Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the fiscal year 2001 Defense authorization conference report. I believe this bill contains many excellent provisions which will ensure that our military remains the finest in the world. As to personnel benefits, this bill also takes great steps to improve health care, pay and benefits for armed services personnel. For the second year in a row, Congress approved a pay raise for military personnel. This year's 3.7 percent pay raise will go into effect on January 1, 2001. This bill directs the Secretary of Defense to implement the Thrift Savings Plan for active and reserve service members. Many Members of Congress have been outraged to learn that a number of active duty service members qualify for food stamps. This bill addresses that issue by directing the Secretary of Defense to implement a program which provides additional special pay of up to $500 per month for those service members who qualify for food stamps. This bill also eliminates co-payments for active duty family members for health care received under TRICARE Prime. In addition, Congress extended TRICARE Prime to families of service members assigned to remote locations. For military retirees, this bill goes far to fulfill the promise made to our military retirees when they enlisted that they would be given lifetime healthcare. Congress approved a permanent comprehensive health care benefit for Medicare-eligible retirees which effectively makes all military retirees eligible for health care within TRICARE. Under this plan, military retirees and family members may keep their Medicare coverage and use Tricare as a Medicare supplement to pay costs not covered by Medicare. This provision can save military retirees thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. Congress also expanded the comprehensive retail and national mail order pharmacy to benefit all Medicare eligible retirees and their eligible family members, without enrollment fees. On submarines, this bill also provides significant resources for the Navy's submarine fleet, a military asset very close to the hearts of the residents of my home state Rhode Island: Authorizes funding for the construction of the third Virginia class submarine, the U.S.S. Hawaii; Authorizes a block buy of submarines from FY03-06 which will greatly increase the efficiency and lower the cost of our next generation of submarines. In transforming for future threats, the Navy will soon be faced with a decision on whether to refuel old Los Angeles class submarines or convert four Trident submarines which are scheduled to be retired to special operations boats. I believe that this decision must be made very carefully and so I am pleased that this report contains language directing a study of the advantages of Trident conversion over refueling. I am also pleased that significant funding has been authorized for countermine measures. I believe this is a necessary program that has been woefully underfunded in recent years. As to Army transformation, in October 1999, senior Army leaders announced a new vision to enable the Army to better meet the diverse, complex demands of the 21st century. At present, in some instances the Army faces strategic deployment challenges that inhibits its ability to negotiate rapidly the transitions from peacetime operations in one part of the world to small-scale contingencies in another. Army heavy forces have no peer in the world, but they are a challenge to deploy. The Army has the world's finest light infantry, but it lacks adequate lethality, survivability, and mobility once in theater. The Army Transformation Strategy will result in an Objective Force that is more responsible, deployable, agile, versatile, lethal, survivable and sustainable than the present force. A force with these capabilities will allow the Army to place a combat capable brigade anywhere in the world, regardless of ports or airfields, in 96 hours. It will put a division on the ground in 120 hours. And it will put 5 divisions in theater in 30 days. This bill supports the Army Transformation efforts by authorizing an additional $750 million for the initiative, of which $600 million is for procurement requirements and $150 million for R&D requirements. On impact aid, I am also pleased that the conference report contains language I authored to address the considerable financial strain on school districts educating military children with severe disabilities and help military families get the best education for their children with severe disabilities. As many of my colleagues are aware, military personnel with children with severe disabilities often request and receive compassionate-post assignments to a few districts known for their special education programs. The cost of providing such education is disproportionately high for these communities. In fact, for some of these children, the cost is upwards of $50,000 to $100,000 a year (as compared to an average per pupil expenditure of $6,900). In my home state, Middletown, Portsmouth, and Newport are districts with many military children with disabilities. This year, Middletown alone is providing education to 66 high need military children with disabilities at a total cost of nearly $1 million. This experience, however, is not unique to Rhode Island. In fact, districts ranging from San Diego and Travis Unified in California to Fort Sam Houston Independence in Texas also face considerable financial strain in their endeavor to educate military children with disabilities. Section 363 of the conference report, Impact Aid for Children with Severe Disabilities, requires a report containing information on military children with severe disabilities, and authorizes funding to ease the strain on local communities providing education to high numbers of such children. Mr. President, this critical program will help ensure that military families get the best education for their children with disabilities, while providing needed relief to school districts, and I am very pleased that it has been adopted. I look forward to working with my fellow committee members, the Department of Defense, impact aid organizations, military personnel, and affected communities to press for funding for this program next year. Under the Montgomery G.I. bill, Mr. President, I would now like to turn to some items that I regret have not been included in the conference report. First, I would like to mention the expansion of Montgomery G.I. bill benefits that have been advocated for years by our colleague, Senator Cleland. One of the most innovative provisions he proposed would have allowed service members to transfer Montgomery G.I. bill benefits to family members. I believe this transferability would have been an effective tool for recruiting new members and retaining trained and skilled service members. This provision would have had a negligible impact on the budget: The provision was not written as an entitlement, but rather would have been implemented at the discretion of the service Secretaries. However, this provision, which was included in the Senate bill, was ultimately eliminated from the conference report because it was too expensive. Yet while this provision was considered too expensive, in conference, majority leaders created and approved a greatly expanded entitlement for retirees which will cost $60 billion over ten years. I am disappointed that we were not able to include both of these worthy items in this conference report and I will continue to work with Senator Cleland to ensure it is included next year. As for hate crimes, Mr. President, I would like to express my extreme disappointment regarding the stripping of the hate crimes legislation from the Department of Defense (DOD) authorization conference report. Fifty-seven United States Senators voted to add this important legislation to the DOD authorization bill, 232 Members of the