Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, just a few days ago I had the privilege of traveling, with Senator Warner and Senator Levin, and other colleagues, to Iraq. I wish to comment upon my observations of that trip in the context of this Defense appropriations bill. After the most stunning victory in the annals of military history, the fighting and dying in Iraq goes on. The war is not over. It has changed its character. Conventional warfare of major formations against major formations has yielded to hit-and-run attacks against our troops. We are in a tenuous moment where the momentum of the battle has shifted from our coalition forces and may shift dramatically to opposition forces in Iraq. We are being opposed by groups of Baathist diehards, Islamic fundamentalists, and criminals. Although this resistance, until recently, appeared to be uncoordinated and spasmodic, there are strong signs emerging that organizations are beginning to coalesce and we are facing a much more serious threat. Just today, in Iraq, a manned portable air defense missile was fired at an American aircraft over Baghdad International Airport, signaling a major escalation of the capabilities of our opponents and the ability of these opponents to interfere with our occupation forces in a significant way. Another American soldier died. The mayor of an Iraqi city was gunned down. Indeed, today General Abizaid indicated that we are facing a classical guerrilla-type war situation. And I must say, General Abizaid is a person I had the privilege of serving with 30 years ago in the 82nd Airborne Division. There is not a more talented and dedicated and decent officer in our Army or our military force. His expertise and knowledge make him the most capable person we could have there. So his conclusion, I think, is one that should resonate through these halls. Now, if one of these groups--Baathists or fundamentalists, radicals, or criminals--becomes more coherent in their efforts--and it seems, based on today's events, they are becoming more coherent--then the danger to our force will rise. Let me suggest this is a startling revelation today. It was difficult to bear the sight of American troops being hit with RPGs, rocket- propelled grenades, but to have the capability and the cunning to launch a missile against an aircraft in Baghdad should send shivers down our spine, not just with respect to Baghdad but throughout the world. One of the issues which I am sure they are desperately trying to determine today is: How many of these manned portable missiles are there in Iraq? I do not know for a fact, but I would suggest there are hundreds, if not thousands. While we were visiting the northern area of Iraq under the control of the 4th Infantry Division, General Odierno, the commander, indicated they had identified and were securing almost 3,000 ammo dumps, including small arms, all the way up to medium-range missiles with about a 100-kilometer range. This country is chock-full of RPGs and other weapons. The other question is: If they are in Iraq today, have some of these manned pads exfiltrated out of the country into very dubious hands? We face a serious issue. Now, if all of these elements are able to come together with a common purpose--the Baathists and the criminal elements and the radical fundamentalists--we have a very serious challenge. And, most important, if any one or all of these groups can tap into an innate nationalism among the Iraqi people, if they can translate their disappointment about their economic position today, their dashed expectations of what liberation would mean, then we have a great challenge to our occupation of Iraq. To dismiss these forces as inconsequential or without support, I think, is a serious mistake. What they may lack in popular support and skill--although, again, their demonstrated performance increases each day--they can make up in desperation and fanaticism. There are remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime. The disgruntled Baathists have no place to go, and they know it. For them, it will be a fight to the death. In Chris Hedges' brilliant polemic about the corrosive effects of war, entitled ``War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning,'' he described a visit to an Iraqi prison in Northern Iraq that was liberated at the end of the gulf war. In his words: When it was attacked in 1991 by Kurdish fighters and enraged civilians, 300 Iraqi secret policemen and guards, including the warden, held out for three days. None of the defenders survived. And after the battle, a triumphant fighter expressed the wishes of many. In his words: We wanted them all to come back to life . . . so that we could kill them again. This is the nature of the struggle and the combatants in Iraq. There are thousands of former secret police and Fedayeen, not just the 52 cards in the famous deck. We can expect fierce and persistent resistance from most if not all. It is no surprise, then, that our military commanders assume that the situation in Iraq will get worse before it gets better. We should be prepared for continued casualties on a frequent basis. Indeed, we should be prepared for heavy casualties on given days. Again, this is absolutely consistent with General Abizaid's conclusion that we are in a classic guerrilla war struggle today. The most obvious objective of opposition forces is to inflict sufficient casualties on our troops so that support within the United States for a continued presence within Iraq will erode and evaporate. As such, our immediate response must be to communicate to the American people that the road ahead will be difficult. We are likely to sustain constant casualties, and we must commit significant resources to the struggle to rebuild Iraq. That is why the absence of appropriations in this bill for our effort in Iraq is unfortunate. The administration has not requested funds so this absence is not the fault of the committee. It represents a very deliberate policy of the administration to avoid declaring to the American public, in an explicit fashion, the true course of our operations in Iraq. We all anticipate that the administration will make a supplemental request early next year and argue that the funds are critically needed to cover costs that have already been incurred. But the American people deserve something better. They should know these costs now. Having decided to use military force to eliminate the regime of Saddam Hussein, we cannot walk away from the difficulties of pacifying and rebuilding Iraq. We may come to seriously question the commitment we have undertaken, but to walk away at this point from the challenge would deal a serious blow to our prestige and power in the international community. To ensure that we stay the course, it is essential the American people know the costs, and the cost of our passage. Our efforts in Iraq ultimately depend on the attitudes of the Iraqi people. They will be the final judges of our policies and our continued presence. At present, the long and terrifying shadow of Saddam Hussein continues to bedevil them. Many of our military officers and our civilian administrators attribute the noncommittal attitude of the Iraqis to the continuing uncertainty of Saddam's fate. There is much truth to this assertion. But we should be careful not to see the capture or death of Saddam as the ``silver bullet'' that will transform our presence in Iraq. The Iraqi people seem to be withholding their enthusiastic endorsement for our efforts not just to await the fate of Saddam, but to be assured that the coalition can deliver at least the same degree of economic security they enjoyed under Saddam and, hopefully, much more. It strikes me that the Iraqi people are not simply motivated by a residual fear of Saddam. They have grown up in a system that provided meager sustenance in exchange for utter subservience, a subservience that was enforced by ruthless terror. It will take more than Saddam's demise to erase this pervasive authoritarian culture. It will take many years and significant improvements in every phase of Iraqi life. The most pressing demand in Iraq today is to provide a secure environment for our forces and for the Iraqi people. That challenge is inextricably linked and bound up with the economic revitalization of Iraq. Coalition forces are occupying a country whose economy has collapsed. Iraq under Saddam was a country in which everyone directly or indirectly worked for the regime. And now the regime is gone. Perhaps the single greatest long-term danger to our efforts is the huge number of unemployed. Unless we can rapidly put these people to work, they will be vulnerable to the overtures of those who wish us ill. We are in effect in a sprint to revive the Iraqi economy before the Iraqi people decide that freedom is not worth the uncertainty of a dysfunctional economy, and they become susceptible to the overtures of those who want to eject us from Iraq. Another pressing demand is to create a legitimate Iraqi Government acceptable to the Iraqi people. We have begun to take the first steps in that process by the selection of a governing council. This council will exercise defined powers such as the appointment of Iraqi ministers. All of their actions, however, are ultimately subject to the veto of Ambassador Bremer. The council was selected to reflect the ethnic, religious, and demographic realities of Iraq. That was a positive and appropriate step. This council will participate in the selection of a larger conclave that will draft a constitution for Iraq. All of these efforts are leading up to putting, as so many people have said, an Iraqi face on the