Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Children's Vision Improvement and Learning Readiness Act.'' I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, in this effort. Vision disorders are the fourth most common disability in the United States and the most prevalent handicapping condition among children. This is a startling fact when one considers that eighty percent of what children learn is acquired through vision processing information and the quality of children's eye health has a direct impact on their learning and achievement. It is estimated that almost ten percent of children have clinically significant vision impairment, which are associated with developmental delays and the need for special education, vocational, and social services. Specifically, studies have found that among the twenty percent of school age children who have a learning disability in reading, seventy percent have some form of visual impairment, such as ocular motor, perceptual or binocular dysfunction, that could interfere with their reading skills. The ``Children's Vision Improvement and Learning Readiness Act'' recognizes the importance of diagnosing vision disorders in children at an early age so as to allow intervention at a time when these disorders are highly responsive to treatment. Unfortunately, too many children in school today live with an undiagnosed vision impairment and too many times these same children have not had a comprehensive eye examination prior to entering school. In fact, only one-third of all children have had an eye examination or vision screening prior to entering school despite evidence that the earlier a vision problem is diagnosed and corrected, the less the potential negative impact it may have on a child's development. In addition, undiagnosed visual problems impose economic costs on our Nation. In 1995, the economic impact of visual disorders and disabilities was approximately $38.4 billion. Yet, early, comprehensive eye exams in children can help reduce the economic and social costs associated with undiagnosed eye disorders. Providing comprehensive eye examinations to children before they enter school helps to decrease long-term medical expenditures, prevent inappropriate placement of children in special education programs, and avoid social welfare spending by improving children's ability to learn and achieve a greater degree of educational and economic attainment. The ``Children's Vision Improvement and Learning Readiness Act'' gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to provide grants to States for a variety of educational and outreach activities related to improving and safeguarding the eye health and academic success of our nation's children. Grants may be used for the development of a voluntary statewide school-based comprehensive eye examination program for elementary school age children; the development of State-based education programs to increase public awareness of the benefits of comprehensive eye examinations; and the flexibility of providing comprehensive eye examinations through other related federal programs, such as Head Start, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Child Care Block Grant, and the Consolidated Health Centers programs. This important measure will help ensure that our nation's children have access to comprehensive eye examinations from qualified health professionals so they can start school prepared for a lifetime of learning and achievement. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator DeWine in supporting this legislation that will help to boost the well- being and academic achievement of our nation's school children.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am proud to be joined by my colleague Senator Fitzgerald in introducing the Private Well Testing Assistance Act of 2002. This legislation seeks to protect the health of our Nation's rural families by providing Federal assistance to State health and environmental agencies for sampling of drinking water wells near suspected areas of groundwater contamination. More than 15.1 million households are served by private drinking water wells in the United States. At times, these wells are affected by serious groundwater contaminants, including industrial solvents, petroleum, nitrates, radon, arsenic, beryllium, chloroform, and gasoline additives such as MTBE. While private well owners generally are responsible for regular testing of drinking water wells, cases of serious or potentially widespread groundwater contamination often require State agencies to conduct costly tests on numerous wells. Many of these sites are included in the Environmental Protection Agency's Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System, or CERCLIS, for which Federal funding is available for initial site assessments, but not for subsequent regular sampling to ensure that contaminants have not migrated to additional household wells. With many State budgets across the country in fiscal crisis, State governments often do not have the resources to provide regular, reliable testing of wells in proximity to suspected areas of contamination. By authorizing EPA to provide up to $20 million per year to assist State well testing programs, subject to a 20 percent State match, the Private Well Testing Assistance Act will create an incentive for states to improve well monitoring near both new and existing areas of groundwater contamination. I urge my colleagues to help ensure the health and safety of American families that rely on groundwater for their drinking water needs by supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to express my reservations with the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002. While the legislation offers some improvements to the current medical device approval and regulation process, I have serious concerns about some aspects of the bill and about the process leading to its impending passage in the Senate. User fees will allow the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, to expedite the review and approval of medical devices, resulting in faster patient access to new and potentially lifesaving technologies. Third party inspections similarly have the potential to enhance the agency's ability to ensure that manufacturing sites are meeting FDA quality standards for device production. And regulating the reprocessing of single use devices should be a positive step for the safe use of these devices. All of these elements of the legislation, however, carry significant potential risk. In our attempts to enhance the efficiency of an agency to which we are not able to give adequate appropriations, we run the risk of undermining FDA's scientific and policy authority and its vital public health mission. It will be up to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, of which I am a member, to pay close attention to the health and safety implications of these provisions as they are implemented. As part of that ongoing oversight, the committee should review and evaluate the manner in which the bill was written and passed. While I understand the importance of this legislation, I am deeply troubled by the lack of a formal process in its development and consideration. I assure you and my colleagues that I will be paying close attention as these new provisions are implemented in the coming months, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise to protect the public health and maintain the vital mission of the FDA.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am proud to be joined by my colleague Senator Fitzgerald in introducing the Private Well Testing Assistance Act of 2002. This legislation seeks to protect the health of our Nation's rural families by providing Federal assistance to State health and environmental agencies for sampling of drinking water wells near suspected areas of groundwater contamination. More than 15.1 million households are served by private drinking water wells in the United States. At times, these wells are affected by serious groundwater contaminants, including industrial solvents, petroleum, nitrates, radon, arsenic, beryllium, chloroform, and gasoline additives such as MTBE. While private well owners generally are responsible for regular testing of drinking water wells, cases of serious or potentially widespread groundwater contamination often require State agencies to conduct costly tests on numerous wells. Many of these sites are included in the Environmental Protection Agency's Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System, or CERCLIS, for which Federal funding is available for initial site assessments, but not for subsequent regular sampling to ensure that contaminants have not migrated to additional household wells. With many State budgets across the country in fiscal crisis, State governments often do not have the resources to provide regular, reliable testing of wells in proximity to suspected areas of contamination. By authorizing EPA to provide up to $20 million per year to assist State well testing programs, subject to a 20 percent State match, the Private Well Testing Assistance Act will create an incentive for states to improve well monitoring near both new and existing areas of groundwater contamination. I urge my colleagues to help ensure the health and safety of American families that rely on groundwater for their drinking water needs by supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I support the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002. This legislation reauthorizes and renames the current Office of Educational Research and Improvement at the Department of Education, now to be called the Institute of Education Sciences. The bill will increase the quality of educational research and statistics, improve dissemination, technical assistance, educational product development, evaluation, and other research efforts, and minimize the effect of politics on education research. As States begin to implement the No Child Left Behind Act, the need for a responsive, relevant, high quality, and rigorous education knowledge enterprise is greater than ever. Mr. President, I am particularly pleased about the bill's provisions to retain and strengthen the regional educational laboratories. The regional educational laboratories, like the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University, conduct applied research, develop educational products and materials, provide technical assistance, and disseminate information in order to improve teaching, increase student achievement, and promote effective school reform. The Education Sciences Reform Act enhances the regional educational laboratories work to put research into practice and focuses their efforts on helping states and districts meet their specific educational needs. I thank Chairman Kennedy, Senator Gregg, Senator Enzi, and members of the House Education and the Workforce Committee for working closely with me on many aspects of this legislation. This is important legislation, and I am pleased to support it.