House of Representatives instructed the conferees to keep the hate crimes legislation in the DOD authorization bill, and both the President and Vice-President have expressed unwavering support for this legislation. Although some argue that hate crimes legislation has nothing to do with authorizing our nation's defense programs, a majority of the Senate added it to the DOD authorization bill because we were never given the opportunity by the Republican leadership to vote on it as a stand alone bill. I support this legislation because it sends a message that society finds crimes motivated by bias especially heinous and worthy of punishment. Hate crime laws recognize that a violent act committed against someone just because of who they are, is intended to intimidate and frighten people other than the immediate victim. While a hate crime might be targeted at one person, it is really directed at an entire community. Considering the intent behind a person's action in committing a crime is not a new development. Deeply ingrained in our nation's laws is the recognition that intentions count when it comes to crime. That's why premeditated murder is punished more severely than manslaughter. Hate crime laws express society's judgment that a violent act motivated by bigotry deserves greater punishment than a random crime committed under the same circumstances. The Local Law Enforcement Act does not trample on our nation's ideals of free speech and equal justice under the law. The Supreme Court has held constitutional state legislation that enhances penalties for hate crimes, respecting findings that hate crimes often provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest. The Court affirmed that it is reasonable to have greater punishments for crimes that cause greater individual or societal harm. Hate crimes are very real offenses, combinations of uncontrollable bigotry and vicious acts of personal injury. These crimes not only inflict physical wounds, but wreak mental and emotional devastation by attacking a person's identity. People who hurt or kill someone because that person represents a certain community, deserve harsher penalties. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said that he hoped that one day all people will be judged by the content of their character. A majority of the U.S. Senate, a majority of the House of Representatives and the President and Vice President believe this to be the case. Our nation's hate crime laws should be extended so that we-- that all people can have the freedom to be themselves without fear of being attacked for who or what they are. Mr. President, I regret that we were not able to accomplish all that we set out to do with this conference report. However, I believe that it is ultimately a solid legislative effort that will help our military and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I commend Chairman Warner and the ranking member, Senator Levin, for their great work in bringing to the floor a comprehensive and critically needed reauthorization of our defense programs. This is legislation which recognizes the extraordinary sacrifices of our military personnel around the globe--sacrifices which were certainly highlighted today in the gulf. One part of this legislation is an enhancement of personnel benefits, both pay and health care. There is a sentiment which I subscribe to, frankly, as a veteran and as an American, that we cannot reward our service men and women enough for what they do each day. There is a very practical consideration, and that is the limits of our budget. This legislation does many good things, but it raises an important question. It raises the question of whether we are reaching the limits of resources that we can effectively devote to personnel concerns, not only in terms of overall economic strategies in the country but also in terms of the inherently limited defense dollars because dollars we commit to personnel force cannot be used for operations, cannot be used for modernization, cannot be used for a host of programs that give us the qualitative education, and give our service men and women serving today the tools to do this very critical job. That question keeps emerging in the context of this legislation. For those personnel enhancements, certainly no one deserves more recognition or reward than our men and women in uniform. Let me speak about several other topics included within this legislation. First, I am pleased to see that submarines have been recognized. This is a very valuable aspect of our national security. This legislation would authorize funding for the construction of a third Virginia class submarine, the U.S.S. Hawaii, and authorize a block buy program of submarines for fiscal years 2003 to 2006. It is more efficient, a better way to spend our dollars to get the quality submarines we need. It also recognizes the requirements to augment our submarine fleet by either new construction or by refueling existing 688 attack submarines. This legislation, I am pleased to say, contains legislation language that directs a study of conversion of Trident over refueling, conversion of certain submarines over refueling, and that type of study is inherently positive and useful for future deliberations. What is happening to our services today as we speak is a profound transformation based upon new threats, a transformation based upon new political realities in the post-cold-war world. It is a transformation we have to undertake with each service. I believe this legislation lays out some good guidelines for the transformation. With respect to the Army, it does support the Chief of Staffs' commitment to forming five to six new interim Army brigades that would be more mobile, better able to be positioned around the world. It also sets up testing requirements that will ensure these new concepts are thoroughly tested. With respect to the Air Force, it recognizes what has already been done in terms of organizing 10 aerospace expeditionary forces in providing resources and certainly support for that. With respect to the Navy, it recognizes and, again, as evidenced today, the Navy now has responsibilities close in shore, along the littorals. They have to be prepared to meet the hostile fleet at sea. But more often they are called upon to be close in, supporting operations, supporting political and diplomatic issues. That, too, is recognized here. So we have legislation that is comprehensive, legislation that recognizes the need to reward our service men and women, legislation that recognizes the need to transform our military services because of our new world, and legislation that I think goes a long way in building those vital programs, such as submarines, but there are others, that are critical to our future national security. There are several regrets, though, and one regret is that included within the Senate version of the legislation was the hate crimes bill-- important legislation that could match our ideals with our legislative intent. We all profess, indeed, would say stoutly and without reservation, our abhorrence for hate crimes, the need to condemn them. Unfortunately, this language which was included in the Senate version, and which the House also favorably supported for at least an instruction of the conferees, could not be included in the final version of the legislation. I regret that. What it means is that we have to return next January with a commitment to pass this legislation. Hopefully we can pass it standing alone; hopefully, if that is not the case, on some legislative vehicle. But this legislation is necessary. Certainly I will be supporting this legislation because it will make us more capable, it will help us modernize our forces, and will reward those forces who are serving so valiantly.