. What we disagree on is the way in which we should pay for these forces. As I stated previously, every U.S. soldier costs the taxpayers approximately $120,000 per year. Therefore, an additional 30,000 troops would cost approximately $3.6 billion annually. There are two possible ways to authorize and fund an increase in end strength with its accompanying costs. One way is to put the end strength increase in the budget, raise the authorization levels in the Defense authorization bill, and find the funds in the $401 billion Defense budget to pay for the troops. That is a method used in the bill we are introducing today. The Defense Department, however, has chosen a different route. It intends to increase end strength by using the emergency authority granted under 10 U.S. Code section 123a which waives the end strength restrictions for a fiscal year if there is a war or national emergency. When this authority is used, the $3.6 billion cost of additional 30,000 troops is paid through supplemental or deficit funding. This year, the extra troops will be paid for out of the fiscal year 2004 supplemental, but that supplemental will be depleted on September 30, 2004, if not earlier. So by my calculation, on October 1, 2004, there will be no funding and those 30,000 additional soldiers, or a significant portion of those troops, will still be in the field as they are recruited, trained, and deployed. That means the Defense Department will have to quickly request the Congress to provide another emergency funding for these troops, troops they know full well will be in the service or be recruited to the service or trained for the service by September 30, 2004. Moreover, if the Pentagon persists in using this waiver, then they will repeat the scenario year after year. Pretend these troops do not exist when they send the regular budget up and then suddenly come to us with a supplemental at a convenient time and ask for additional money. That is not a way to budget for our forces. I also point out that I am very concerned because I am hearing reports that the budget sent to us by the Budget Committee will include cuts to the overall defense line. How can the defense line overall be cut at the same time our military leaders are saying they need more troops? There are those who are talking about the situation of abandoning Iraq. That is absolutely foolish. We are committed. Not only do we have to stay, we have to win. The only way to do that, in my view, is to maintain and provide the real resources for the troops to do their job. It is ironic to me, to say the least, that we would be contemplating a budget that cuts defense spending right now when we literally have so many unmet defense needs directly associated with Iraq and Afghanistan. There is another problem with this supplemental approach. First, the definition of what is an emergency, the fiscal year 2000 budget resolution states that emergency funding must meet the following criteria: necessity; second, sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up over time; third, urgent; four, unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated; and five, temporary in nature. These troops will not be temporary. The need is for several years. Certainly we know already what is coming before us. So this is not something quickly coming into being, something that is being built up suddenly. The cost of 30,000 additional troops is now predictable and anticipated for at least the next 4 years. It does not qualify as an emergency. This device is simply hiding the true cost of ongoing operations and transformation. As I said before, there are some who say this is a spike. It is not a spike. It is a plateau, or at least an ascending hill and a very slow decline. This chart was presented to the Armed Services Committee staff by the Army on February 12, 2004. It shows the transformation plan. It shows the increase in the present end strength of 482,400 up to an end strength of roughly 512,400, from about 33 brigades to about 48 brigades. Then it shows the gradual decline. I note this decline gets us back to current end strength around fiscal year 2010 or 2011. That is 7 years from now. That is not a spike. That is a tough hike up a steep hill and then a slow decline from that hill. Also, this scenario assumes there are no other major contingencies such as North Korea; that there can be a successful transfer of military duties to more civilians; that we can reduce the time our soldiers are in training, in transit, in hospitals, and other nondeployed or nondeployable categories. These are all assumptions that might not be met. The most prudent action today is to increase the forces that we suggest in our legislation. It is much easier to bring a force down than to build it up. When it is brought down, it saves money. When it is brought down, stop-loss orders do not have to be relied upon. These are orders which basically tell soldiers they have reached their enlistment termination date but we are not letting them go. They are no longer a volunteer, in some respects. They are with us until we tell them they can go. So that is something of which we have to be very conscious. We have to also be concerned that these 30,000 troops might not come online at one moment. Obviously, it takes time to recruit and train. The Army may not need or be able to handle all of these troops. That does not argue against authorizing this increased end