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Kohl in introducing the Ballistics, Law Assistance, and Safety Technology Act. This legislation would build on the success of the existing National Integrated Ballistic Information Network by requiring, for the first time, ballistics testing of all new firearms so that law enforcement can more effectively trace bullets or cartridge casings recovered from shootings. As we have learned from the horrific series of sniper shootings in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area over the past week, law enforcement already has the technology to link bullets or casings found at separate crime scenes back to a single gun. Every firearm has individual characteristics that are as unique to it as fingerprints are to human beings. When a gun is fired, it transfers these characteristics, in the form of small, sometimes microscopic scratches and dents, to the projectiles and cartridge casings fired in it. These unique fingerprints offer a great crime-solving tool for law enforcement. When bullets or cartridge casings are found at a crime scene, firearms examiners can use the marks for comparison, to determine whether or not the bullets or casings were expelled from a suspect's firearm. If a firearm is recovered at the scene, a test fire of the weapon creates example bullets and cartridge casings for comparison to those found in or near a victim. Bullets and casings found at one crime scene can also be compared with those found at another in order to link the crimes. On the national level, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms recently combined their ballistics identification programs into the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, or NIBIN, which provides for the installation and networking of automated ballistic imaging equipment in state and local law enforcement agencies across the country. Because thousands more pieces of recovered ballistic evidence can be compared using digital automation than would be possible using only manual comparisons, links between otherwise seemingly unrelated crimes are discovered, and investigative leads are generated for police followup. Ballistics imaging technology is already demonstrating its potential to revolutionize criminal investigation. But a major tool for law enforcement is missing here, and that is a national ballistics fingerprint system that would enable law enforcement to trace crime scene evidence back to a suspect. The current NIBIN system provides valuable information on guns that have been used in crime, but unless such a gun was used in a previous crime for which ballistics evidence was collected and entered, the bullets or casings from the crime scene will find no match in the NIBIN system. No ballistics data are available for most of the estimated 200 million guns in this country, and no ballistics fingerprint information is being collected on the three to five million new guns coming into commerce in the United States each year. As a result, law enforcement usually has no way to trace the evidence back to a specific firearm and, ultimately, a suspect. The bill we are introducing today would give law enforcement the tools it needs to fight violent crime by requiring gun manufacturers and importers to test fire all new firearms, prepare ballistics images of the fired bullet and cartridge casings, and make these records available to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for entry in a computerized database which would be shared with state and local law enforcement agencies across the country. The bill also provides $20 million per year for ATF to help gun manufacturers and importers comply with these requirements by installing or upgrading ballistics equipment at or near the places of business of manufacturers and importers. I have no doubt that the National Rifle Association and some in the gun industry are going to say that what we are proposing is tantamount to establishing a national registry of gun owners. I want to point out that this bill does not require the submission to law enforcement of any information beyond the ballistic images produced by test firing the gun. The names of any people or businesses that buy guns from federally licensed manufacturers or importers will continue to be kept in the files of those manufacturers and importers just as the law requires today. Law enforcement would only have access to this information in the context of a criminal investigation, for example when the evidence from a crime scene matches a ballistics fingerprint record for a gun produced and sold by a certain manufacturer or importer. We should have taken these steps years ago. If we had, maybe the ballistic evidence from this week's sniper shootings would match an image in the law enforcement database, and we could save lives by identifying and arresting this cold-blooded killer before he strikes again. But the gun lobby has prevented the creation of an effective ballistics database by portraying this as a national gun registry. In fact, they have been so successful that even though two States, Maryland and New York, have created a ballistics fingerprint system for all guns sold in those States, the ATF's NIBIN system is not even allowed to access those records, nor can law enforcement agencies in other States look at the records through the NIBIN network. We will never know how many violent crimes may go unsolved because of this insane restriction on law enforcement's ability to do its job. We have a responsibility to give law enforcement authorities the tools they need to quickly track down and bring to justice those who would use firearms to prey on our communities. The bill we are introducing today will do that by taking full advantage of the crime- fighting benefits that ballistic imaging and analysis can provide. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Kohl in introducing the Ballistics, Law Assistance, and Safety Technology Act. This legislation would build on the success of the existing National Integrated Ballistic Information Network by requiring, for the first time, ballistics testing of all new firearms so that law enforcement can more effectively trace bullets or cartridge casings recovered from shootings. As we have learned from the horrific series of sniper shootings in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area over the past week, law enforcement already has the technology to link bullets or casings found at separate crime scenes back to a single gun. Every firearm has individual characteristics that are as unique to it as fingerprints are to human beings. When a gun is fired, it transfers these characteristics, in the form of small, sometimes microscopic scratches and dents, to the projectiles and cartridge casings fired in it. These unique fingerprints offer a great crime-solving tool for law enforcement. When bullets or cartridge casings are found at a crime scene, firearms examiners can use the marks for comparison, to determine whether or not the bullets or casings were expelled from a suspect's firearm. If a firearm is recovered at the scene, a test fire of the weapon creates example bullets and cartridge casings for comparison to those found in or near a victim. Bullets and casings found at one crime scene can also be compared with those found at another in order to link the crimes. On the national level, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms recently combined their ballistics identification programs into the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, or NIBIN, which provides for the installation and networking of automated ballistic imaging equipment in state and local law enforcement agencies across the country. Because thousands more pieces of recovered ballistic evidence can be compared using digital automation than would be possible using only manual comparisons, links between otherwise seemingly unrelated crimes are discovered, and investigative leads are generated for police followup. Ballistics imaging technology is already demonstrating its potential to revolutionize criminal investigation. But a major tool for law enforcement is missing here, and that is a national ballistics fingerprint system that would enable law enforcement to trace crime scene evidence back to a suspect. The current NIBIN system provides valuable information on guns that have been used in crime, but unless such a gun was used in a previous crime for which ballistics evidence was collected and entered, the bullets or casings from the crime scene will find no match in the NIBIN system. No ballistics data are available for most of the estimated 200 million guns in this country, and no ballistics fingerprint information is being collected on the three to five million new guns coming into commerce in the United States each year. As a result, law enforcement usually has no way to trace the evidence back to a specific firearm and, ultimately, a suspect. The bill we are introducing today would give law enforcement the tools it needs to fight violent crime by requiring gun manufacturers and importers to test fire all new firearms, prepare ballistics images of the fired bullet and cartridge casings, and make these records available to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for entry in a computerized database which would be shared with state and local law enforcement agencies across the country. The bill also provides $20 million per year for ATF to help gun manufacturers and importers comply with these requirements by installing or upgrading ballistics equipment at or near the places of business of manufacturers and importers. I have no doubt that the National Rifle Association and some in the gun industry are going to say that what we are proposing is tantamount to establishing a national registry of gun owners. I want to point out that this bill does not require the submission to law enforcement of any information beyond the ballistic images produced by test firing the gun. The names of any people or businesses that buy guns from federally licensed manufacturers or importers will continue to be kept in the files of those manufacturers and importers just as the law requires today. Law enforcement would only have access to this information in the context of a criminal investigation, for example when the evidence from a crime scene matches a ballistics fingerprint record for a gun produced and sold by a certain manufacturer or importer. We should have taken these steps years ago. If we had, maybe the ballistic evidence from this week's sniper shootings would match an image in the law enforcement database, and we could save lives by identifying and arresting this cold-blooded killer before he strikes again. But the gun lobby has prevented the creation of an effective ballistics database by portraying this as a national gun registry. In fact, they have been so successful that even though two States, Maryland and New York, have created a ballistics fingerprint system for all guns sold in those States, the ATF's NIBIN system is not even allowed to access those records, nor can law enforcement agencies in other States look at the records through the NIBIN network. We will never know how many violent crimes may go unsolved because of this insane restriction on law enforcement's ability to do its job. We have a responsibility to give law enforcement authorities the tools they need to quickly track down and bring to justice those who would use firearms to prey on our communities. The bill we are introducing today will do that by taking full advantage of the crime- fighting benefits that ballistic imaging and analysis can provide. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. You did agree to the list?