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Iowa, the Chairman of the Special Senate Committee on Aging, to introduce legislation that we hope will begin to address an immediate and critical labor shortage facing nursing home facilities across the nation as well as the long term objective of establishing nursing home staffing thresholds. In late July, the Health Care Financing Administration, HCFA, released the first phase of its long awaited report on the feasibility and appropriateness of minimum nursing home staffing ratios. The initial phase of this report explored the relationship between staffing levels and quality of care. The HCFA study found a strong correlation between certain staffing thresholds and the quality of care provided to nursing home residents. The report also found that nursing homes are having great difficulty in recruiting and retaining qualified staff to work in their facilities. Clearly, we can and should be doing more to ensure that the care of our elderly and disabled is not being placed at risk. In my home state of Rhode Island, we have been dealing with a critical shortage in the number of Certified Nursing Assistants, CNAs, in particular. CNAs provide direct care in a skilled nursing setting to residents who need help with essential daily living tasks, such as dressing, feeding and bathing. A state task force comprised of long term care providers and nursing home consumer advocates found that over 26,000 individuals were licensed as CNAs, but only 14,000 are currently working in the field. The task force also found that the turnover rate for CNAs rose to an unprecedented 82.6 percent in 1999. The two most important issues identified in the state report were wages and adequate staffing levels. In terms of wages, a person in my state can make more in starting salary as a hotel maid in Providence ($9.50/hour) than they would as a licensed CNA ($7.69/hour). Those individuals who have dedicated their careers to caring for our most vulnerable citizens certainly deserve better and the legislation we are introducing today will help to restore respect and dignity to the caregiver profession. The Nursing Home Staff Improvement Act will address these problems in essentially two ways. First, the legislation requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to complete the second phase of the nursing home staffing report by July 2001. The Secretary will then be called upon to use the findings and recommendations of the final report to develop appropriate caregiver to resident and supervisor to caregiver ratios for nursing facilities that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The second major component of the bill is the establishment of a grant program to States for the purpose of augmenting staffing levels. This provision, which is based on a initiative announced by President Clinton in mid-September, will support projects aimed at improving the recruitment and retention of direct nursing staff. The bill also requires nursing homes to post, on a daily basis, the number of staff and residents at the facility as well as submit staffing information to the Secretary. As a member of the Special Senate Committee on Aging, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Nursing Home Staff Improvement Act, a balanced piece of legislation that I believe will go a long way in stabilizing nursing home staffing levels nationwide. I look forward to working with Senator Grassley and my other colleagues to enact this important legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Iowa, the Chairman of the Special Senate Committee on Aging, to introduce legislation that we hope will begin to address an immediate and critical labor shortage facing nursing home facilities across the nation as well as the long term objective of establishing nursing home staffing thresholds. In late July, the Health Care Financing Administration, HCFA, released the first phase of its long awaited report on the feasibility and appropriateness of minimum nursing home staffing ratios. The initial phase of this report explored the relationship between staffing levels and quality of care. The HCFA study found a strong correlation between certain staffing thresholds and the quality of care provided to nursing home residents. The report also found that nursing homes are having great difficulty in recruiting and retaining qualified staff to work in their facilities. Clearly, we can and should be doing more to ensure that the care of our elderly and disabled is not being placed at risk. In my home state of Rhode Island, we have been dealing with a critical shortage in the number of Certified Nursing Assistants, CNAs, in particular. CNAs provide direct care in a skilled nursing setting to residents who need help with essential daily living tasks, such as dressing, feeding and bathing. A state task force comprised of long term care providers and nursing home consumer advocates found that over 26,000 individuals were licensed as CNAs, but only 14,000 are currently working in the field. The task force also found that the turnover rate for CNAs rose to an unprecedented 82.6 percent in 1999. The two most important issues identified in the state report were wages and adequate staffing levels. In terms of wages, a person in my state can make more in starting salary as a hotel maid in Providence ($9.50/hour) than they would as a licensed CNA ($7.69/hour). Those individuals who have dedicated their careers to caring for our most vulnerable citizens certainly deserve better and the legislation we are introducing today will help to restore respect and dignity to the caregiver profession. The Nursing Home Staff Improvement Act will address these problems in essentially two ways. First, the legislation requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to complete the second phase of the nursing home staffing report by July 2001. The Secretary will then be called upon to use the findings and recommendations of the final report to develop appropriate caregiver to resident and supervisor to caregiver ratios for nursing facilities that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The second major component of the bill is the establishment of a grant program to States for the purpose of augmenting staffing levels. This provision, which is based on a initiative announced by President Clinton in mid-September, will support projects aimed at improving the recruitment and retention of direct nursing staff. The bill also requires nursing homes to post, on a daily basis, the number of staff and residents at the facility as well as submit staffing information to the Secretary. As a member of the Special Senate Committee on Aging, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Nursing Home Staff Improvement Act, a balanced piece of legislation that I believe will go a long way in stabilizing nursing home staffing levels nationwide. I look forward to working with Senator Grassley and my other colleagues to enact this important legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, there has been much discussion about the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. I think it is useful and appropriate to focus on precisely what this act does. First, in 1997 Congress passed the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act. Essentially, this bill granted permanent residency to Nicaraguans and Cubans who had fled oppressive governments. But we also recognize that there were thousands of other individuals from Central America who were fleeing the same type of repression, the same type of uncertainty in their lives, and violence in their lives. Yet these individuals were not covered by this legislation. One of the major provisions of the bill we are discussing is to recognize these individuals who also have been residing in the United States, who have been working in the United States, and who have been contributing to our communities. This is not at all some act of condoning illegality. Frankly, in 