Government of Iraq. We all realize that the longer we appear to be running the show, the more likely it is that opposition to our presence will grow. At this juncture, we have avoided ceding authority to any one faction in Iraq. We are for the moment holding the various factions at bay. But this balancing act will become more and more difficult as we approach the time when real power is transferred to a real executive. At that point, the traditional rivalries of Sunni and Shia and Kurd will emerge and emerge with some force. One aspect of the new governing council that I find troubling is the attention and influence given to exiled leaders. According to a report in the New York Times: . . . significantly, the new interim government will be dominated by the Iraqi exile leaders and Kurdish chieftains who carried out the long campaign to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Given the presence of Kurds in northern Iraq and their obvious power--they have their own army; they control their own territory--it is not surprising that they would have a major role. But giving such a significant role to the exiles seems likely to be more controversial than constructive. The best known of these exiles is Ahmed Chalabi. Chalabi has long resided outside of Iraq. In 1992, he was convicted in absentia by a Jordanian court for embezzlement and bank fraud. He was sentenced to 22 years in prison. It is not surprising that reaction to Chalabi and the exiles is not entirely favorable. Hassan Zahrawi, a 23-year-old student at Baghdad's Mustansariya University, was quoted in the Washington Post as saying: We are the people who suffered. . . . They are thieves. They do not know anything about the suffering of the Iraqi people. This certainly is not a scientific sampling. You could perhaps find people who would endorse Mr. Chalabi. But I think we are taking a risk by inserting, insinuating exiles in a dominant place in this governing council. I think that will strike a chord in Iraq and not a favorable chord as people who have suffered, who have very little, see these people who have just arrived dominating the political process. It could be a severe miscalculation. Let me suggest another potential miscalculation. I read with great interest Ambassador Bremer's op-ed piece in the New York Times. One quote struck me: Our economic reform plan will entail a major shift of capital from the value-destroying state sector to private firms. No one could disagree with that logic. But I think we have to be very careful that we do not replicate the experience we have seen in Russia, for example, where the winners of this transition of capital from the state to the private market were the insiders, the people with the connections, the people who were able to influence the government. We have made serious mistakes in our occupation planning. I hope we don't compound those mistakes by creating a government that has no legitimacy really and that serves simply as a conduit to enrich those who are participating in that government. All of these concerns resonate throughout a country with distinction and disparate regional characteristics. On our trip, we visited Basra in the south, Baghdad in the center of the country, and Kirkuk in the north. The southern portion is predominantly Shia. They are engaged in a very careful balancing act between Iranian influences and their desires to participate in a secular government but certainly participate so that their religious culture is recognized. They are the largest population group in Iraq. We have been working with them. In the south my impression is that they are still weighing all of their options, and we have to be extremely careful. In the north there is a significant population diversity, Kurds, Turkmen, Assyrians, Arabs. They are much more comfortable with our role there. They have seen the example of several years of a virtually autonomous region the Kurds established after the 1991 war. The most stable regions at the moment seem to be the north and the south, although there are incidents of violence in all parts of Iraq. But the key point, the most dangerous place is Baghdad. There in the suburbs leading to the west towards Falluja and up towards the north, toward Tikrit, the ancient home of Saddam and his tribal relatives, that is where the action is, that is where our soldiers are, frankly, being killed. Our biggest concern at the moment is intelligence. Frankly, we did not expect this type of operation, and we are rapidly and diligently trying to understand who is attacking us, where they are getting their weapons and money and their support and supplies. Are their foreign influences? How many foreign fighters have come into Baghdad? We are in a race to find out about them before they do us even more grievous harm. There is, of course, the issue of how many troops we should have in Iraq. I have heard reports that General Abizaid will recommend force strength in-country of about 160,000 soldiers and sailors, marines, all of our Armed Forces participating in one way or the other. That is a function of how much we know. My sense is that if we don't know who the enemy is, if we have uncertain threats from multiple directions, then we will err on the side of more troops rather than fewer. This situation could go on for a very long time. There are those who have said we have gotten ourselves into another Vietnam. No, we haven't. That was a different time, a different place, a different situation. We don't have a rural insurgency as we did in Vietnam. We don't have a country that is a proxy for international politics being supported and encouraged by a significant infusion of foreign resources, wealth, and guidance. But we very well might have our own version of Belfast or the Intifada, urban guerrilla warfare in which there is insignificant foreign support at the moment but, as I indicated before, more than enough people who are determined to attack us and to hurt us. As we traveled around in Iraq, we talked about the issue of weapons of mass destruction. Just one point: I assumed in my deliberations that the Iraqi regime would have chemical and biological weapons, but I assumed that they did not pose an immediate threat to the United States. Therefore, I did not vote to authorize the unilateral use of force. We have been surprised. But now what I sense is happening is that the search for weapons which so many declared were absolutely there and were so critical in their decision to mount a unilateral military attack, now that has been transformed into a search for a program. I wouldn't be surprised that in the months ahead, based upon analysis of documents, that some type of program emerges. But with each passing day, it seems less and less likely that we will find a militarily significant concentration of chemical or biological weapons. I thought there was no credence to the claims by the President and others that there was an ongoing nuclear program in Iraq at the time, and I think that will be borne out. Now, all of this leads me to several conclusions. One is particularly pertinent to this appropriation. Our Army and our marines--particularly our Army--are stretched thin, taut. They won't break because they are magnificent soldiers. They are under extraordinary pressure. Let me suggest where our Army is. We have 370,800 soldiers in 120 countries, not just Iraq. In Iraq itself, we have the 3rd Infantry Division. These are the troops who led the fight into Baghdad. They have been told they are going home; they have been told they are staying. Once again, decisions have been reversed because of the situation. They are good soldiers. They will do their job, but certainly this is not the way to have a good plan, to rotate and move soldiers throughout the world. The 4th Infantry Division is in the north. The 101st Airborne Division is in the north in Mosul. The 1st Armored Division has elements in the country. The 173rd Airborne Brigade conducted a parachute assault in the first days, and they are in Kirkuk. The 2nd Brigade of the 82nd Airborne is there. The 2nd and 3rd Light Cavalry Regiments are there. There are about 134,000 soldiers, together with 44,000-plus soldiers in Kuwait for supporting operations. In Afghanistan, we will have, by the end of summer, two brigades of the 10th Mountain Division. In the Balkans, we have the 34th National Guard Division from Kansas. In Kosovo, we have elements of the 1st Infantry Division, which will be replaced shortly by the Pennsylvania 28th National Guard Division. In the United States, we have soldiers deployed in counterdrug and other operations. Our Reserve elements are the 1st Cavalry Division, 1st Infantry Division Brigade, and we have new Stryker battalions or brigades up in Fort Lewis, and one in Alaska. This is an extraordinary deployment of American forces. Included in the total are a significant number of National Guardsmen. These National Guardsmen and Reserve are one part of our great Army--one whole unified element. I have left for last Korea. We have 37,000 soldiers there from the 2nd Infantry Division. I was shocked when I read yesterday of Secretary William Perry's conclusion that we are in a serious crisis with North Korea. Over the last few months, the administration has been trying diplomatically. But Secretary Perry, who is probably the most knowledgeable and experienced with respect to North Korea, is now convinced that we might have missed our opportunity for diplomacy to work. One of the factors that goes into our strategy is whether we can complement our diplomacy with real military force. There is not much left to do that. Those 37,000 soldiers from the 2nd Infantry Division are not the kind of combat power you need to stare down the North Koreans if there is a serious breach of the current situation. But we are stretched thin. We cannot pull forces out of Iraq. We would jeopardize the mission there. We cannot pull them out of Afghanistan. We would jeopardize that mission. We have to consider what is most important for the Army, and we have to make decisions. Those decisions have to come to us quickly from the Department of Defense. What will we do? This bill should have considered and included those types of recommendations--not our ideas, but the proposals of the Department of Defense and the administration, and there is scant detail with respect to Iraq and potential conflict with Korea. I hope diplomacy will work. But we have discovered that diplomacy without credible and complementary military forces is not as effective. This is a situation where we are stretched and we have an ongoing classic guerrilla war in Iraq, we have a situation in Afghanistan that is unstable, and we have a potential crisis in Korea. We need recommendations from the Department of Defense about where we are going to get soldiers to take these missions. I had hoped this bill would include such information. It doesn't. Certainly, I am going to support the legislation, but I hope these questions are answered very quickly. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. During this period of time, the Attorney General, therefore, granted a different form of relief known as deferred enforced departure, which was used to shelter the population of Liberians in the United States from immediate deportation. But I think the point is, it is quite clear we have recognized the legal right of these people to stay in the United States because of the turmoil in Liberia for more than a decade. That turmoil today is even worse. It is reaching a crisis proportion, so much so that the President of the United States is actually contemplating the use of American forces or certainly American support for an international peacekeeping mission. Now, I have given this long and complicated history to suggest that we have a population that each year waits anxiously for a decision by the Attorney General whether to be sent back to a very difficult environment. We are talking about 15,000 people in the United States. There is a human face to this. They cannot tell an employer they can take a job for 2 years. They do not know if their children can go off to college for 2 or 3 years because you cannot give those assurances. They pay taxes, but they do not qualify for benefits. And many of these Liberians have lived in the country longer than the 5 years of residency required for citizenship. What I have done for several years is introduce legislation to allow these individuals to become permanent residents as a step towards citizenship. I have been supported by my colleagues, Senators Chafee, Kennedy, Corzine, Durbin, and Hagel because we believe--and particularly at this moment we believe--it is appropriate to give these Liberians in America a sense of permanency. Let me say, this would not be a unique occasion. We have, in many other instances, extended coverage like this to other nationals. We have had situations in which we have allowed people staying in our country to adjust to permanent residency status. For example, in 1998 Congress passed a law allowing four national groups, who were in similar situations, staying in the United States at the discretion of the Attorney General to adjust to permanent residency status: 4,996 Poles, 387 Ugandans, 565 Afghanis, and 1,180 Ethiopians. In the 102nd Congress, we passed a law that allowed 52,968 Chinese nationals with deferred enforced departure to apply for permanent residency and then citizenship because they were victims of Tiananmen Square. In the 105th Congress, we passed the NACARA legislation. Under this law, 150,000 Nicaraguans, 5,000 Cubans, 200,000 El Salvadorans, and 50,000 Guatemalans were given the chance to reach permanent residency status. In 1999, we passed a bill allowing 2,000 Syrian Jews to accede to permanent residency en route to citizenship. My legislation would not set a precedent, but it would provide support and comfort, and I think long overdue justice, to 15,000 Liberians in this country. Mr. President, I hope we can work together in the near future to make this legislation law. I thank my colleagues for listening to this speech about Liberia. We have two functions: One, to provide assistance internationally to help the people struggling there; and then to provide a sense of permanency to those Liberians who are here. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, over the past few weeks the entire world has witnessed the images emanating from Liberia of chaos and carnage and a people who are bedeviled by a civil war that has lasted too long. This is a country that is in turmoil, a country with which we have a deep historic relationship. It is a country I do believe we must assist. The trouble in Liberia is not of the last few days or few months. It has extended at least for a decade. But at this time we have the opportunity, and I believe also the responsibility, to assist the people of Liberia to find a better way, a way without violence, a way that will guarantee a democracy that works and an economy that provides for the people of Liberia. Liberia has a special relationship to the United States. In 1822, a group of freed slaves from America began to settle the west coast of Africa. They were provided assistance by private philanthropists but at the insistence and encouragement of the U.S. Government. This was, at that time, a response to the prevailing system of slavery in the United States, a humanitarian approach. By 1847, these settlers had established the Republic of Liberia, the first independent country in Africa. It was modeled after the United States. In fact, even today, 5 percent of the population trace their heritage directly back to these American slaves who were freed and repatriated to Liberia. The Liberians modeled their Constitution on the United States Constitution. The Liberian flag closely resembles the United States flag. The capital of Liberia is named Monrovia, after President James Monroe. Before 1990, before the beginning of this civil war, Liberia's leading trading partner was the United States, and the United States was a major source of assistance to the country of Liberia. Our histories have been inextricably linked since 1822. Without the attempt of the United States in a small way to work its way through the problem of slavery and the creation in this country of private philanthropy, Liberia would not exist. I argue that these close historical ties are very important influences that should govern our decision today as we seek to help the people of Liberia. At the core of the problem today in Liberia is the behavior and the conduct of the President of Liberia, Charles Taylor. Taylor is 55 years old. He is the son of an American father and a Liberian mother who was a direct descendent of American slaves. During the 1970s, he worked in Boston, MA, while earning an economics degree at a Massachusetts college. He returned to Liberia in 1979, having spent a significant part of his life here in the United States. In 1979, the Government of Liberia was at that time taken over by Samuel Doe. President Taylor worked briefly for Samuel Doe. When he was accused of embezzling over $1 million from that Government, he left Liberia. He fled to some place with which he was very familar, Massachusetts. He was arrested there but he managed to escape from jail and made his way to Libya where he trained at a camp run by Qadhafi, a guerrilla training camp. In 1989, he led a small band of irregular forces that overthrew the Samuel Doe government, and he effectively became leader. Then, through an election, he became the President. But his Presidency has been marred not only by the decline of Liberia but by the instability throughout west Africa, spawned by his policies and his practices. Between 150,000 and 200,000 people have been killed and over 1 million people have been dispossessed in Liberia during the Taylor reign. Monrovia, the capital of Liberia, a city of more than 1 million people, is the only African capital that has no electricity, no running water, and no telephone service. Tens of thousands of people live in the ruins of bombed-out buildings. There are only two functioning hospitals in the entire country. Only a handful of flights each week leave Monrovia in small planes and go to adjacent west African countries. There is no direct connection between this country and the capitals of the world. In the past decade, in response to this violence, this chaos, and this collapse, the United Nations has passed seven resolutions seeking to halt the destabilizing force of the Liberian Government--seeking to halt it from its policies of encouraging rebel groups in adjacent countries and trying to induce it to fully abide by numerous Security Council resolutions to end the internal conflict in Liberia. The United Nations-backed Special Court in Sierra Leone is investigating war crimes that have taken place in Sierra Leone. These crimes include mass rapes, kidnapping, murder, amputation of limbs of civilians, and recruitment and use of child soldiers. Last month, the Court unsealed an indictment against Charles Taylor for ``bearing the greatest responsibility for war crimes, crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law within the territory of Sierra Leone since November 30, 1996.'' Taylor has deliberately assisted rebel forces in Sierra