Mr. REED. In addition, a full assessment of the assertions of Secretary Rumsfeld and National Security Advisor Rice is hampered by the failure of the Central Intelligence Agency to provide an updated National Intelligence Estimate of the current situation in Iraq. Given the subjective nature and inherent difficulty of evaluating the intentions of such an opaque structure as the Iraqi regime, much more weight must be given to their capabilities. Saddam does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. But looking at Iraqi capabilities alone, the threat is not immediate. If unchecked, the threat is inevitable and dangerous. But, at time have the opportunity to pursue a collective solution to Iraq. This is an approach that offers a greater chance of success and a greater chance of long-term stability. Whatever course of action that we choose, we cannot absolutely ignore or disregard the views and opinions of other countries. With the exception of Great Britain, there are few nations that are supportive of unilateral action. The nations that surround Iraq are critical to the success of any military operation and to the long-term success of our policy. And, regional support for unilateral American military operations is equivocal at best. Turkey seems likely to allow use of its airbases but without great enthusiasm and with great concern about the Kurds. Saudi Arabia opposes toppling Saddam and has stated it will allow the use of its bases only if the operation is authorized by the United Nations. The potential loss of Saudi bases and overflight rights will limit our flexibility. King Abdullah of Jordan has described a military confrontation with Iraq as a ``catastrophe'' for the region. His reluctant support is based on our commitment not to seek permission to introduce American forces into Jordan. The Iranians have declared their intentions to remain aloof from the conflict. Iran is a bitter foe of Iraq, but its government is no friend to America. The gulf states seem resigned to the possibility of war. Mubarak of Egypt has repeatedly spoken out against a unilateral attack, and it is unclear whether Egypt will allow the use of its airfields. As the New York Times pointed out with regard to the Gulf Region and the Middle East: The support for the United States is not enthusiastic, and is based on any American military action having the backing of a United Nations resolution. As we debate, the Iraqis are preparing their responses to our diplomatic and military initiatives. Their options are shaped by their capabilities and, I believe, the lessons learned in their disastrous defeat in the gulf war and their study of the success of American military forces in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. Their first option is the one that they are currently pursuing; the admission of U.N. weapon inspectors under the most lenient conditions possible. The Iraqis are not unmindful that inspectors in Baghdad are the best insurance that they can have against a military attack by the United States. Even if this Congress authorized the President to use military force against Iraq at his sole discretion without regard to the United Nations, it is difficult to conceive of the President ordering an attack with U.N. inspectors in Iraq carrying out a U.N. resolution and presumably telling CNN that their mission is proceeding. The State Department is engaged in difficult negotiations to broker a new resolution while at the same time delaying the entry of inspectors into Iraq. If these negotiations fail, the United States would find itself in a precarious position. Not only will we be deprived of a new and strengthened enforcement mechanism, we likely will be exerting all our formal and informal influence to prevent the reintroduction of inspectors. Blocking the reentry of inspectors would further isolate us in the world. If we succeed in brokering a new and more effective inspection scheme, there is a significant probability that Iraq, despite it repeated defiance and rejection of tougher standards, will initially comply. Saddam has consistently practiced the politics of survival. Accepting inspectors, even inspectors with unconditional and unconstrained access, will buy time. If Saddam refuses to accept inspectors in accord with a more robust U.N. resolution, he seals his fate. The recognition by the administration that Iraq may capitulate in the face of a strong Security Council resolution might tempt them to halfhearted pursuit of United Nations authority. They should resist those temptations. It is clearly preferable to operate with a U.N. authorization whether it is contained in one resolution that promulgates a new inspection scheme backed by the explicit authorization of force or a two-staged process that introduces inspectors with enhanced powers but defers the question of enforcement until Iraqi non-compliance is established. If inspectors are not reintroduced into Iraq and Iraq is convinced of a pending American-led attack, then the possibility of terrorist attacks by Iraq within the United States must be considered. In a letter read before a hearing of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, CIA Director, George Tenet, stated that: Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical or biological weapons. But, Tenet went on to warn: Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack against his country could not be deterred ``he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist action.'' And, if Iraq is contemplating terror in America, then Iraqis are more than likely to be considering preemptive strikes on our forces as we build up prior to an attack. One of the most compelling lessons of the gulf war and subsequent American military operations is that letting the United States build up its military forces is tantamount to victory for the United States. If we can assemble in sufficient numbers the best warfighters in the world with the best military technology in the world, we will win the military battle every time and certainly in the case of Iraq. If Hussein's goal is to kill U.S. soldiers and slow down an invasion, he might strike in the early days of a campaign at regional ports or airfields when those facilities are filled to capacity with U.S. forces gathering for the fight. In 1997, a Pentagon team of 18 generals and admirals projected different ways such an attack could take place. In one scenario, small teams of Iraqi infiltrators unleashed mustard gas from an old bread truck outfitted with agricultural sprayers. In the projected scenario, the truck was mistakenly let on base by troops who thought it was delivering food. In another scenario, a helicopter took off from a barge floating about 15 miles from the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia and sprayed cholera into the air, infecting thousands of U.S. Marines preparing to board ships. The Marines didn't fall ill until they were at sea. Finally, the generals envisioned speedboats, loaded with chemical and biological weapons, ramming into docks near key U.S. ports in Bahrain and Kuwait. Added to these scenarios is the possibility of a missile attack similar to the one launched against our rear areas during the gulf war. A chemical or biological attack on our forces as they assemble would disrupt our operations but not ultimately defeat them. It would increase our casualties and costs. It also has the potential to sow panic in civilian ranks and make our presence a greater burden on supportive governments. If Saddam does not choose to launch preemptive attacks on our build- up, there is increasing evidence that he will use chemical and biological weapons against our forces as they commence the attack. Last Tuesday Prime Minister Blair released a report, which stated that Saddam might have already delegated authority to employ chemical and biological weapons to his youngest son, Qusai, who leads the Republican Guard. Reportedly, Saddam had, prior to the start of the 1991 Persian Gulf ground war, issued specific orders for the use of WMD if the allies were winning the ground war and crossed a line 200 miles south of Baghdad. Once again, Iraqi chemical or biological attacks against United States forces will not halt our attack. American units are trained and equipped to operate in chemical or biological environments. However, such attacks can cause delay, disruption and increased casualties. General Hoar, former CENTCOM Commander, testified before the Armed Services Committee that prior to offensive operations in 1991, he was briefed on a simulation conducted at Quantico that indicated the possibility of 10,000 casualties to the assaulting Coalition forces due principally to the potential use of chemical and biological weapons. We have improved our protective equipment and monitors since the gulf war. We have devoted great effort to developing techniques to target and suppress opposing systems that could deliver chemical and biological weapons. Nevertheless, chemical and biological attacks would pose serious risks to our forces and to the civilian population. It is important to note that both General John Shalikashvili and General Wesley Clark in testimony before the Armed Services Committee agreed that operating under United Nations authority would tend to raise the threshold for the Iraqis to use weapons of mass destruction. Operating alone, the United States runs the risk of Iraqi gambling that international opinion will not be as critical of Iraq in the employment of these weapons. If the first lesson of the gulf war is don't let the United States build up its forces, the second lesson is don't fight the United States at long range in open terrain. Our troops, training and technology give us decisive advantages to locate and destroy targets with integrated fires at great range. The deserts of Iraq are ideally suited for our forces and will be the graveyard of the Iraqi army if they chose to fight us there. Unless the Iraqis learned nothing from their defeat, they will not fight our forces in the open. They likely will conduct a strategic withdrawal to Baghdad.,fighting at choke points like rivers and urban areas. But, they may also conduct a scorched earth policy as they withdraw to slow us down and deny us speedy avenues of approach to Baghdad. Suddam ordered the oil fields of Kuwait destroyed as his army fled. He may do the same as his forces withdraw. Moreover, since our major avenue of approach is through Southern Iraq, the traditional home of Iraqi Shiites, Saddam is unlikely to have any reluctance to inflict damage on a community that he has always suppressed. If Iraq forces can maintain any coherence in the face of our assault, particularly our air assaults, then they will most likely make their major stand in Baghdad. In the streets and alleys of Baghdad, our technological advantages are reduced. It would become a more difficult battle. The International Institute of Strategic Studies reports that Iraq's ``wisest course would be to hunker down in cities, distribute and hide its forces, and fight from those places. It cannot be assumed that the Iraqi Army would deploy armour in the open desert, as in 1990-91, firing from static positions and presenting an immobile target for airpower, as the Taliban did. Many Iraqi weapons and command and control centers will be placed near apartments, hospitals, schools, and mosques.'' General Hoar testified at the Armed Services Committee of a ``nightmare scenario'' that needs to be planned for--six Iraqi Republican Guard divisions and six heavy divisions reinforced with several thousand antiaircraft artillery pieces defending the city of Baghdad, resulting in urban warfare with high casualties on both sides, as well as the civilian populace. We are all mindful that, during the Gulf War, Saddam launched 39 Scud missiles against Israel as a means to provoke the Israelis to retaliate. It was a desperate attempt to change the dynamic of a war that was leading to a humiliating defeat. He hoped that Israel could be drawn into the war and their involvement would cause the Muslim world to abandon the international coalition and rally to Saddam. The Israelis did not take the bait. They endured missile attacks, refrained from retaliation and