1997, we recognized that simple justice demanded that we allow individuals who are living in this country to adjust to permanent residency. We now want to expand that principle of fairness and decency to the others from that region. In addition, there are other areas of the world which have the same types of violence, chaos, and turmoil. Principally I have been active on behalf of the Liberians who are here--many since the early 1990s civil war in their country. This is not about condoning or recognizing lawlessness. It is about fairness. In fact, our immigration policy is such that we certainly recognize and extend extraordinary opportunities to Cubans who flee their country without documentation, simply by arriving on the shore, have argument or the opportunity to make the case to stay here. If we can do that for one particular group, I think in the context of the turmoil and chaos we have seen in Central America, we can do it for other groups. That is at the core of this legislation. Second, we have, since 1929, established a principle that if one enters this country and stays long enough and contributes to the communities in which he or she lives, they will be allowed to adjust to permanent status--this notion, called the registry date, is the idea that if you can document your presence in the United States for a long enough period of time, we will allow you to become a permanent resident and part of the citizenry. Another part of the legislation moves the day of registry from 1972 to 1986. I think that recognizes that periodically throughout our history we face the reality that people have come here and established themselves, and it would be unfair to send them to their native lands. We are simply updating that particular date to allow people who have been residing in this country since 1986 to become permanent residents. Finally, we would extend provision 245(i) which allows a person who qualified for a green card or work authorization to obtain a visa without first leaving the country. One of the changes we made recently in the immigration law was to require people physically to leave the United States to apply for a visa to come back in. That is not only an undue burden, but it complicates infinitely the lives of people who are working here, living here, and want to become permanent residents. This is not legislation that condones lawlessness, it is legislation that is consistent with many legislative acts we have adopted beginning in the 1920s. It is legislation that recognizes if we are extending special opportunities to some people in a region, we should also, in fairness, extend it to others in that same region. This is legislation that is not particularly novel, but it is eminently and inherently just and fair and should be before the Senate. But because of the parliamentary maneuvering and devices used, this legislation has not been offered in a way we can vote directly on it. Our plea has been, for months and months and months, to allow an up-or- down vote. There are serious policy issues regarding this legislation. People of good conscience can disagree. What is most disagreeable is that we have not had the opportunity to offer amendments on this legislation so that we can vote up or down. There is one part of the bill in which I am particularly interested because it applies to a group of people who have been residing in our country for almost a decade, the Liberian population; 10,000 Liberians. The cause of their stay in the United States was a vicious civil war in their homeland. Many have been here for years. They have established themselves. They have been working and paying taxes and not, because they are subject to temporary protected status, enjoying any particular public benefits. Many have children who are American citizens. One such individual, reported today in the Baltimore Sun is Gonlakpor Gonkpala, 48 years old. He has been living in the United States since he arrived as a student from Liberia in 1982. He got a degree in finance at Central State University in Wilberforce, OH, and did graduate work at Morgan State University. The civil war has prevented him from returning home. Today he lives in Brockton, MA, where he owns a three-bedroom house, belongs to a Masonic lodge, and is a member of the Methodist Church. He manages a CVS pharmacy. But Friday, without extension of DED, deferred enforced departure, his work authority will cease and he will be deported back to Liberia. This is typical of so many people. It seems to me supremely ironic that as we are taking people from around the world under H-1B visas to man our industrial and commercial enterprises throughout this country, we are literally sending people who are already here, working hard, contributing and making our economy grow, we are sending them back to Liberia. At the same time we are proposing to send people back to Liberia, our State Department is issuing warnings telling American citizens: Don't go there; it is too dangerous; you are likely to be threatened, if not worse. We have been working with colleagues in this body for months to bring a bill to the floor on a bipartisan basis, Republicans and Democrats. Yet we have been denied systematically that opportunity. The denial to us means the status and the lives of 10,000 Liberians in the United States continue to hang by a very slender thread. I hope all who embrace the notion of fairness and justice in immigration will give us the opportunity to vote on this issue. To date, that has not happened. It is critical because the prospect of sending these people home is very daunting and dangerous for these individuals. Liberia today is a democracy in form but not a democracy in substance. It is plagued with violence, economic turmoil, uncertainty, and fear. As so many Liberians report to me, it is a place where they will not be accepted readily. Also, they very well could be threatened physically. Certainly, they would have difficult problems adapting. Many face a very difficult choice: Do I leave my American- born children, American citizens here, and go back, or do I bring them back to a country that is unprepared to care for them in terms of health care, education, and other social endeavors? That is what is at stake. It is the same for so many families who are Latinos in this country. That is what we are about: The same kind of simple justice since the same kind of difficult situations faced by the Liberians are faced by Hispanics. We want to give them a chance to adjust their status. It is not a recognition of lawlessness, it is in a sense a recognition of these people's contributions to America and their commitment to our country. The situation is one which is especially compelling for me. Our ties to Liberia are older than any in Africa. The country was established by freed American slaves. Its capital is Monrovia, named after President Monroe. It has for years been a place for which Americans and Liberians have felt a special kinship. Today it is ruled by a President, Charles Taylor, who has been implicated in crimes of violence in neighboring country Sierra Leone, who has been nonsupportive of human rights and political freedoms, who has conducted a regime that is repressive and rightly criticized by so many. I don't believe we can or should send thousands of Liberians residing here back to Liberia. What we have is an opportunity to do something that is both fair and, I believe, entirely appropriate. But that opportunity has been frustrated left and right by the unwillingness to give us the opportunity to bring this measure forward. Later today, we have an opportunity to vote on a resolution that will allow us at least to get a vote. We will continue to press on. We will continue to try to inject justice into our system of immigration, to recognize that there are thousands and thousands of people who are living here who desperately want to stay here, who want to continue to contribute to America. I hope we recognize their contribution and give them a chance to stay. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield such time as I may consume from the Democratic time.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I had the opportunity to speak prior to Senator Bingaman about the issues pending before us with respect to immigration, and, in particular, with regard to the Liberian community in the United States--10,000 individuals who are facing immediate deportation unless the President extends DED, which is the acronym for deferred enforced departure. I certainly would urge the President to do that. As a result of our inability to bring this measure to the floor over the last several months, there is very little option for these people except for the Presidential issuance of a DED proclamation. I would urge him to do that. But that does not solve the problem. That would essentially give the Liberians in the United States another year. But still their life would be tenuous. They would be unsure of whether or not they could stay through the next year. As a result, I believe what we must do is come to grips with the underlying issue, and allow these individuals to adjust to permanent status in the United States and, hopefully, become citizens of this country. We have to do that, I think, because each year the equity and the logic of allowing them to become permanent citizens becomes more compelling. It has been 10 years now since many of them came to this country. In another year it will be 11. At some point, simple justice requires that they be allowed to make an adjustment to permanent status and become citizens of this country. It is important to recognize how the Liberian community got to this particular juncture. In 1991, in that era of violent civil war in Liberia, the Attorney General granted temporary protected status, recognizing that the chaos in Liberia was so great that, in good conscience, we could not force these people to return to Liberia. That TPS status was extended year after year after year, until very recently when it was determined that the conditions in Liberia momentarily had stabilized. But the President, recognizing that what appeared to be a formal democratic government process in Liberia was, in effect, covering up great confusion, great chaos, great turmoil in the country, and did not require the deportation of these individuals but invoked DED. I have heard on the floor suggestions that our proposal with respect to Liberia and, indeed with respect to other immigrant groups, is some novel, unique, first-time attempt to upset the ``majesty'' of our immigration laws; when, in fact, periodically in the United States we have recognized that people have come here with temporary documentation but now have stayed long enough, have contributed to our communities, and, in doing so, deserve the opportunity to become permanent residents and citizens. In 1988, Congress passed a law allowing four national groups that had been allowed to stay in the U.S. at the Attorney General's discretion to adjust to permanent resident status: 4,996 Poles who had been here for 3 years; 378 Ugandans who had been here for 10 years; 565 Afghanis who had been here for 8 years; and about 1,200 Ethiopians who had been here for 11 years. So this process of recognizing the reality of the contribution of people who come here intending initially to stay temporarily is nothing new. The 102d Congress passed a law allowing Chinese nationals who had been granted DED--they were in the same position as Liberians are now-- to adjust to permanent residency after the Tiananmen Square atrocity. After the Chinese authorities brutally repressed the demonstration of young students, it was feared that to return these people to China would place them in great peril--I think a well-founded fear. But over the next 4 years, 52,000 Chinese changed their status. So, again, we recognized turmoil in a country, we recognized individuals are here who established themselves, and we have given them a chance to adjust. That is simply what we are asking for with respect to Liberians, with respect to many Central Americans who are here. In the last Congress, we passed NACARA, which recognized some of the need and some of the demand to give people from Central America a chance to establish themselves here permanently. So what we have seen over the course of many years is a pattern of recognizing the need of particular groups who come here without documentation or with temporary protection, who establish themselves, who contribute to their communities, and who, under our law--both its letter and its spirit-- deserve a chance to adjust their status. That is at the heart of what we are attempting to do with these several amendments that we wanted to originally propose to the H-1B visa bill. I think it is an appropriate vehicle. After all, we are all supportive of the need of high-tech industry for workers. I think we can equally be supportive of those people who are working today, not only in high tech but in a host of enterprises throughout this country, who face deportation, who face being returned to their homeland. They are already contributing to our country, yet we have not been able to bring such measures to the floor for the kind of up-and-down vote that their situation demands. I hope we can at some point. It is very critical to the Liberians. It is critical to many other people. The criticality for Liberians turns, I think, on the conditions in their own homeland. We have a situation where there was an election. It was monitored by international authorities. In form it looked democratic, but in substance it has not resulted in a democratic regime that is protective of the rights of individuals. There are numerous examples of human rights abuses that persist today in Liberia. Last year, for example, human rights organizations estimated that approximately 100 individuals were victims of extrajudicial killings, but yet there have been no convictions of anyone involved in these killings. I had an individual visit me in my office in Rhode Island who had just returned from Liberia. He went back there. He is trying to promote commerce and industry between the two countries of the United States and Liberia. And he is associated with a political party that is out of favor at the moment over there. He was traveling with one of their principal politicians. He was in a car, leaving a particular village, and they were warned to go the other way because an ambush had been set up to either kidnap them or kill them. They avoided that situation by a few moments and the intercession of someone who gave them advice to go the other way. I am told this is very common in Liberia. We have also seen eyewitness accounts of incidents in villages. Last year a village was surrounded by Government security forces. All the men were taken away. Their fate is yet to be determined. In 1999, the State Department issued a report, their country report, which stated that Government security forces, sometimes torture, beat, and otherwise abuse and humiliate citizens. Victims reported being held in water-filled holes in the ground, being injured when fires were kindled on grates over their heads, suffering beatings, and sexual abuse. All of this is attributed to Government security forces. President Taylor has stated that these reports of human rights abuses are simply the results of these human rights organizations trying to interfere with his country. I think that could not be further from the truth. There is a pattern. There is evidence. There is persistent evidence of these types of abuses. In 1999, Government security personnel were involved in the looting of 1,450 tons of food intended for Sierra Leone refugees. And they stole vehicles belonging to nongovernmental organizations that were sent to