Leone and has provided resources for and is a willing party to the atrocities which I mentioned--the atrocities which have led to his indictment by the Court in Sierra Leone. He did it for diamonds. He did it for power. But the results have been devastating to that country. It is quite clear that Taylor has not only destroyed his own country but he has also helped to undermine and destabilize adjacent countries, such as the Ivory Coast and Sierra Leone. One of the problems with countries such as Liberia and adjacent countries is when there is a government that does not work or simply works for the benefit of the party in power or the person in power, those countries are likely breeding grounds for terrorist activity and terrorism that will spread beyond their borders. In fact, in today's world, it could spread worldwide. As a CRS report noted, ``For more than a decade, cycles of conflict in Liberia have generated a range of effects that have undermined the national security, political stability, and economic prosperity of its neighbors, and had secondary negative repercussions in the wider sub- region. Among the most serious of such effects are the spread of small arms; the diffusion of violence-based social norms, often with commercial underpinnings; and increasing amounts of mercenary activity in the region; the deployment of diverse, often state-assisted rebel groups along regional borders; rampant human rights abuses; and the creation of aggrieved refugees and internally displaced populations.'' That has been the record of Charles Taylor. I believe the United States has an obligation to Liberia based on history, based upon the chaos that is obvious in the country, based upon the policies and practices of President Taylor that has ruined his own country and harmed his neighbors. We must act for the security of west Africa and possibly even for the security of the United States. I should also point out that our British allies intervened in Sierra Leone to ensure stability because of their historic ties with Sierra Leone. The French have intervened in the Ivory Coast. In fact, a month ago it was the French forces that evacuated Americans who were in danger in Liberia itself. I believe we have to take several steps. First, the United States should organize a robust multinational force endorsed by the United Nations Security Council to support the cease-fire and to restore order in Liberia. We all recognize that this is a decision for the President of the United States. But the Department of Defense must give the President of the United States all the options he needs and which he requires for the movement of troops--troops that could, with the President's order, intervene in Liberia. Without timely orders and giving troops notice of movement and beginning the movement process, we could find ourselves with other ugly episodes of violence in Liberia in the next few days, or weeks, or months. Finding the President being moved to act, it could take days to put our forces in place to operate. With respect to not only organizing our response, we also should seriously begin marshaling the forces necessary to intervene if and when the President of the United States gives such an order. Our involvement should not be contingent on Charles Taylor's decision to leave. I have already described the record of Mr. Taylor. It is a record that lacks credibility. And his decision should not represent a veto of our policy. The President has said that he would consider the use of force or international forces if Taylor left. I think we should make it quite clear that if the situation deteriorates sufficiently and there is a prospect of using force for positive change for the Liberian people, then Charles Taylor should not decide by his presence or his absence whether we commit forces or assist with these international forces. The United States should also seek Security Council approval of chapter VII authority to further support the Sierra Leone Special Court and its indictment of Taylor for crimes against humanity. Presently, although the Special Court is backed by the United Nations, only Sierra Leone is bound by its decision. We should use our diplomatic influence to ensure that Taylor answers the indictment, in the event he does leave Liberia, or in the event that he comes into international custody in Liberia. Finally, we should support a U.N. mission for Liberia, in consultation with the Economic Community of West African States, or ECOWAS, and the International Contact Group for Liberia, to provide for an interim government and ultimately a democratic transition. The world, and particularly the people of Liberia, are waiting for our leadership. We should provide it. There is another aspect of the issue of Liberia that is important to consider. It is not with respect to those Liberians who are in that country but actually with respect to Liberians who are here in the United States and who have been here in the United States for more than a decade. When the Liberian civil war broke out, many Liberians began to flee to the United States. The chaos began to be obvious to our political leaders and in March of 1991, the then-Attorney General recognized their plight, and granted to these people temporary protective status, or TPS. This was back under the administration of President George Herbert Walker Bush. Under TPS, nationals of a country may stay in the United States without fear of deportation because armed conflict or extraordinary conditions make it unsafe for these people to return home. To obtain TPS, persons must register with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services--formerly known as INS, before its reorganization--pay a processing fee, and apply for an authorization to work. They must have a passport from the country from which they have fled. And they cannot be granted TPS if they have any criminal convictions. Persons with TPS in the United States must pay taxes, but they do not qualify for benefits such as welfare or food stamps, and not a single day spent in this country under TPS counts toward the residency requirement for permanent residency. As required by statute, the Attorney General reviews the situation in the country each year and then decides whether to extend TPS. In the case of Liberia, the civil war has raged on and on for more than a decade, prompting Attorneys General of the first Bush administration, the Clinton administration, and the present Bush administration to annually review the status of Liberians in the United States. In 1996, 1998, and again in 2002--this time under the present Bush administration--the Attorney General found that the situation in Liberia had deteriorated to such an extent that TPS was not only granted but there was a ``redesignation.'' What does that mean? It means that people who had fled the country after 1991, or who had returned to Liberia and then returned to the United States, were also included in the protected category of TPS. So we have had a situation going over a decade in which annually Attorneys General have looked at the issue and have granted protective status to these people. There was one brief period, from 1999 to 2001, where the conflict seemed to be ebbing. In that period, TPS was not granted. However, the Attorney General and the administration determined that it was still inappropriate to return these people to Liberia.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the historic legislation that is before this Chamber. A year ago, this body undertook a similar endeavor to bring a Medicare prescription drug benefit to the 40 million aged and disabled beneficiaries who are on the program today, as well as maintain the promise for the tens of millions of future beneficiaries who will be joining the rolls in the coming decades. Despite the fact that a majority of Senators voted in favor of a $594 billion plan for a drug program offered by Senators Graham, Miller, and Kennedy, procedural barriers prevented us from delivering a benefit to our elderly and disabled last year. Since that time, Congress has passed another round of tax cuts at the President's behest, and the Nation's fiscal condition continues to deteriorate at an alarming rate. Just last week, the Congressional Budget Office announced that this administration is now on pace to shatter previous Federal budget deficit records. CBO's latest fiscal year 2003 budget deficit forecast now tops $400 billion, an increase of $100 billion over the CBO's deficit forecast offered just a month ago. The current record budget deficit was $290 billion set in 1992. In just the first 8 months of fiscal year 2003, we have already posted a deficit of $291 billion. Congress and the administration are now turning their attention to the long-neglected problem of a prescription drug benefit for Medicare. This year, we are faced with an arbitrary cap of $400 billion under which a drug benefit must fit. This cap is the result of the administration's insistence on dealing with the drug benefit after the tax cut and not before. Madam President, $400 billion was not sufficient when we sought to enact a meaningful prescription drug benefit last year, and I believe it is even less adequate this time. The issue of Medicare prescription drugs is extremely important to me, and even more important to the constituents I represent. In of a State of slightly more than a million people, 14.5 percent of the population in Rhode Island is over the age of 65 years. This is a higher proportion of older persons than the national average of 12.4 percent. According to the Census Bureau estimates, the number of elderly is expected to increase to 18.8 