watched as coalition forces dictated terms to a defeated Iraq. Given Saddam's history and his options, it is highly probable that he will once again seek to draw Israel into the conflict as a means of rallying the Muslim world to his cause. He has a limited number of missiles to fire at Israel. However, it is likely that Palestinian forces like Hamas and Hezbollah will launch either sympathetic or explicitly coordinated attacks against Israel. This later dimension was not such a formidable factor in 1991. Today, the potential for suicide attacks and widespread violence in the West Bank and elsewhere in Israel is more pronounced. According to Western and Israeli intelligence sources, Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon are reported to have amassed thousands of surface-to-surface rockets with ranges sufficient to strike cities in northern Israel. The administration hopes that the government of Israel will exercise the same restraint that it showed in 1991. That might be a forlorn hope. On September 26, Prime Minister Sharon said, ``If Iraq attacks Israel, but does not hit population centers of cause casualties, our interest will be not to make it hard on the Americans. If on the other hand, harm is doneto Israel, if we suffer casualties or if non- conventional weapons of mass destruction are used against us, then definitely Israel will take the proper action to defend its citizens.'' We all recognize the right of Israel to defend itself. The Prime Minister's first responsibility is to his people. But we also understand that Israeli retaliation would put great pressure on Muslim countries to either end any support for United States efforts or to actively oppose our efforts. Here again, a strong argument can be made that an operation sanctioned by the United Nations might give these countries sufficient justification to participate with the international community rather than oppose efforts to decisively deal with Saddam. We are prepared militarily to counter all of these Iraqi threats. Our first priority will be to establish an air defense system to protect our forces as they enter the region. Our ground based air defense batteries and active aerial patrolling will help mitigate any potential Iraqi threat from the air. We have had extensive collaboration with Israel on the development of their Arrow air defense system. This collaboration and other collaborative efforts will be accelerated to help ensure that any potential Iraqi attack on Israel will be frustrated. In the conduct of offensive operations, we will prepare the battlefield with intensive air strikes. But, one of the factors that must be considered in this air campaign is the inadvertent release of chemical or biological agents as a result of our bombing. Press stories suggest that the Iraqis have placed sensitive installations in urban areas as a way to protect them from the expected air campaign. We could discover that we have unwittingly created a chemical or biological release that would be exploited by the Iraqi government not as confirmation of their treachery but as an attack on our conduct of the operation. Indeed, the potential use of chemical and biological weapons is one of the great uncertainties of a battle against Iraq. The President and Secretary Rumsfeld are trying to dissuade Iraqi field commanders from deploying these weapons by sternly and correctly warning them that they will be held accountable for war crimes. It is an open question whether this warning will be effective with individuals who owe their position and lives to Saddam and who would likely face swift and fatal retribution from Saddam before they would be subject to international law. We are prepared to counter Iraqi responses to our military operations. But, there are certainly no guarantees that we can do so without significant casualties to our forces and to the civilian population. Much of the Iraqi response turns on the willingness of his forces to resist and to follow his supposed orders to employ weapons of mass destruction. It is difficult to predict these dimensions of loyalty and morale. But, this battle seems likely to produce more causalities and costs than the Persian Gulf war for the simple reason that the President has repeatedly associated our use of force with regime change. In a battle to remove Saddam from power, his desperation and the desperation of his loyalists will cast this as a battle to the death. Unfortunately, one of the hallmarks of dictators is that many people suffer and die, many innocent people, before they meet their demise. We will prevail in any battle against Iraq. But, military victory brings with it a host of other problems. Again, an examination of these issues strongly suggests that our tasks would be immensely aided if we initiated our operations with the broadest possible international coalition vested with the authority of the United Nations. The Administration's avowed policy of ``regime change'' combined with the discretion to wage a unilateral attack on Iraq will inevitably lead to the indefinite occupation of Iraq by United States forces. Such an occupation will be expensive and will impose significant stress on our military forces that are already ``stabilizing'' Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and other areas across the Globe. Moreover, governing Iraq is not one of the easiest tasks. It is a country with at least three major factions; the Kurds in the North, Sunni Muslims in the Center and Shiite Muslims in the South. The potential for disintegration along ethnic and religious lines is significant. Our tasks in Iraq will be immensely complicated by the probable damage resulting from the military campaign. Although we will deploy precision missions and will be acutely conscious of minimizing collateral damage, a ``scorched earth'' policy by the Iraqis compounded by the possible release of toxic agents and the possibility of extensive combat in built-up areas may lead to significant damage and significant civilian casualities. Again, after the battle, we would look for international assistance to rebuild Iraq. That assistance would be more forthcoming if we initiated operations with international support rather than without it. Even before calculating the costs of postwar reconstruction of Iraq, we must recognize that military operations in Iraq will be expensive in direct costs and could have significant and detrimental effects on our economy. Estimates of the direct cost of an attack on Iraq range from $50 billion to $200 billion. For perspective, the gulf war cost about $80 billion in direct incremental costs, and our allies paid much of this expense. Indirect effects on our economy are hard to estimate, but there is great concern that military operations in Iraq will further complicate a fragile economy. One of the most potentially volatile economic aspects of a war in Iraq will be its effect on the price of oil. According to the Congressional Research Service, ``the effect of a sudden and sustained increase in the price of oil could deepen an existing recession or push an already weak economy into recession.'' Our occupation of Iraq will place us in control of the world's second largest oil reserves. Directly or indirectly, we will become a major force in the international politics of oil. That fact will not be lost on other producing nations and the world at large. There is a real danger that our motivation to remove Saddam will be ignored or quickly forgotten, and our attack on Iraq will be seen as old fashion imperialism. Once again, this perception is most likely to develop if we conduct our operations unilaterally. To date, the administration has not publicly suggested how they intend to deal with Iraqi oil. This is a major issue of international importance touching the economic, diplomatic and security priorities of the world. A unilateral attack by the United States will engender worldwide criticism as already suggested by the comments of many leaders around the world and reflected in public opinion in many countries. A swift victory without significant casualties or damage will mute this criticism in many quarters, but it will not easily extinguish the resentment of our ``go it alone'' policy. A difficult and costly struggle will accelerate this criticism and create problems that will inhibit diplomatic and economic progress on other fronts. One of the unintended consequences of a unilateral assault on Iraq may be our efforts on the War on Terror; the unfinished business of completely destroying Al Qaida before they strike us again. Despite all the good faith assurances of military leaders that they will not lose focus on the War on Terrorism, the scale of the proposed operation, the notoriety and the huge risks involved will inevitably draw resources and attention from the War on Terror. Further complicating our efforts on the War of terror is the real possibility that many countries that are now assisting us will greet future requests with studied indifference or denial. The President asks for the authority to use force unilaterally. This request must be viewed in the context of the newly promulgated National Security Strategy. The core of this new strategy rejects deterrence and embraces preemption. According to this strategy, the United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater the risk of inaction--and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively. There is no argument that the United States, like every nation, retains the right to defend itself from an imminent hostile act. But, this strategy goes much further. It appears to be based not on the immediacy of a hostile act but simply on the ``sufficiency'' of the threat. It fails to make any distinction based on the nature or timing of the threat. As such, it can be applied or misapplied to a wide range of adversaries. There is no question that the United States must act preemptively against terrorist like al-Qaida. The nature of the threat and the immediacy of the threat leave no other option. Al-Qaida has no significant and identifiable institutions, resources or assets to hold hostage as a means of changing behavior. Al-Qaida has no significant and identifiable institutions, resources or assets to hold hostage as a means of changing behavior. Al-Qaida makes on pretense of attempting to participate in the international system of nation states. Al-Qaida is not motivated by calculated self interest as much as it is motivated by an apocalyptic impulse for the destruction of its enemies and the ritual sacrifice of its adherents. There is no choice but to seek out these terrorists and destroy them before they attack us again. But al-Qaida is different that many threats that face us. And, extending this notion of preemption and bolstering it in resolutions that give the President authority at his discretion to conduct unilateral military operations starts us down a potentially dangerous path. We are debating Iraq today, but will we apply this preemptive doctrine to Iran or North Korea tomorrow? How do we prevent others from adopting this same strategy if we have enshrined it as the centerpiece of our policy? For example, how to we counsel the Indians to refrain from preemptively attacking Pakistan or vice versa? From New Delhi or Islamabad, the threat looks ``sufficient'' and striking first is enticing. In this first test of the President's new National Security Strategy, we should be very careful to define the scope of his authority to avoid being swept up in a doctrine that appears to have few limits. Our continuing confrontation with Iraq is fraught with danger and challenge. Much is uncertain, but I believe that one point is quite clear. Leading an international coalition to enforce United Nations resolutions, as the President spoke of in Cincinnati, is the surest way to reduce the dangers and ensure the long-term success of our policy. It is for this reason that I support the Levin resolution. Great events will turn on our deliberations. But, at this moment, my thoughts are not on historic forces. Rather, I think about the young Americans who will carry out our policies. They are prepared to sacrifice everything. We owe them more than we can ever repay. One thing that we certainly owe them is our best judgment. I have tried to give them mine. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED. Reserving right to object----