Liberia to help refugees in Sierra Leone. Prison conditions are harsh in the country. There are reports of torture, of detainees being held without charges. Government security forces continue to harass and threaten political opposition figures. Freedom of the press is not a reality. The press is repressed rather than encouraged. We find a situation that is consistent throughout the country with these types of human rights abuses, so much so that our State Department has suggested and advised Americans not to travel to Liberia. So we are on the verge of a decision, I hope, by the White House to extend deferred enforced departure, a decision that is entirely appropriate but insufficient to deal with the underlying issues. The underlying issues involve 10,000 Liberians who have come to this country, who have been offered sanctuary--we must applaud the generosity of spirit that motivated the offer of temporary protected status--have established themselves, and now wait with uncertainty and doubt about their future. Simply to extend this uncertainty and this doubt year by year by year is cruel but also fails to recognize that they have become so much a part of our communities in such a constructive way. I mentioned before an individual who has a master's degree, who is now managing a CVS store in Massachusetts, who owns his home. He is somebody who is contributing to our economy today. He is someone who is here making our economy work for us. Yet he faces the prospect of being denied the ability to work, come Friday, and being potentially deported back to a country which is unwilling in many respects to accept him back. For many reasons, we have to be supportive of this effort to bring this legislation to the floor. What is so frustrating is that for many months now, working in the way I believe the Senate works, making the case to my colleagues, getting the support across the aisle of several colleagues for bipartisan legislation, of working for the kind of support that would be necessary to pass this legislation, but ultimately being frustrated because it became quite clear there was no real intent to give this community, to give this legislation a vote, up or down, on the floor. That is the wrong way to use the process. I don't think anyone here should be afraid of taking a vote on this particular measure. One could disagree with the policy. One could disagree with the principle, articulate those differences and then vote. What we find, time after time after time, is that type of principled, rational, careful legislative debate and decision is frustrated by the decision that we can only recognize one immigration issue, and that is ensuring that high-technology companies have sufficient workers. We can't recognize the many other immigration issues, the many other individuals who cry out for simple justice and cry out for the chance to be good Americans, to be recognized as such, to have the chance to change their status to permanent residents and, we hope, ultimately to become citizens of this great country. We can do better. I don't think we have to limit our vision and our efforts and our activities simply to keep our economy moving forward. I think we can recognize something else, to ensure that we are fair and just in our dealings with thousands of people who come to this country and, by the way, who contribute significantly to our economy. I hope we can do both. I hope in the next few days we can resolve this impasse and we can get a vote, and we can pass this measure with respect to the Liberians but also with respect to Latinos and other groups who have been here and continue to be part of our great country and want their contribution recognized with the opportunity to become citizens of this country. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to also speak about a grave omission with respect to the debate that is ongoing regarding H-1B visas. There is widespread support for the H-1B visa program. What has happened is that our ability to also address other compelling immigration issues has been totally frustrated by this cloture process, by this overt attempt to eliminate amendments, to eliminate our ability to deal with other issues. One in particular that is compelling to me is the status of 10,000 Liberians who have been here in the United States since 1989- 1990, when the country of Liberia was thrust into a destructive civil war. These people came here. They were recognized, because of the violence in their homeland, as being deserving of temporary protective status. That status was granted in 1991 by the Attorney General. For almost a decade now they have been here in the United States, working, paying taxes, raising families while not qualifying for any type of social benefits such as welfare. Many of these people, who are here legally, have children who are American citizens. They are within hours of losing their protection and being deported back to Liberia. In response to this pressing dilemma, I introduced legislation in March of 1999 cosponsored by Senator Wellstone, Senator Kennedy, Senator Durbin, Senator Kerry, Senator Landrieu, Senator Hagel, and Senator L. Chafee. Our attempt was to allow these Liberians the opportunity to adjust to permanent resident status and one day become citizens of this country. There are 10,000 located across the country. They have been contributing members of these communities. Yet, because of the process we have adopted here, because of the unwillingness to take up this issue--which is a key immigration issue, along with the H- 1B--these individuals are perhaps facing expulsion from this country in the next few days. I hope we can deal with this. It is essential we do so. One of the great ironies of our treatment of the Liberians is that at the moment we are prepared to deport them to Liberia, we are urging American citizens not to go to that country because it is so violent. Our State Department has released official guidance to Americans warning them not to travel to Liberia because of the instability, because of the potential for violence, because of the inability of civil authorities to protect not only Americans but to protect anyone in Liberia. So we are at one time saying, don't go to Liberia if you are an American citizen, but unless we pass this legislation or unless, once again, the President authorizes deferral of forced departure-- essentially staying the deportation of these Liberians--we are going to send these people back into a country to which we are advising Americans not to go. Although this country had a democratic election a few years ago, it was an election more in form than substance. It is a country governed by a President who is a warlord, someone who is not a constructive force for peace and progress in that part of Africa. In fact, he started his political career by escaping from a prison in Massachusetts, going back to Liberia, and then organizing his military forces to begin this civil war. One of his first accomplishments, according to the New Republic, was the creation of a small boys unit, a battalion of intensely loyal child soldiers who are fed crack cocaine and refer to Taylor as ``our father.'' This is the leader of a country who has also been implicated in a disturbance in the adjoining country of Sierra Leone. Month after month, we have seen horrible pictures of the degradations that are going on there in Sierra Leone. He is involved in that, supporting homicidal forces in Sierra Leone. This is not a place we want to send people back to--people who have resided in our country for 10 years, people who have been part of our communities, young people particularly, who know very little about Liberia and will be thrust back into a situation where their protection is in jeopardy and where their future is in great jeopardy in terms of access to schools and education and other necessary programs. For months