percent of Rhode Island's population by the year 2025. Rhode Island also has one of the highest concentrations of persons age 85 and over. Consequently, seniors in my State tend to utilize higher degrees and greater levels of health care than their counterparts in other States. My State is also unique in terms of its health insurance market. Being a small State, Rhode Island experienced a particularly tumultuous insurance cycle during the mid-1990s that resulted in basically one insurer remaining in the market. Being dominated by a single insurance company has resulted in artificially low reimbursement rates for providers in my State. In fact, I am told Medicare is often the highest payer, sometimes 30 to 40 percent higher than some of the private options. This has created a tremendous burden on providers in my State who are struggling to keep up with the increasing cost of doing business while continuing to provide quality care to their patients. As Senator Grassley stated at the outset of this debate, his legislation contains a provision aimed at increasing the reimbursement rate for rural providers that fall below the national average. This will make certain rural patients are not denied access to doctors and quality care. However, I believe the same assurance must be given to all Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of where they live. I am constantly hearing from providers in my State who are struggling with the drastically increasing cost of doing business. I believe we must do more to recognize regional variations in the cost of providing health care services in this country to ensure all providers are equitably compensated for services under the Medicare Program and access to care for beneficiaries is assured. I would like to take a few moments to outline the many concerns I have regarding this legislation. I commend the Senate Finance Committee and the leadership of Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus for their efforts to move a package forward. This is a daunting challenge. They have invested their energy and their vision and their enthusiasm over many weeks. I commend them for that. However, I believe the proposal before this body is deficient in many significant ways. Under the legislation, seniors below 100 percent of poverty and those between 100 and 135 percent of poverty would have much of their needs covered at minimal expense. This is one of the beneficial aspects of the legislation. I must commend the Senators for insisting upon this protection for low-income seniors. Seniors between 135 and 160 percent of poverty would face a variable deduction and coinsurance. These are beneficial aspects. If we could do more along these lines to provide assurances to low-income seniors that their benefits would be taken care of, if we could close the gap in coverage and we could do many things, this legislation would be one that would be universally supported. But there are significant shortcomings as well as the beneficial aspects. Our elderly and disabled beneficiaries need a comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit now, not 3 years from now. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a senior today pays an average of $999 in out-of-pocket drug costs. Under the Grassley-Baucus proposal, beginning in 2004, seniors would be entitled to the Bush administration's privately run discount card program. The Government-endorsed card would provide seniors with negotiated discounts on certain drugs. Instead of taking the time and expense to implement and dismantle a temporary discount card, we should be dedicating ourselves to implementing today a meaningful comprehensive prescription drug benefit as expeditiously as possible. I recognize the proposal before us is highly complicated and relies on a private marketplace that does not even exist and will take time to put in place. Yet if the original Medicare program could be up and running within 11 months during an era when there were no computers to speak of, I see no reason why we can't phase in the basic elements of a prescription drug program starting immediately. I greatly fear the beneficiaries of Medicare will never see this benefit take effect when 2006 rolls around. There are a number of very plausible scenarios such as increasing Federal budget deficits, competition with the never ending drumbeat for tax cuts, and the expiration of some of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the lack of private companies willing to offer these new plans, technical problems, or any number of other potential stumbling blocks that could derail implementation of this benefit, leaving seniors with nothing more than the temporary discount card as a benefit. Indeed, the bill before us continues the temporary card more than 6 months after the benefit is supposed to start. Given the fact that Medicare beneficiaries have already waited too long for Congress to enact a prescription drug benefit, we need to do all we can to deliver a Medicare prescription drug benefit as soon as possible. Yet an effort by Senator Lautenberg to move up the implementation date of the new Medicare Part D program to July 1, 2004 failed. I am extremely disappointed this amendment did not prevail, leaving seniors to wait even longer for us to deliver on this promise. The current package relies entirely on the private sector to provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit to seniors. The new Medicare Part D program created by this legislation is a significant departure from the traditional Medicare Program structure. The expectation is that Medicare HMOs and PPOs will provide the complete range of health care services, including prescription drugs, under the new MedicareAdvantage option, while drug-only plans, which currently don't exist in the health insurance marketplace, will provide drug coverage to beneficiaries who remain in the traditional fee-for-service Medicare Program. It is important to point out that most seniors have a favorable opinion of the existing Medicare Program and are satisfied with the coverage they receive through the traditional program. According to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation Harvard School of Public Health survey, 80 percent of seniors have a favorable impression of Medicare and 62 percent felt that the program is well run. Seventy-two percent of people age 65 and over surveyed thought seniors should be able to continue to get their health insurance coverage through Medicare over private plans and 63 percent favored drug coverage through Medicare over private plans. The only time a beneficiary would have access to the Medicare prescription drug fallback option under the traditional program is when no other private plans are available in their service area. However, once two drug-only plans enter the market in a particular area, this fallback option automatically disappears and a senior's choice is eliminated. He or she is forced to move to a different plan. I believe seniors should have true choice when making a decision about Medicare. They should be able to choose the Medicare prescription drug plan that best suits their needs, even if it is the Government-administrated option, which has a proven record of lower costs to taxpayers. I support providing a level playing field for all Medicare prescription plans and was a proud cosponsor of Senator Stabenow's amendment that would have guaranteed the availability of the Medicare fallback plan as the standard option for seniors. This was not an amendment to force some outmoded Government-controlled health care system. It was an amendment about choice; indeed, a choice seniors overwhelmingly favor. Apparently we rejected that choice when we rejected the Stabenow amendment. The Federal Government already serves as a direct provider of prescription drug benefits to millions of active-duty military personnel and veterans, so we do have a compelling Government model rather than a private sector model on which to base our expansion of Medicare. Advocates for private sponsored prescription drug coverage under Medicare contend the private sector is more efficient and generally better suited to providing a prescription drug benefit to the elderly and disabled. I have also heard arguments that private plans are more cost-effective. However, as history has shown, the Medicare program has operated with significantly lower administrative costs than their private sector counterparts--2 to 3 percent versus 8 to 10 percent. Moreover, the Federal Government already has a long track record of providing prescription drug benefits to millions of active duty personnel and their families. The Government also has a wealth of experience as a bulk purchaser of medications for our Nation's veterans. The TRICARE program provides comprehensive health and prescription drug coverage to 8.6 million military and their dependents. Similarly, almost 5 million of our veterans have access to prescription drug coverage for free for service-connected conditions and for a nominal $7 copay for a 30-day supply of medication for nonservice-connected ailments. Federal health care programs have a proven track record of offering comprehensive, stable, and reliable benefits in a cost-effective manner. The facts certainly do not necessarily reflect the rhetoric when it comes to private plans. Indeed the best model for, I think, pharmaceuticals is the Veteran's Administration and TRICARE programs, all of which are run by the Federal Government. Under the Finance bill, premiums will vary based on geographic location and the level of benefits offered by the plan. The most recent CBO estimates