Mr. REED. Mr. President, The Senate is engaged in a momentous and historic debate. The President seeks the authority to use force in our on-going confrontation with Iraq. The Constitution entrusts the Congress with the exclusive power to ``declare War.'' It is our Constitutional obligation to consider the President's request carefully and conscientiously, to review the evidence thoroughly, to weigh the costs and the consequences. We are called upon by the Constitution to make an independent judgment, not an automatic acquiescence. I begin this debate acknowledging several unassailable conclusions. First, we are already in a confrontation with Iraq. Since the Persian Gulf War, we have maintained military forces in support of international sanctions against the regime of Saddam Hussein. Our pilots are routinely fired upon as they enforce the ``No Fly'' Zones. Thus, the question is not whether we should confront Iraq. The question is how best to thwart this outlaw regime and for what ultimate purpose. Second, Saddam Hussein is a despicable person who oppresses his people as he threatens his neighbors. Despite his military defeat in the Persian Gulf War and the imposition of sanctions, Saddam continues to defy United Nations resolutions and, of most concern, continues to develop and attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. But, our judgment cannot rest simply on his unalloyed evil. We must consider our actions more broadly. Will we enhance the stability and security of the region? Will we strengthen our security not just for the moment, but for the future as well? What kind of precedent will we establish? Third, we will decisively defeat Iraqi military forces in any conflict. The skill and courage of our forces, aided by superb technology, will overwhelm Iraqi resistance. The military outcome is certain, but the costs and the consequences are uncertain and could be quite grave. As I consider the proper course of action, as I weigh the uncertainties as well as recognize what is apparent, I return again and again to one further conclusion. Whatever we do will be better done with others. Thus, it is imperative that we commit all of our energies to encourage the United Nations to live up to its founding principles: to be more than just an international forum for discussion; indeed, to be a force for collective action in the face of common dangers. President Bush said it very well when he addressed the United Nations' General Assembly: We created a United Nations Security Council so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives, we've dedicated ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all and to a system of security defended by all. Acting alone will increase the risk to our forces and to our allies in the region. Acting alone will increase the burden that we must bear to restore stability in the region. Acting alone will invite the criticism and animosity of many throughout the world who will mistakenly dismiss our efforts as entirely self-serving. Acting alone could seriously undermine the structure of collective security that the United States has labored for decades to make effective. Acting alone today against the palpable evil of Saddam may set us on a course, charted by the newly announced doctrine of preemption, that will carry us beyond the limits of our power and our wisdom. For these reasons, I will vote against the Lieberman-Warner resolution granting the President the permission to take unilateral military action against Iraq regardless of the immediacy of the threat. And I will support the resolution proposed by Senator Levin. The Levin resolution recognizes the inherent right of the President to use our military forces to defend the United States. This resolution supports the President's demands that the United Nations promulgate a tough, new framework of inspections to disarm Iraq, and this resolution gives the President the right to use American military forces to enforce the resolve of the United Nations. The Levin resolution recognizes Congress' responsibility to promptly consider the President's request to unilaterally employ American forces if the United Nations fails to take effective action. On Monday in Cincinnati, President Bush said, ``Later this week the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked the Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands.'' That is what the Levin resolution provides. Those who advocate unilateral action assume that time has run out in dealing with Iraq. They see an immediate threat that will yield only to immediate military action. Thus, it is important to assess the Iraqi threat as best we can. Iraqi conventional forces have been seriously degraded since the Gulf War. Saddam does have a cadre of Republican Guards that are capable and fought with determination in the Gulf War. One cannot totally discount Iraq's conventional forces, but they are not capable of defeating United States forces. The most dangerous aspect of Saddam's military power is the possession of chemical and biological weapons and his aspiration to develop or acquire nuclear weapons. Today, Iraq has the capability to use chemical and biological weapons within the region to augment conventional forces that have been seriously degraded since the Gulf War. These capabilities, however, must be viewed in terms of intentions in order to fully evaluate the threat An assessment of Iraq intentions reveals areas of consensus and areas of disagreement. It seems clear that Saddam is intent on rebuilding his military and acquiring weapons of mass destruction including nuclear devices. His expulsion of U.N. inspectors certainly supports this view. Moreover, it may suggest that the inspectors posed a very difficult obstacle to his plans and their future utility cannot be summarily dismissed. Saddam continues to aspire to be a regional power. Unchecked, Saddam would threaten his neighbors and endeavor to claim the mantel of leadership in the Gulf and, perhaps, in the greater Muslim world. There is, however, a lack of consensus on two significant points. Will Saddam risk the survival of his regime by threatening or conducting attacks on his neighbors? Will Saddam provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups who can or will use them against the United States or any other nation? At the heart of discussions of Saddam's possible plans is the general question of whether deterrence and containment will work against Iraq as it did in the Cold War. Saddam certainly has a lot to lose in any conflict with the United States. Both his life and his lifestyle would be in great jeopardy. Saddam also seems to be devoid of any ideology other than self-preservation and self-aggrandizement. Saddam is a secular thug, not a messianic leader. There is evidence that he will not put his regime at risk. During the Gulf war, the United States clearly signaled that any use of Iraq of chemical or biological weapons against Coalition forces would result in his destruction. Saddam accepted a humiliating defeat rather than risk losing power. Of course, there are many who accurately point out that Saddam has already attacked his neighbors, Iran and Kuwait. He has used chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds. Still, one is left with the question whether even this despicable behavior is a product of calculation rather than delusion. And complicating the record of his actions against Iran is mounting evidence of our covert support both before and after he had begun to employ chemical weapons. The second issues involves Saddam's willingness and ability to cooperate with terrorists. After September 11, this issue takes on a new and powerful emphasis. Despite extraordinary and justifiable efforts to establish a connection between the Iraqi regime and the attacks on New York City and the Pentagon and the downed aircraft in Pennsylvania, no such links have been established. Indeed, if credible links exist, the President, in my view, could employ unilateral force under the terms of the congressional resolution passed on September 14, 2001. Recently, however, administration officials are publicly, but cryptically, trying to make the case that there is a definite connection between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaida. Secretary Rumsfeld and Condolezza Rice have asserted at various times that Iraq is harboring al-Qaida fighters in Iraq, that information from detainees indicates that Iraq provided chem-bio weapons training to al-Qaida, and that senior-level contacts between the Iraq regime and al-Qaida have increased since 1998. They have offered few details beyond Secretary Rumsfeld's claims that the information is ``factual,'' extremely accurate'' and ``bulletproof.'' But according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, these claims are disputed by ``a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats.'' The article quotes an unnamed official declaring: analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books. The Inquirer article examined some of these administration claims and found that ``the facts are much less conclusive.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.

Mr. REED. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, Rhode Island has lost a valiant son, the Nation has lost a heroic Marine and thousands of my neighbors have lost a true and faithful friend. On September 13, 2002, Harry Kizirian died. His name in Rhode Island is synonymous with selfless service, love of country, commitment to family and unshakeable loyalty to his faith and to his friends. Harry was born on July 13, 1925 at 134 Chad Brown Street in Providence, RI. He was the proud son of Armenian immigrants. His father and mother, Toros and Horopig Kizirian, came to America to seek a better life for themselves and their family. They had endured the horror of the Armenian genocide, each losing their spouse and many in their families. In America, they hoped to find the opportunity and the tolerance that is so rare in the world. In their son, Harry, they would see the fulfillment of the great promise that America offers to the brave and the noble of heart. Harry's youth in the vibrant Armenian community of Chad Brown Street was profoundly changed when, at the age of 15, his father died. Harry became the man of the house. While he continued his education at Mount Pleasant High School, he worked lugging beef and unloading freight cars at a meat packing plant on Canal Street. Despite his long hours of work, he still threw the hammer and put the shot for Mount Pleasant High School and captained the football team to boot. A high school football referee, impressed with Harry's dedication and demeanor, suggested that he seek work at the Providence post office. Harry secured a temporary position sweeping floors as he finished his last two years of high school. Harry Kizirian came of age as America faced the danger and challenge of World War II. Like so many of his generation, Harry did not hesitate to serve. He joined the United States Marine Corps the day after he graduated from high school. After his training, Harry found himself in the first assault wave attacking Okinawa. He was 19 years old. While leading a fire team in the assault, he charged an enemy position that was pinning down a Marine platoon. He received multiple fragmentation wounds in the arms and shoulders but continued to press the attack. Eventually, he was evacuated for treatment. A month later, he returned to action. And, he would see fearsome action in the climatic battles to secure Okinawa. In June of 1945, Harry's unit moved to attack entrenched Japanese soldiers along a ridgeline. Corporal Kizirian observed six Marine stretcher bearers pinned down by enemy fire as they were trying to evacuate a wounded Marine. With utter disregard for his own safety, Harry placed himself in the line of fire and single-handedly attacked the enemy emplacement. Although wounded in the leg and groin, he continued the attack by dragging his body along by his elbows. He overwhelmed the position and killed the 12 enemy