now--starting last March--we have been lobbying intensively to get an opportunity at least to vote on legislation that would allow these individuals to adjust to permanent status. That legislative approach has been frustrated time and time again, most recently with the decision that we would not accept certain amendments to this H-1B visa bill. In fact, one of the ironies is that of those 10,000 Liberians, many of whom were professionals in their homeland, I suspect at least a few of them are working in these high-tech industries. If they are, the irony is that we would be sending them home so that the high-tech community can complain about losing workers and needing more H-1B visas. I think simple justice demands that we do both, that we press not only for H-1B visas but also for some of the issues that have been addressed by Senator Kennedy, and the issue in Liberia. These people deserve a chance to adjust their status and become full-fledged Americans. There is some discussion that they should go back to Liberia, but as I have tried to suggest in my remarks, this is a country that is chaotic at best. The Government is really subservient to the leadership of the President, Charles Taylor. It is an area of the world where there are not social services and the basic economics of the country are faulty. I think all of these together suggest compellingly the need to allow the individuals to adjust. I hope in the next few days, or in the remaining days of this legislative session, we will have another opportunity to address this legislatively. I certainly hope that if we are unable to do so, the cause will be taken up by the administration when it comes to discussions for the final legislative initiatives of this Congress, so we will not leave these people once again in a gray area, in a ``twilight zone,'' where they want to stay in this country but face the threat of deportation each and every year. I hope we do better. I am disappointed--gravely disappointed--we did not allow an opportunity to vote on this measure in conjunction with this H-1B legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, like the Senator, I am frustrated because we are trying to simply recognize the reality that there are many, many individuals in the United States who have been here for years and who deserve an opportunity to become permanent residents, and it is not only within the Latino community but the Liberian community. These individuals from Liberia came over legally, under temporary protective status. That is one of the pieces of legislation also frustrated by this device to preclude amendments. I wonder if the Senator might amplify the fact that, indeed, if we were successful to get a vote on this measure, we could also address the issue of 10,000 Liberians who are literally perhaps hours from being deported, except for administrative order, and it is a population that has contributed to our communities; and we should recognize that they deserve the opportunity to adjust to permanent status, and they are being ignored by these parliamentary maneuvers--worse than ignored.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, the junior Senator from Vermont, in introducing legislation that I hope will resolve an issue that has needlessly confined Medicare beneficiaries receiving home health benefits to their residences. Today, my colleague and I are introducing a revised version of a bill we introduced earlier this year. I am pleased that this new legislation, the Home Health Care Protection Act, has the support of several national aging organizations, including the Alzheimer's Association, the National Council on Aging and the National Association for Home Care. The Home Health Care Protection Act seeks to clarify the conditions under which a beneficiary may leave his or her home while maintaining eligibility for Medicare home health services. The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) requires that a beneficiary be ``confined to the home'' in order to be eligible for services. The current homebound requirement is supposed to allow beneficiaries to leave the home to attend adult day care services, receive medical treatment, or make occasional trips for non-medical purposes, such as going to the barber. However, the definition has been inconsistently applied, resulting in great distress for beneficiaries who are fearful that they will lose their benefit if they leave their home to attend events such as church services. Clearly, the intent of the rule is not to make our frail elderly prisoners in their own homes. The legislation we are introducing today seeks to bring greater clarity to the homebound definition so that they no longer are. I am proud to have worked with my colleague, Senator Jeffords, on this issue and hope that we can get this legislation passed before the end of the session. Mr. President, the Home Health Care Protection Act seeks to provide some reasonable parameters that will enable beneficiaries suffering from Alzheimer's, among other chronic and debilitating diseases, to leave their home without worry. This modest legislation would make a real difference to home health beneficiaries in my state of Rhode Island as well as Medicare beneficiaries across the country and I would urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to add my voice to the chorus of support for this legislation, which will have a strong positive impact on the youth of this nation. The first element of this initiative that I would like to highlight are the provisions regarding children's public health. This effort will greatly enhance health promotion and disease prevention directed towards youth, improve access to certain health care services for needy children and bolster resources for pediatric-specific medical research. Children are our most precious resource, and we should do all we can to enable our children to reach their full potential both physically and intellectually. The Children's Public Health Act takes an important step toward achieving this goal by creating an environment where children are able to grow and develop unhindered by the burden of disease. Medical science has made incredible strides in reducing and preventing devastating childhood diseases that were prevalent only a generation ago. Yet, despite these advances in our ability to stem the spread of deadly infectious diseases, there has been an increase in the incidence of chronic and debilitating disorders that afflict children. Specifically, over the past decade, we have seen a rise in the number of children suffering from asthma, autism, and other diseases attributed to poor diet and lack of physical activity, such as diabetes, high cholesterol and hypertension in young children. This legislation sets forth a balanced, creative approach to these troubling pediatric conditions by augmenting pediatric clinical research, while also expanding and intensifying screening, education, outreach, monitoring and training efforts led by State and local public health agencies and other health care providers. There are two specific initiatives that I am especially proud of in this legislation. The first seeks to address an entirely preventable problem that continues to plague far too many children in this nation-- lead poisoning. While tremendous strides have been made over the last 20 years in reducing lead exposure among our citizens, it is estimated that nearly one million preschoolers nationwide still have excessive levels of lead in their blood--making lead poisoning the leading childhood environmental disease. Lead is most harmful to children under age six because lead is easily absorbed into their growing bodies, and interferes with the developing brain and nervous system. The effect of lead poisoning on a child ranges from mild to severe. Most often in the U.S., children are poisoned through chronic, low-level exposure to lead-based