indicate that the average premium for the standard prescription drug plan would be $35 in 2006 and will increase to $59 by 2013. However, private plans are free to provide a different package of benefits so long as the minimum benefit is ``actuarially equivalent'' to the standard benefit package set forth by the Government. Plans would also be free to charge beneficiaries a different premium to reflect these benefit packages. For beneficiaries on fixed incomes, these unpredictable premiums will be a great burden. Beneficiaries will also face annual unpredictable increases in their deductible. The bill sets the deductible at $275 for 2006 and will increase in subsequent years based on the average annual per capita expenditures on covered drugs. I fear that some of the cost saving measures in this bill are ``pennywise and pound foolish.'' We should be very clear that this legislation imposes a significant amount of cost- sharing on seniors, not only in terms of the $275 deductible, variable monthly premiums and 50 percent coinsurance under the prescription drug plan, but in other areas as well. Specifically, the Grassley-Baucus proposal increases the annual deductible beneficiaries currently pay under Medicare Part B to $125 in 2006 and it indexes future increases to inflation. I am also deeply concerned with other provisions included in this legislation to offset the cost of the rural provider payments. In particular, it imposes for the first time a beneficiary coinsurance requirement of 20 percent for diagnostic lab tests to offset a portion of these rural provider payments. I have heard from literally hundreds of providers and beneficiaries from my State in opposition to this new cost burden. In essence, what this provision translates to is an $18.6 billion shift in cost onto beneficiaries over the next decade. From a regional standpoint, absolutely none of this funding will benefit providers in my State, nor will it ensure better access to care or improve quality of care to beneficiaries in my State. Yet the over 170,000 Medicare beneficiaries in Rhode Island will be forced to pay millions in additional costs. I believe it is extremely unfair and inappropriate to boost the payments of a select group of providers at the expense of beneficiaries. The purpose of the legislation is to bring new benefits--not impose new burdens--on our elderly and disabled. The bill also reduces the reimbursement rate for certain cancer drugs administered in a physician's office. I fear that the cumulative effect of these provisions will be increasingly limited access to care for suburban and urban beneficiaries, either because they cannot afford the deductibles and coinsurance they are expected to pay, or because they are unable to find a physician who will take Medicare. I am also skeptical of the new ``Center for Medicare Choices'' being created under this bill to administer parts C and D of Medicare. I don't understand why the new ``Medicare Advantage'' program under Part C and the prescription drug benefit program under part D are being separated from Medicare Parts A and B under the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Scarce Federal dollars that could be directed towards providing a more generous benefit to seniors are instead being used to create a new federal bureaucracy. I am also concerned that the time and effort needed to create this new agency will slow the implementation of a drug benefit plan for seniors. When the Medicare program was originally created in 1965, it was done in response to the fact that elderly and disabled Americans were simply unable to get affordable health insurance coverage through the private market. While many aspects of our health care system have dramatically changed since then, I believe this same basic principle holds true today. Should this legislation pass without significant changes, Medicare beneficiaries are going to be faced with a barrage of confusing and complicated options. If we expect seniors and the disabled to be informed consumers of health care, we need to be absolutely certain that we provided the resources necessary to educate them on their options. They are going to need assistance, at least initially, in sorting through all of the relevant information to determine which option is best suited for them, based on their overall health care needs. Indeed, one third of all seniors are probably better off it they do not participate in Part D, according to CBO. While the Grassley-Baucus proposal does take some initial steps to bolster beneficiary education through the Medicare State Health Insurance Program (SHIPS) volunteers and through local Social Security Offices, this new program, with all its options, and new features, is going to be very confusing to the public. I believe we need to do more on education and outreach to assist beneficiaries with this new program if the program is going to be successful and effective. For example, even today, only about half the seniors who are eligible for the various low-income assistance programs (QMB, SLMB, QI-1) enroll in those programs. I believe we can and must do more to ensure that beneficiaries, particularly those in hard-to-reach rural and inner city communities, have access to information describing these new changes, the importance of the low-income benefit, and encouraging enrollment. I hope to work with the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee to make sure that all Medicare beneficiaries are well informed in terms of the parameters of the temporary discount card as well as the more comprehensive benefit. Medicare beneficiaries who are eligible for Medicaid, known as the dual eligibles, have disproportionately high medical and long-term care needs. These seniors, including most vulnerable elderly in nursing homes, are ineligible for the drug benefit in this proposal. This population represents about 11 percent of older Americans covered by Medicare. While Medicare covers acute care and major medical expenses for this group, Medicaid picks up the cost of their prescription drugs. Since many of the dual eligibles suffer from chronic illnesses and have multiple health problems, their drug costs are extremely high. With the Gassley-Baucus proposal, the Federal Government shirks its responsibility as the primary payer by failing to assist these Medicare beneficiaries with their prescription drug costs. Indeed, it prohibits these seniors from receiving the drug benefit. It is also unclear how States' efforts to help this population will work with this proposal. Currently, States struggling with tight budgets are cutting back on care for Medicaid beneficiaries, and they are cutting optional benefits. Prescription drugs are one of Medicaid's optional benefits that States could choose to cut. The Grassley-Baucus proposal does nothing to help lift the States' burden and enable them to provide needed health care to their populations. Under the Grassley-Baucus proposal, those low-income seniors who are not eligible for coverage through Medicaid, would as I mentioned, receive substantial Federal assistance. Unfortunately, their plan relies on state asset tests, which as Senator Bingaman has illustrated, can be extremely confusing and onerous for beneficiaries. Moreover, it is estimated that roughly half of all beneficiaries who would be eligible for assistance under the plan would be disqualified because of the asset test. Consequently, they would be forced to pay significantly higher deductibles, premiums and coinsurance. So the laudable attempts to cushion the blow for low-income seniors could be undercut by maintaining this asset test. For a vulnerable senior or disabled person struggling to get by on a fixed income, their options will not be much better than what they face now. If they are unable to afford prescription medications without coverage today, they are not going to be any better off under this plan. Low-income Medicare beneficiaries are still going to be in the unenviable position to having to choose between their medications and other basic costs, such as food and transportation. The bill provides $250 million to reimburse local governments, hospitals and other providers for emergency health services furnished to undocumented aliens, but does not offer aid to help cover uncompensated care provided to the uninsured Americans in health care facilities around the country. Over half of the estimated unauthorized immigrants in the United States live in five states--California, Texas, New York, Illinois and Florida. However, all States in the Union face substantial costs due to uncompensated care, regardless of immigration status. In 2001, people who were uninsured during any part of the year receive $98.9 billion in care, of which $34.5 billion was uncompensated care. Last year, my State of Rhode Island provided more than $120 million in uncompensated care, and this is expected to grow higher this year due to the weak economy. Local governments, hospitals, and providers throughout the United States are facing rising care costs, trying to provide services to the uninsured, which includes undocumented aliens but includes many others. With the sluggish economy and rising deficits, States cannot alone continue to shoulder the burden placed on the health care system by the uninsured. A recent Institute of Medicine report entitled ``A Shared Destiny'' documents the impact of the uninsured and uncompensated care on communities. The consequence of uninsurance for communities can include reduced health care services, closure of local health care institutions, increases in local cost of health care and health insurance, and poorer health for