defenders. For his service and sacrifice on Okinawa, Harry Kizirian was awarded the Navy Cross, two Purple Hearts, the Bronze Star with V device for Valor, the Presidential Unit Citation, the Navy Unit Citation and the Rhode Island Cross, the State's highest award for valor. Harry was discharged from the Marine Corps in 1946 and returned to Rhode Island and to the post office. But he still bore the scars of battle. For 4 years after his discharge, Harry was in and out of Veteran's Hospitals for treatment of his wounds. Harry's return to civilian ranks gave him a chance to meet the love of his life, Hazel Serabian. Hazel tells the story that, the first time she saw Harry, he was staring at her from the cover of The New York Times Sunday Magazine. He was featured as one of the young heroes of the Pacific battles. She later met this handsome Marine as he stopped in her hometown en route to visit the family of a fellow Marine who had died in combat. In my humble opinion, it was love at first sight and love for evermore. Their love produced a family of wonderful sons and daughters: Tom and Richard, Joanne, Shakay and Janice. They continue the proud tradition of Harry and Hazel as public-spirited citizens in their own right. And the newest generation of Kizirians includes eight grandchildren who grew under the watchful eye and enormous love of their grandfather. Harry, with a young family to feed, applied himself with his characteristic sincerity and diligence at the post office. But he brought something else and something special to his job: a joy of working with the men and women of the Postal Service and of helping to serve the people of Rhode Island. Harry became the Postmaster in Providence in 1961 and led the Postal Service in Rhode Island at a time of great change. Rhode Island was one of the first postal districts in the country to build a central, automated postal facility. Harry was the key individual in opening this facility and making it work. His leadership style was hands-on and personal. He knew the Providence post office's thousand employees by their first names. He patrolled the facility in his customary attire of suit and running shoes as he made sure that the work was done and the workers were recognized. His co-workers were a larger extension of his own family, and he followed their ups and downs with the same interest and involvement that he lavished on his own family. He established a bond of trust and love that still today is unique and enduring. In 1986, the Postal Service announced that Harry would be ``reorganized'' out of the job. The announcement led to a flurry of activity by Senator John Chafee and Senator Claiborne Pell but to no avail. The Postal Service did not relent. The announcement was greeted by his co-workers with weeping. They weren't losing just an admired boss; they were losing a friend. In October of 1986, two thousand of his friends and co-workers honored him at a testimonial. One of his dearest friends, Senator John O. Pastore, paid him a special tribute. Forty years before, then Governor John O. Pastore pinned the Rhode Island Cross on Harry Kizirian. In earlier remarks, Senator Postore said simply, ``I have never met in my life anyone who has had a bad word to say about Harry Kizirian,'' And Senator Pastore's words were and are beyond reproach. I was honored to be appointed to West Point by Senator Pastore. Both Harry and I shared a profound respect for this great man who served with extraordinary distinction in the Senate. Harry's departure from the Postal Service merely redirected his great passion for public service to numerous other civic endeavors, including Big Brothers, the Veterans Home in Bristol, RI and the Heart Association. When asked once about his extraordinary generosity and public service, Harry said, ``You know, the track is short; when you can help people, do it.'' I really got to know Harry in 1990 when I campaigned for my first term in Congress. I knew about the legendary Harry Kizirian; everyone in Rhode Island knew about and admired Harry. I met him several times at meetings of postal workers. He still stayed close to his co-workers. By this time, Harry's sight was impaired. He would sit at the table and you would approach him for a word. He grasped your hand with authority and his voice was strong, but his whole demeanor was one of gentleness and consideration. I will never forget at one of these meetings days before the election. As postal worker after postal worker approached him to thank him for countless kindnesses and asked what they could do for him, Harry said, ``if you want to do something for me, vote for this kid, Reed.'' I have never received a greater or more meaningful endorsement. His faith in me gave me great faith in myself. But, after all, that is what Harry did all of his life. He made us stronger and better because he was behind us and shared with us his strength and his decency. In May of 1996, Rhode Islanders had a chance to honor Harry. On that day, the central Post Office in Providence, the ``house that Harry built'', was dedicated as the ``Harry Kizirian Post Office Building.'' Senator John H. Chafee sponsored the legislation in the Senate, and I sponsored the legislation in the House. We were honored to have General Chuck Krulak, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, as a principal speaker. General Krulak captured the essence of Harry Kizirian when he said ``Harry was motivated by a selfless desire to help his fellow countrymen.'' General Krulak added a sentiment that we all felt. ``It is impossible not to admire, to respect and yes, coming from this tough Marine, to love Harry Kizirian. You have made a difference.'' A few days after I learned of Harry's death, I was attending the Fall Harvest Festival in my hometown of Cranston, Rhode Island. I encountered a gentleman and we began to talk. He quickly told me that we had both lost a good friend, Harry Kizirian. The gentleman was a postal worker who had spent many years working for Harry. With gestures more than words, he expressed the sense of loss tempered by love and admiration that we all felt; a fitting epitaph, the unadorned and heartfelt words and sentiments of one of his workers, more poignant and profound then any sermon or speech. When our colleague John Chafee died, I recalled these lines from the Irish poet, William Butler Yeats, fitting words for another Marine who goes to his rest. The man is gone who guided ye, unweary, through the long bitter way. Ye by the waves that close in our sad nation, Be full of sudden fears, The man is gone for his lonely station . . . Mourn--and then onward, there is no returning He guides ye from the tomb; His memory now is a tall pillar, burning Before us in the gloom! Harry's memory warms our heart and lights our way. He was a man who saw hard times, but refused to allow them to extinguish his generous spirit. He was a man who saw war in all its horror, but refused to surrender his soul to its brutality. He was a strong man, not for the sake of intimidation, but because he knew that true strength allows a man to be truly compassionate. He was humble. His greatest source of pride was the success of others, particularly his family. His memory, his example, sustains us and inspires us. I close with the words of a song that I am sure Harry knew. If the Army and the Navy Ever look on Heaven's scenes They will find the streets are guarded by United States Marines Harry Kizirian, United States Marine Corps, has joined that Heavenly guard mount. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his gracious intervention on my behalf. We are debating today homeland security. We are also engaged in another significant debate about international security in the context of Iraq and the war on terror. But as Senator Daschle reminded us, we also have to be concerned about economic security in the United States. Frankly, the economic numbers we have been seeing lately do not give much confidence to the American people that their economic security is being protected. As the vice chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, I have the opportunity to review, along with the staff, the reports that are coming in about our economy. It is clear that GDP is growing, but too slowly to make much of a dent in the unemployment rate. People who have lost their jobs face a much more difficult job market, and many are beginning to exhaust their unemployment benefits. Everyone is facing increased premiums for health care. Employers are cutting back their contributions to health programs. They are being stressed in terms of adequately funding pension programs. These are the real concerns of Americans today all across this country. When we look at the numbers, when we look at the reports, the conclusion is, obviously, we are still in an economic slump. Indicative of this are the figures I have on this chart. This is the record of job growth, but it is not growth at all, it is job loss during the Bush administration. In January 2001, there were 112 million jobs, today, August 2002, 110 million jobs--a loss of over 2 million jobs that have not yet been replaced in this economy. The unemployment rate in August was 5.7 percent. That is one and a half percentage points higher than it was when President Bush took office. The number of unemployed Americans was more than 2 million higher in August than it was when President Bush took office, as indicated by this chart. There is also another telling statistic that is within these unemployment numbers. The number of long-term unemployed Americans-- those who have been unemployed more than 26 weeks--has increased significantly. This chart reflects that increase. In January of 2001, 648,000 Americans had been unemployed more than 26 weeks; in August 2002, 1,474,000 Americans were unemployed more than 26 weeks--a significant jump. It is significant not just in terms of numbers but in terms of something else: Americans exhaust their basic unemployment benefits after 26 weeks. Unless we have an extended benefit program in place, after 26 weeks American workers have no support as they look for jobs, as they try to support their families, as they try to make ends meet. This problem is not going away. Although as part of the stimulus package we have passed extended benefits, they are scheduled to expire at the end of this year, so we have a real obligation in these remaining days to protect a basic tenet of economic security in this country, and that is to provide extended unemployment benefits. The 1,474,000 will increase, and these individuals will not have the support they need to provide for their families. The little bit of growth we have seen so far is not going to head off a jobless recovery. It should be noted that when President George Herbert Walker Bush was President and we were in a recessionary period in 1991, the unemployment rate rose another full percentage point in the 15 months after the GDP started to grow again. So we can likely see increased unemployment. There are forecasters who have suggested our economic growth will be about 2.8 percent for the rest of the year--that is the Blue Chip consensus forecast--but the economy has to grow at more than 3 percent to generate the kind of new jobs that will reverse this unemployment situation. No consensus forecaster fully expects that type of growth going forth. As a result, most economists suggest and predict that unemployment rates will rise to 6 percent. Again, this is a real challenge to the safety and security of the American family, just as real as the threats we are debating in terms of homeland security and international security. The conclusion, as one looks at these numbers and the economic performance from the time the President took over, is that President Bush's economy looks a lot like his father's economy. It is in recession, unemployment is growing, it will continue to grow, and yet there has not been an adequate response to this problem by the White House. He seems to have one proposal with respect to every economic question, and that is cutting the taxes of the wealthiest Americans. As this chart indicates, this is the effect of the proposed tax cuts of President Bush, tax cuts that were enacted last