strength. What it does is argue for flexibility in the way the Army brings the troops on, and that is something I am sure we can talk about in the conduct of our discussions this year on the defense authorization legislation. We have a point now where our Army is stretched. It is under tremendous stress, and to a degree this also applies to the Marine Corps, our land forces. We can do the responsible thing, which is to stand up and in the clear light of day increase the end strength of our military forces and pay for that end strength, or we can employ budgetary gimmicks. We can avoid the reality. Through smoke and mirrors we can try to somehow persuade ourselves and maybe the American public that we do not have to pay for these operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. That would be wrong in terms of our responsibility to the American public and our responsibility, just as importantly, to the troops who are in the field. They have to know we are not playing budget games with our military forces. They have to know we support them, that we just cannot talk about a generational struggle against terrorism if we have to fund that struggle. We also have to be particularly cognizant that so many of our National Guard and Reserve forces are engaged in this conflict. Of the 100,000-plus troops who will be in Iraq in the next several weeks after this rotation, 40 percent will be Reserve and National Guard forces, the largest deployment of Reserve and National Guard forces since World War II in a combat area of operations. What is the message we are sending to them? If we do not increase the size of our Active Forces, the message is simple: When you serve well-- and they are--and honorably, and you return home, do not unpack your bags because you are going back before you know it. We just do not have the Active Forces to carry out the missions. I hope in the process of our deliberations on the Defense authorization bill we can include the Hagel-Reed amendment. I thank my colleagues who supported this amendment. Certainly, I think we want to do all we can for our forces in the field. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I initially want to respond to some of the comments made by the Senator from Utah. I believe he read a legislative proposal that Senator McCain and I submitted last fall, not the amendment that is before us today because we specifically removed from the amendment today any requirement for the turning in of lists of vendors at gun shows to the Attorney General of the United States. That is not in this amendment. There is no requirement for unlicensed sellers to execute any paperwork. That requirement will be undertaken by a special licensee, presumably the gun show sponsor and operator, not the unlicensed gun dealer. Furthermore, there is no requirement to seek permission from the Attorney General or any Federal authority to conduct a gun show. So I think the comments of the Senator from Utah reflect not this amendment but previous proposals. This amendment has been specifically modified to make it as easy, as efficient, and as effective as possible to conduct these background checks. The Federal authorities have a 3-day period of time in which to execute a gun show background check, but, frankly, with the National Instant Criminal Background System, we all know the facts are clear. Ninety-one percent of these checks are accomplished in less than 5 minutes; 95 percent in less than 2 hours. If the check is not completed in 3 days, then the transaction goes through. That is just a backstop in case there is information that these Federal authorities cannot obtain. So, frankly, the suggestion that gun shows will be put out of business is quite wrong. Those places which have even tougher standards than those suggested by the McCain-Reed bill still have gun shows, and they are still highly popular and highly successful. I thank the Senator from Idaho for his comments about North Carolina. My comments generally talked about closing the gun show loophole. As he points out, North Carolina requires everyone who is buying a firearm at a gun show to have a North Carolina firearm permit, which is probably a more demanding standard than we are suggesting in our amendment, and we would not suggest that. That is a State prerogative. Technically, they do not require all the background checks on licensees and unlicensees, but they do in fact require any purchaser to have a permit. That is a very stringent standard. Now, there has also been some discussion today about the fact that this is going to cause tremendous chaos because what if someone saw a weapon at a gun show and then later called a private dealer. Well, that is why the amendment clearly defines activities that are not part of a gun show subject to this amendment. The language states: does not include an offer or exhibit of firearms for sale, exchange, or transfer by an individual from the personal collection of that individual, at the private residence of that individual, if the individual is not required to be licensed under section 923 or 932. For example, if someone is a private collector, if they have some guns in their home and they are selling those weapons from their home, then they are not subject to this provision. It is as clear as we can make it to exempt the many people who are private collectors and the many people who, indeed, should not be subject to this license requirement.