residents in general. Federal reimbursements for health services provided to the uninsured are needed by all States. It would be more equitable to States to distribute funding based on uncompensated care determined by the number of uninsured individuals in a State as a percentage of the total number of uninsured U.S. residents rather than simply immigration status. Under the current provision, over 50 percent of the funding would go to three States, and seven States, including Montana, might not receive any funding. Distributing funding based on the number of uninsured will help all of us. I hope Senators Grassley and Baucus will work to explore ways in which we can address this extremely pressing issue for all States. Another aspect of the legislation is a very serious one and one which troubles me significantly. It is the projection by CBO that 37 percent of Medicare eligibles who presently receive prescription drug coverage through an employer retirement plan will lose that coverage as a direct result of this legislation. Under this bill, over 4 million people will lose their existing prescription drug coverage. This effect is particularly troublesome because many seniors with retiree coverage currently enjoy more generous benefits than would be provided to them under this legislation. We are all aware that some employers are already eliminating coverage or trimming back on the benefits offered to retirees. However, this legislation will likely accelerate this disturbing trend because employers see no reason to pay for a benefit the Government already provides. I am deeply disappointed that the amendment offered by Senator Rockefeller, which would have permitted drug spending by employers to count toward the out-of-pocket spending requirements of the drug benefit, was not approved. I believe the Senator's amendment would have gone a long way toward eliminating a problem of employers dropping retiree health insurance coverage. I am also particularly concerned that legislation may have negative implications for State and local government retirees and their families. States across the Nation are suffering from staggering budget shortfalls. This legislation might present an enticing opportunity for States to slash some of their costs by shifting their retiree health insurance costs on to the Federal Government by substituting what they currently offer for what is being proposed under the Grassley-Baucus plan. I know this would have serious implications for the over 35,000 retirees and their families currently in the Rhode Island State employees pension system as well as the almost 20,000 employees who will be expecting these benefits when they retire. Over the past several days, my colleagues and I have brought forth amendments that would have addressed the many recognized shortcomings in the pending legislation. We have repeatedly attempted to modify the bill in a way that would have provided a stable, universal, and affordable Medicare prescription drug benefit to the almost 40 million elderly and disabled beneficiaries in America. I fear that the product taking shape in this Chamber is only going to disappoint beneficiaries by delivering a hollow benefit that will not meet their real health care needs. Even with an additional $12 billion in resources, this body is choosing to experiment with the privatization of Medicare over providing enhanced benefits to seniors or eliminating the gap in coverage under this plan. For these reasons, I am unable to support this legislation. I am deeply disheartened to be reaching this conclusion, but elderly and disabled Medicare beneficiaries deserve better than the proposal before this Chamber. I only wish we were seizing this historic opportunity to provide them with a benefit they need and deserve and can be sure they will get. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield to the Senator from New Mexico and then retain the floor after he offers his two amendments.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Susan Dimock, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on S. 1.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Stabenow amendment. I believe the Senator from Michigan has done exactly what is right, proper, and wise to do, which is to provide for a permanent fallback prescription drug benefit for our seniors in the context of this new Part D drug program. Indeed, out of the 650-plus page of this bill, the proposal by the Senator from Michigan is the one that most closely resembles what is familiar to seniors with regard to the current Medicare Program. It is an important issue. According to the Congressional Budget Office, roughly 32 percent of Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in the proposed new Part D program would receive their drug coverage through the fallback plan, at least during the initial implementation of the program, so a significant number of seniors we already know will participate in these fallback plans. The reason is because under the existing language of the bill, if two private companies are not prepared to offer pharmaceutical benefits in a particular region, Medicare must have a fallback program for seniors. That makes entirely good sense. The problem is, if and when there are two companies, this fallback provision evaporates. It goes away. What this will lead to is instability and a circumscribed choice for seniors. We can just imagine a senior who enters the fallback program may spend 1, 2, 3, or 4 years there, is happy with the program, satisfied with the benefits, and suddenly they are told, no, this program is going away because there are now two competitors in the marketplace. It does not make sense. It circumscribes choice and it creates instability and uncertainty in a program that should be full of stability, certainty, and choice. I hope we can adopt this amendment to ensure that the Medicare fallback program is a permanent part of the Part D program. Let me suggest something else. When we think of the dynamics of this proposed program, two pharmaceutical beneficiary management companies come into a particular region knowing full well if one decides to go, then Medicare would have to reconstitute this fallback program-- expensive--probably on short notice. That is tremendous leverage for other PBMs in the market to go back to the Medicare program and say, wait a second, we are leaving unless you provide additional incentives, additional compensation, additional risk sharing. That is a leverage point that I think will be exploited by businesses. It is a fair point to exploit. They can vote with their feet. They can leave the region. That is tremendous power to put in the hands of any one plan--it is not the two; anyone could decide to go-- and suddenly you have to constitute the standby. If there is a permanent fallback program, that leverage does not exist. Automatically, the senior would choose or not choose to get their benefits from the fallback program. That is another important aspect. We also understand these managed care programs and pharmaceutical benefit managers operate, obviously, to make a profit. They are prepared and capable of leaving on short notice if, in fact, they believe they are not realizing a profit. We have seen this in my home State of Rhode Island, a state with a significant penetration of Medicare managed care. Thirty percent of beneficiaries in Medicare in my State are enrolled in a managed care plan. There used to be several managed care plans, but most have left the market, leaving essentially one insurance company providing these managed care benefits. When the other plans departed, we saw increases in costs to seniors and less generous terms offered by the surviving companies. Why? Simple. Competition slacked off; they did not have to be as aggressive competing for seniors. That likelihood could happen in this case. Again, that is a strong argument for the Stabenow amendment, to have at least one plan that will be there, with permanent, defined benefits that are not likely to change as other competitors drop out of the market. That is another selling point, a strong selling point, for the Stabenow plan. I believe this amendment is very important. It will go a long way to assuring seniors they are not part of some arbitrary experiment in the marketplace, that there will be at least one plan that is always there, that the benefits are well defined, and that plan will be an important aspect of making sure there is market discipline as well as consumer choice for seniors. Some people might say: We cannot do this because we have a cap of $400 billion over 10 years that limits us. That is an arbitrary limit, obviously. In fact, it seems to me it is a limit that is not justified, given the generous tax cuts we have already provided to so many wealthy Americans as opposed to those likely recipients of this package. This arbitrary cap should not limit us from creating a program that we hope will not only endure for a long time but will be efficient, effective, and attractive to seniors. I believe if we pass the Stabenow amendment, we are going to make this program much more attractive to seniors, give them confidence they have at least one choice through the standby plan, that will not leave the marketplace, that will not change benefits as competitive forces change, that will be something they can count on. As well as receiving pharmaceutical benefits, I think seniors are asking for something else, and that is confidence that their benefits will endure and not be ephemeral. As a result, I urge my colleagues to support the Stabenow amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED. Ten.