year. At year 10, when they are fully realized, the average benefits, based on income level, will be as portrayed in this chart. The lowest 20th percentile of Americans will receive about $66 a year in benefits. It goes up to about $375 for individuals making around $20,000, $600 for those making about $39,000 a year. The real gain, the real benefit, goes to the very wealthiest Americans--$55,000 roughly, on average, for the top 1 percent. That is their annual savings for the tax benefits generated by the Bush tax proposal. This is not fair, and it is not smart. Unless we get all Americans participating fully in our economy, having the disposable income to go to the store to keep consumption up, to keep demand up, we are not going to have an economy that works for any American. Indeed, this is a glaring example of what some criticized Democrats for--class warfare. What is more unfair, inequitable, and slanted toward a class than this tax cut which favors the wealthiest Americans? In addition to these tax numbers, we have to understand that these tax cuts have put enormous pressure on other programs that are decisive for every American, but particularly important for low-income Americans: Medicaid Programs, Medicare Programs, a host of other programs that need Federal support. That support has been strained dramatically because of the pressure of the tax cut. We are at a point now where we have to act. We have to act in the very short run to restore extended unemployment benefits for the growing number of long-term unemployed Americans. We have to act, also, to resist the temptation to make all of these tax benefits permanent. However unfair this situation is, it will be compounded, and it will be compounded dramatically, if we make the tax cuts of the last year permanent. We have to go ahead and focus on those issues that are critical to the welfare of the American family today, for their economic security today. We have to be concerned about pensions, their strength. We have to protect, I believe, Social Security, which is the bedrock of America. I wonder how many employees of Enron and WorldCom and other companies 2 years ago would have considered their Social Security as just a trivial benefit compared to their expanded and ever-growing 401(k) plans. Today, I suspect, they see their Social Security benefit, their defined benefit, as a lifeline, allowing them to make ends meet, or at least giving them a little extra to get through. We have to be strong in terms of protecting the bedrock program, Social Security. We have to be concerned about rising health care premiums and prescriptions drug costs. None of these problems can be addressed unless we provide the leadership, the resources, and the attention the American people demand. Let me conclude by saying, again, there is at least one thing we must do in the next several weeks: Extend long-term unemployment benefits. Unemployment, long term, is growing. It will continue to grow for many months. American workers deserve the opportunity for some support as they look for new jobs. They deserve the opportunity to help their families as they get through a very difficult period of time. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are here today for three major reasons. The first is the obvious need to restructure our security to confront new threats that were unanticipated in the cold war. The thought is that we do need to create a Department of Homeland Security. I support that. We are also here today because of the groundbreaking work of Senator Lieberman and colleagues on the Governmental Affairs Committee. Before this proposal was invoked by the administration, they were working on it. They were developing through hearings the substance to make the presentation for which we are here today. But finally, we are here today because of Senator Byrd's insistence that we consider this very significant reorganization in the context of our Constitution and of our responsibility as Members of the Senate to ensure we maintain the constitutional balance that is the heart of this Government. It would be ironic indeed that in the name of winning the war on terror, we lost the very goal we were trying to protect, which is a constitutional government in which all of us play a significant role-- the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. I think it is important, as we consider this legislation, to look carefully and thoughtfully at this proposed reorganization. It is an extraordinary combination of governmental entities. Approximately 170,000 employees will be combined into this new Department. It will affect 22 existing agencies. At least 11 full Senate committees have oversight responsibilities for these existing agencies. This is an extraordinary moment, and we have to act deliberately, carefully, and thoughtfully. That is why I think it is so critical that this debate take place and why it was so important that Senator Byrd was able to indeed encourage and inspire and in many respects direct the debate we are having today. One of the major elements within this organization--there are many, and I would like to allude to a few--is the treatment of intelligence. We understood very starkly and very tragically on September 11 that intelligence is probably the key to successful protection of the United States, our home. We understood that. And now we have to take that lesson and apply it. One of the proposals made by the administration is to create an intelligence capacity within the new Department of Homeland Security. I agree with that. I think this new Department has to have an intelligence capacity. Unfortunately, in terms of the administration's proposal, I think there are two clear shortcomings. First, they have established the intelligence capacity in the context of the infrastructure protection responsibilities of this new Department. Clearly, intelligence has to go beyond simply protecting our infrastructure. As Senator Lieberman indicated previously in some of his comments, the World Trade Center and other targets were not properly considered critical infrastructure in the United States. But certainly on September 11 it was the target of terrorists. I think we have to disassociate the intelligence aspects of the Department in the very narrow view of infrastructure protection. The amendment which Senator Lieberman will propose once we move to the bill will effectively address the issue and the problems. There is also another problem; that is, the administration would only allow this intelligence operation within the new Homeland Security Department to take data provided by other agencies and analyze it. It does not give that entity the right to reach out and get raw intelligence data. I think that has to be a critical responsibility and a critical authority of this new intelligence division. Again, the bill that I believe Senator Lieberman will submit at the conclusion of this debate will have that authority in the Homeland Security Department. That is critical. The essence here is to have a place in the Government where--as said so often because it is so true--all the dots are connected. But you can't do that and rely on the intelligence products of other agencies. You can't do that if your focus is restricted to infrastructure protection. As a result, I think this is illustrative of some of the problems of the administration's proposal, and certainly some of the problems of the House bill. I should point out, as has been pointed out before, that we are now debating whether the Senate will bring it up for consideration. There are other areas that are of concern to me. One has just been discussed quite articulately by my colleague and friend from Maine, Senator Collins; that is the Coast Guard. Here is an agency which, after September 11, has been decisively engaged in port protection. Port protection by the Coast Guard has gone from a rather minor operation before September 11 to one of their major operations. We have all seen that. In my community of Providence, RI, we have the Narragansett Bay. We have the Port of Providence. For the first time in my memory--and perhaps since World War II--we are seeing Coast Guard cutters escorting LNG tankers through the Narragansett Bay while the whole waterway was shut down by police and the National Guard. That is a time-consuming operation and one which has been replicated in the 361 ports of the United States. Also adding to that is the Coast Guard's obligation to patrol about 95,000 miles of coastline. The problem, though, is, as my colleague from Maine pointed out, that the Coast Guard has many other responsibilities. She referred to a typical day. On a typical day, the Coast Guard conducts 109 search and rescue missions, saves 10 lives, assists 92 boaters in trouble, and seizes 169 pounds of marijuana and 360 pounds of cocaine worth about $9.6 million. They intercept illegal immigrants coming into the United States. They respond to calls with respect to hazardous chemical spills. They inspect and repair boats. They assist nearly 200,000 tons of shipping just in the Great Lakes during the winter season alone. What will happen to these other responsibilities? I know the committee has dealt with this and has tried to strike a balance. But it is an area of concern, and it is an area that illustrates the difficulty of combining all of these agencies with the mission of homeland security which might trump other legitimate missions. We have to be careful with this. In the course of our debate and discussion, I think we have to focus on this issue and other issues. Much can be said in a similar vein about the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Here you have an agency which has two major responsibilities: Protect the borders from illegal entry and at the same time provide assistance to those individuals who are in the United States legally who want to become citizens or who are here on some type of temporary protective status and need to be supervised by the United States. Those are diametrically opposed responsibilities. We have to ask ourselves the question: If the INS is part of the Department of Homeland Security, will they emphasize one and de- emphasize the other? I think, frankly, most people will assume they will emphasize protecting the borders of the United States. After all, that is probably the most important issue with respect to homeland security. What happens to the literally millions of individuals in the United States who legitimately need the services of the INS? Already today, there is a backlog of approximately 5 million cases around the country in terms of applications to the INS for clarification of status. Indeed, as the National Immigration Forum noted in their words, ``it is hard to imagine that a Federal agency whose primary issue is to deter terrorism will be able to strike and maintain an appropriate balance between admitting newcomers and deterring security threats.'' We see that these contradictions are replete throughout the reorganization. I again think a careful, thorough, and complete deliberation should be attendant to the consideration of this legislation. I would like to mention just briefly a final area, an area which I think will come back again and again; that is, the administration's proposal--and the proposal in the House of Representatives--to put up severe barriers to the right of Federal employees to organize collectively and to exercise their rights; and, also, the protection for the Civil Service. We have to be very conscious of this and ask the very fundamental question: Why are we attempting to undercut provisions for which no one, I think, has seriously made the case they have interfered with our ability to conduct the war on terror, to conduct intelligence operations? As you probably realize, President Kennedy, 40 years ago, under executive order, gave Federal employees the right to organize in collective bargaining units. President Nixon expanded those rights in 1969. In 1978, the Civil Service Reform Act codified most of these executive orders. Throughout the course of our history, these responsibilities have also given the President the authority to make exemptions for national security. And they have made those exemptions.

Mr. REED. I thank the Senator. Over the course of our history, certainly in the 40 years, since these rights became established by executive order, there have always been appropriate exemptions in which the President could, for national security reasons, exempt individual employees or groups of employees from these rights. Our Presidents have done that. As a result, we have a situation in which I think a classic statement applies: If it is not broke, why are we trying to fix it? And it is not broken. Again, in my final few moments, I heard from my colleague from Maine--and I have heard it again and again--those firefighters struggling up the stairs of the World Trade Center were union employees. No one checked with their bargaining agent before going up those stairs. In fact, I don't think they even checked with some of their captains and battalion commanders. They went up those upstairs because it was their job and their duty and their lives. And many of them paid with their lives. It is that spirit that emanates from those firefighters that encourages and embraces all dedicated civil servants in our Federal Government. I think to pursue this initiative is really, in a way, a slap at them, an insult to what they bring each and every day to their jobs, to their tasks, to their duty. So I hope we adopt provisions, which I believe the Lieberman bill has, which recognize the right to organize, the right for civil service protections, and also flexibility, for management, by the President. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes from the time controlled by Senator Byrd.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that Joyce Iutcovich, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of today.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to discuss the necessity to provide broader flexibility to States in their effort to reward work, lift people out of poverty, and benefit children. As we contemplate the reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF, program, we have to ask ourselves: On what basis do we want to judge the success of welfare reform? Will we focus only on the reduction of case loads and increases in work participation, without regard to whether the wage levels raise families out of poverty and children are better off? Or, do we want to build a system that truly breaks the cycle of poverty and supports the long-term economic well-being of welfare recipients and results in a better future for children? We need to move to the next generation of welfare reform. Our goal should be to reduce poverty, reward work, and ensure the well-being of children. Much of the debate on welfare policy revolves around the issue of work, but how do we reward work? During the past two decades states have experimented with new approaches to cash welfare assistance for low-income families. These initiatives have included mandatory employment services, earnings supplements, and time limits on welfare receipt. How do we know which strategies work best? A federally-funded evaluation of welfare-to-work experiments by Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, MDRC, provides a wealth of information on the effect of these strategies on employment and income, as well as child well-being. This rigorous random-assignment research lays a strong foundation for legislative deliberations about the reauthorization of TANF. Although most of these initiatives increased the employment rate among welfare recipients, programs that included only mandatory employment services usually left families no better off financially than they would have been without the programs. The only programs that both increased work and made families financially better off were those that provided earnings supplements to low-wage workers. These programs also increased job retention and produced a range of positive effects for children, including better school performance and fewer behavioral and emotional problems for elementary school-age children. One income-raising program also significantly reduced domestic violence and family breakup. Earnings supplements are easily provided to working recipients by allowing them to keep more of their benefits. For example, some States have not cut or eliminated a family's assistance on a dollar-for-dollar basis when the family enters employment. However, under current law, States are restricted in how they can use their TANF block grant funds to help working families, because any month in which Federal funds are used to provide ``assistance'' to a working family counts against the Federal time limit on assistance. Some States, including my state of Rhode Island, Illinois, Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, operate programs using State money to help low-income working families. In Rhode Island, our Family Independence Program, FIP, provides a State earnings supplement as a work support and does not count it as ``assistance'' if a parent is working at least 30 hours per week. Using this FIP wage supplement, families have funds to buy basic necessities. Knowing that their income will not plummet after some artificial time limit is an incentive to find a job. Providing stable income helps parents stay attached to the workforce and rewards work. For example, a mother with two children, who works 30 hours per week and earns the average starting wage of about $7.80 per hour in Rhode Island, receives a supplemental FIP payment of $132 per month. This brings her total income to about $1,044 per month. Even with this supplement even with her work, that $1,000 per month is still only 83 percent of the Federal poverty level. With a supplement and with work these women are still not making income relative to the poverty level. If Rhode Island did not use state dollars for the wage supplement, when a mother reached her 5-year time limit and the FIP payment stopped, she would lose 13 percent of her total income. Using State funds offers broader flexibility for States to support families that meet work requirements and yet remain eligible for earnings supplements because of low wages. However, with State budgets being severely constrained, the ability to sustain this work support for low-income families is in jeopardy. Further, as a State equity issue, all States should have the flexibility to use their Federal TANF funds to help low-income working families without restrictions--for the simple reason that it works. Sadly, the income-enhancing effects of wage supplements and the positive effects on children are undermined by current restrictions on the use of TANF funds and definitions of what counts as ``assistance.'' Income gains disappear after families reach their time limits. The rigidity of the current system that counts wage subsidies as ``assistance'' conflicts with the success of supplemental cash payments, which rewards work. If we want to reward work and help children, we must give States the flexibility and the option to provide continuing assistance to working families using Federal TANF dollars, ensuring that these supplements are not considered ``assistance'' under this program. If the Senate were to permit TANF funds to be used in this flexible way, families would continue to be subject to all other Federal and State TANF requirements, including work and universal engagement requirements. But States would have flexibility in deciding whether to exercise the option and for how long to exercise this option. This provision has no cost; it would simply give States more flexibility in using existing Federal TANF funds to support low-income working families. Earnings supplements have a proven record for boosting work and ``making work pay.'' These programs reward those who do the right thing by getting jobs and it results in better outcomes for children. I urge my colleagues to work with me during the upcoming debate on the welfare reauthorization bill to ensure the inclusion of this broader flexibility for States. I again thank the Senator from Utah for his kindness and graciousness. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, let me thank the Senators from Utah and Florida for their graciousness in allowing me to go forward.

Mr. REED. Reserving the right to object. I have been waiting patiently for many moments. I only have approximately 5 or 10 minutes to speak, and I have a press deadline. The way it is right now, I will get the floor an hour from now. Is there a way I might be able to go before my colleagues?

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to share with my colleagues my thoughts about the Graham-Smith amendment that the Senate will be voting on shortly. I have to say that the proposal currently before us is a far cry from what I have previously supported and certainly no where near what I had hoped for in terms of a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Indeed, this is not the benefit we ultimately should enact and, more importantly, this is not the benefit our seniors deserve. At best, the Graham-Smith proposal provides a universal catastrophic benefit to those seniors with the highest prescription drug costs and it will aid those States that do not already have a State-based prescription drug benefit. These concessions, offered in a spirit of compromise and bipartisanship, limit the effect and reach of this bill. Chief among these concessions has been cost. That constraint on resources is driven predominately by the passage of the President's tax plan, which leaves us with resources that are only sufficient to meet the needs of low- income seniors and those who spend over $3,300 out of their own pocket. Nevertheless, the proposal does start us on the road to a universal, voluntary benefit for our Nation's elderly and disabled population by offering a comprehensive benefit for those living below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. According to estimates, nearly half of the Medicare beneficiaries in Rhode Island would be eligible for the fully subsidized Federal prescription drug benefit. In addition, the amendment provides catastrophic coverage for drug costs above $3,300. And, contrary to other proposals, these benefits would be provided in the same manner that seniors receive all other health care benefits: through Medicare. There are however several areas where I feel this amendment falls short. First, seniors above 200 percent of poverty would receive, for a nominal annual enrollement fee, a discount card that would provide an automatic 5 percent Federal subsidy for all drug costs and additional savings that are expected to be captured through the negotiation of lower drug prices from the manufacturers. However, questions have been raised recently as to the effectiveness of prescription benefit managers, or PBMs, to achieve the best price for their subscribers. I believe that the potential benefits and drawbacks of PBMs on such a large scale have not been thoroughly explored, nor has the question of whether PBMs are a reliable mechanism to achieve lower drug prices been answered. I am also concerned about having a discount card as the sole source of coverage for beneficiaries above a certain income level because I believe it deviates from the basic tenents of the Medicare program and may not provide the kind of assistance seniors and disabled persons with substantial drug costs might need. Second, there is no requirement that States with existing pharmaceutical assistance programs for low-income seniors, like my home State of Rhode Island, maintain their commitment to this particularly vulnerable population. I believe that the Graham-Smith amendment would have a much greater impact if it acknowledged and rewarded the ongoing efforts in many States and encouraged them to work as partners with the Federal Government to build a far-reaching prescription drug benefit that would offer more robust assistance to many more of our elderly and disabled than the Federal Government can currently achieve on its own. While I understand that many of our States are facing dire budgetary situations, I believe our commitment to providing struggling States the temporary support they need has been demonstrated through the Rockefeller-Collins-Nelson amendment which passed the Senate by an overwhelming margin last week. I am disappointed that the Graham-Smith amendment does not take the role of the States into more serious consideration. If the proposal is enacted, I hope to work with my colleagues to strengthen the State's role in this program. The plan that I cosponsored and supported, the Graham-Miller-Kennedy amendment, was the only true Medicare prescription drug proposal to be presented to the Senate. It is the only one that would have created a guaranteed, univeral benefit for all Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of income. In terms of the benefit structure, it required a modest monthly premium and reasonable co-payment for prescriptions. However, this benefit was deemed to be too costly by many of our Republican colleagues given the current Federal budget deficits. I would argue that we might be in a different position if we had not enacted a major tax cut bill last year. Nevertheless, my colleague, Senator Graham, has tirelessly worked to craft a scaled-back benefit proposal that is modeled after the Ensign- Hagel amendment and would seem to meet the chief concern of my Republican colleagues and should garner their support. I commend Senator Graham and others for their efforts on this critical issue and I intend to support his amendment in the spirit of compromise and moving this debate forward. The Graham-Smith amendment is certainly not the end of the road in terms of the prescription drug issue, it is only the beginning. If Congress is going to have a serious chance of getting a Medicare prescription drug bill to the President's desk this year, we must take action now. I hope my colleagues will follow the lead of our colleagues, Senators Graham and Smith, and work towards the enactment of a Medicare prescription drug benefit.