Mr. REED. I would be happy to.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise in support of the Enzi-Reed pharmacy access amendment. I compliment my colleague and friend, Senator Enzi from Wyoming. We have worked on several issues with respect to the pharmacy benefits. It has been a pleasure and it has been productive, not only for ourselves but for the professional pharmacy community. Pharmacists are the third largest health care profession in the country in terms of numbers of practitioners, and they are becoming increasingly more central to our health care system. This amendment is designed to accomplish two very important objectives with respect to the proposed Medicare pharmacy benefit for seniors. First, its aim is to assure transparency and accountability in the collection and dissemination of negotiated savings by Medicare prescription drug benefit plans and Medicare Advantage plans. Second, it is designed to guarantee Medicare beneficiaries access to community pharmacies when filling prescriptions of 90 days or longer. Without the Enzi-Reed amendment, these protections, these safeguards, these essential elements would not be present in the bill we are considering today. This language is very similar to proposed language included in the counterpart legislation being deliberated in the other body. If we are to rely upon private companies to negotiate and administer a benefit on behalf of the Federal Government as well as on behalf of tens of millions of elderly and disabled beneficiaries, we need to be sure these entities operate with the best interests of these parties in mind and not simply and exclusively their bottom line. Through this amendment, plans will be required to disclose to the Government the extent to which they pass on to Medicare beneficiaries rebates, discounts, and any other savings negotiated from the drug manufacturers. We all recognize one of the essential elements of this legislation is the notion that private pharmacy benefit management companies will negotiate with pharmacies and manufacturers to get the best possible price. We hope that best possible price is passed on almost entirely to the beneficiaries and to the payers, which include the Federal Government. It would be ironic, indeed, if we establish a system in which the intermediaries gained huge profits, while the Government and beneficiaries continue to pay substantial sums for the pharmaceutical benefits. By requiring disclosure of negotiated savings by drug plan administrators, we guarantee a greater degree of transparency and make sure beneficiaries are getting the best possible savings on their prescription drugs. The essence of the Enzi-Reed amendment is let the markets operate, but make sure everyone has complete information about who is reaping the benefits of these negotiated transactions between purchasers and suppliers of these pharmaceuticals. Since beneficiaries are expected to pay anywhere between 50 percent and 100 percent of the cost of drugs--those individuals in the gap would be paying 100 percent of the cost of drugs--we have to make sure they are getting the best possible deal. This amendment will go a long way towards ensuring that actually happens. If the PBMs do not pass these benefits and negotiated savings along to the public and the Federal Government, then we all should know. This amendment will ensure that level of accountability. Second, the Enzi-Reed amendment allows beneficiaries to receive 90- day prescriptions and other related benefits through community pharmacies. Senator Enzi represents the great State of Wyoming in which a pharmacy--I am sure in some of the smaller communities--might be the only source of pharmaceutical supplies and medical advice and many other things. Pharmacies are an important part of the fabric of a community. To deny seniors the right to get their pharmaceutical supplies from these pharmacies would not only be wrong but inefficient. If that is where they would like to get their prescriptions, they would be assured they can get the benefit through the local pharmacy under this amendment. Rhode Island is a little different from Wyoming, but pharmacies in Rhode Island have the same role in the lives of seniors, particularly in terms of getting their benefits and other important health care services. This amendment would allow beneficiaries to obtain 90-day supplies through the community pharmacist, wherever they are. This does not exclude mail order, but it simply makes sure it is not the only option that seniors have; that they can continue to rely upon the local pharmacy for their benefits. I should say something else. Not only is the local pharmacy a source of pharmaceuticals, it is usually an excellent source of advice and assistance by trained pharmacists. Increasingly, these pharmacists are taking on a very important role in advising seniors, within the limits of their practice, as to the appropriate use of pharmaceuticals and are also a source of advice on many other health care issues. So I hope my colleagues would agree that we should encourage the use of local pharmacies. This amendment will help do that. I again commend Senator Enzi for his work and leadership on this issue. We share a common belief that professional pharmacy is a critical part of our health care system. If we allow pharmacists to operate, we will get the benefit of their expertise, and it will redound to the health needs of our seniors and to the financial responsibilities that we face in enacting this legislation. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am necessarily absent today to attend funeral services for the former Rhode Island Superior Court's Presiding Justice, Anthony A. Giannini, in Providence. Were I present today, I would vote ``yea'' on Executive Calendar No. 218, the nomination of R. Hewitt Pate to be an Assistant Attorney General.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Yes. It is my understanding that 1.1 million Americans have exhausted their benefits, and they are still looking. They are well- trained, well-skilled people. The jobs are gone. They want to work. We are ignoring them--we are not, but the other side's proposal totally ignores them.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in supporting the Kennedy amendment. We are trying to help over 1.1 million Americans who exhausted their benefits. These are hard-working Americans who paid into the unemployment trust fund. Now is our opportunity to help them. I believe it is our obligation. Here is an interesting point on this recession. In the 20th century, the average bottoming out of unemployment comes within 15 months of the beginning of the recession, but we have seen 25 months of continuing unemployment. This, indeed, is the longest in terms of the persistence of long-term unemployment that we have seen since the 1930s. These people need our help. The trust fund has the resources. We should vote today to give these people benefits. As Senator Kennedy pointed out, in every other recession every other President has done it. There should be no exception today. If we want to help 1.1 million Americans, just as we helped lots of fortunate Americans today, we should support this amendment.

Mr. REED. Yes.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to underscore the major issue that the Senator from New Mexico is raising and that is the weaponization of space. We have talked today earlier about different nuclear programs and should we have low-yield weapons bans or robust nuclear earth penetrator bans. But the realm of nuclear weaponry has been upon us now for five decades. To date, we have been successful in preventing weapons from being deployed in space. So this is a completely different issue. This is not the issue of shall we do more of what we have been doing for 50 years. This is a threshold question: Do we want to introduce weapons into space? And will this introduction come surreptitiously, innocuously by research programs that put weapons in space for a test bed without debate in the U.S. Congress on behalf of the American people and a clear decision? I think that is the Senator's amendment. He has identified programmatic funding that could be stretched to inch our way--perhaps through the back door, if you will--into placing weapons in space. I think that is such a critical and important issue that we not only have to debate it but we should decide it, not scientists and technologists in the Department of Defense. I cannot think of any scientist who would not like more permission to study more things. So I urge, hopefully, the resolution of this amendment. If it is not resolved and comes to a vote, I hope we can support the Senator from New Mexico. I yield back my time.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this is not an issue of drafting or clarity of language. The amendment I propose is very clear. It simply takes the existing ban and walks it back from phase 1, phase 2, and phase 2-A to phase 3. If this language was unclear, then the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense would have leaped over these barriers a long time ago because they would have ignored the first phase and gone to the third, fourth, and fifth phase. This is about whether we are going to begin a new but different nuclear arms race. Last week, President Putin announced that Russia is beginning to develop new weapons. His words: I can inform you that at present the work to create new types of Russian weapons, weapons of the new generation, including those regarded by specialists as strategic weapons, is in the stage of practical implementation. Most analysts interpret that as meaning they are going to develop low-yield nuclear weapons. With those remarks in the Russian Duma, initiating a reversal of history, of the beginning of a new arms race, the Duma applauded. I hope we do not applaud here today.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. REED. My amendment leaves the ban in place.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, if I may have a moment, I think the world is pretty clear as to what is taking place. Your amendment strikes the ban. We used to have a prohibition against low- yield nuclear weapons development. Your amendment strikes that. In place, you say you have to come back to Congress.

Mr. REED. Let me tell you this: The original moratorium said: The Secretaries of Energy and Defense may not initiate research and development leading to the production of a low-yield nuclear weapon. We have replaced the term ``research and development'' with the development definition ``development engineering'' leading to the production of a nuclear weapon. Essentially, what we have done, Mr. Chairman, is we have taken the existing ban, which the DOE says restricts their efforts to do any meaningful research, and simply said do the research.

Mr. REED. I do not have the statute before me but the----