paint, which can cause reduced IQ and attention span, hyperactivity, impaired growth, reading and learning disabilities. Children with high blood lead levels can suffer from brain damage, behavior and learning problems, slowed growth, and hearing loss, among other maladies. Timely childhood lead screening and appropriate follow-up care for children most at-risk of lead exposure is critical to mitigating the long-term health and developmental effects of lead. Regrettably, our current system is not adequately protecting children, particularly low- income children, from this hazard. It is estimated that two-thirds of at-risk children have never been screened and, consequently, remain untreated. This legislation takes some of the critical steps necessary to begin to address this problem. Specifically, the bill strengthens the lead program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by providing new resources to conduct extensive outreach and education in coordination with other state programs that serve families with children at-risk of lead poisoning, such as WIC and Head Start. The bill also authorizes the implementation of community-based interventions to mitigate lead hazards and establishes guidelines for the reporting and tracking of blood lead screening tests so that we may have more accurate data on the number of lead-exposed children nationwide. The legislation also designates resources for health care provider education and training on current lead screening practices. The second element of this bill that I believe will have a major impact on improving the overall health of children relates to the problem of childhood obesity. Over the past fifteen years, the number of overweight children in this country has doubled. It is estimated that an alarming five million youth 6-19 years of age are overweight, while another six million children are overweight to the point that their health is endangered. Contributing to this alarming trend has been the rise in fast food consumption, coupled with an increasingly sedentary lifestyle where time engaged in physical activity has been replaced by hours playing computer games and watching television. The New York Times recently noted that the average child between the ages of 6 and 11 watches 25 hours of television a week--and this does not include time spent playing video games or on a computer. Another reason for the lack of physical activity in children is the reduction in daily participation in physical education classes. Fewer and fewer States require school districts to offer physical education, despite the fact that children who engage in regular physical activity often perform better in school. We are raising a generation of inactive children that will likely become inactive, chronically ill adults. By not ensuring kids take time to participate in regular physical activity, we, as a society, are doing them a great disservice in the long run. Already, we are seeing younger and younger Americans with the signs of heart disease and diabetes, among other obesity-linked illnesses. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 60 percent of overweight 5-10 year old children already have at least one risk factor for heart disease, such as hypertension, while the number of children diagnosed with Type II diabetes has skyrocketed. If we continue on this trajectory, obesity-related illnesses will soon rival smoking as a leading cause of preventable death, costing hundreds of thousands of American lives and billions of dollars in health care costs and lost productivity. Clearly, action needs to be taken. This legislation acknowledges this trend and attempts to reverse it through a multi-faceted approach. First, the bill authorizes a new competitive grant program through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assist states and localities to develop and implement comprehensive school- and community-based approaches to promoting good nutrition and physical activity among children. The bill also calls for greater applied research to improve our understanding of the multiple factors that contribute to obesity and eating disorders and emphasizes the need for a nationwide public education campaign to educate families about the importance of good eating habits and regular physical activity. Lastly, the bill provides for health professional education and training to aid in the identification and treatment of overweight children, children suffering from an eating disorder or children at risk of these conditions. The other major component of this bill is based on S. 976, the Youth Drug and Mental Health Services Act, which originated in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and passed the full Senate last year. This legislation reauthorizes programs administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), and also provides many enhancements that will specifically benefit children and adolescents suffering from substance abuse or mental health problems, children who have witnessed violence, and children from families needing substance abuse or mental health treatment and other support services. I am pleased that this legislation includes a provision that I worked on to address the severe shortage of transitional services for youth who are leaving the juvenile justice system. Specifically, the bill addresses this shortage by authorizing grants to local juvenile justice agencies to provide comprehensive community-based services such as mental health and substance abuse treatment, job training, vocational services, and mentoring programs to juvenile offenders. Studies have found that the juvenile population has a special need for these types of services, mental health and substance abuse treatment, in particular. It is estimated that the rate of mental disorder is two to three times higher among the juvenile offender population than among youth in the general population. According to a 1994 Department of Justice study, 73 percent of the juveniles surveyed reported mental health problems, and 57 percent reported past treatment. Also, it is estimated that 60 percent of youth in the juvenile justice system have substance abuse disorders, compared to 22 percent in the general population. Unfortunately, there currently exists little, if any, support for youth who are leaving the juvenile justice system. Many services, such as mental health and substance abuse treatment, provided while the youngster was detained or incarcerated, are discontinued upon their release. Given this breakdown in the continuity of services, it is hardly surprising that of the 4 million youngsters arrested each year, 30 percent are likely to recidivate within the year of arrest. In the handful of places where transitional services have been provided, the results have been outstanding. For instance, in Rhode Island we have a successful program called ``Project Reach.'' Yale University, in its evaluation of Project Reach, found that children receiving transitional services improved dramatically: 80 percent had significant increases in their grades in school; school attendance increased from 50 to 75 percent; and there was a 60 percent reduction in youth encounters with police after enrolling in the program. In addition, there was a 50 percent decrease in out-of-home placement for these children. In other words, children who once had problems so severe that they had to be removed from their homes are now able to remain with their families in their communities. Adequate transitional and aftercare services to prevent recidivism are essential to reducing the societal costs associated with juvenile delinquency, promoting teen health, and fostering safe communities. These provisions recognize the serious gap in services for youth offenders and takes important steps to address this serious deficiency. I am grateful for the inclusion of this critical language in the bill. As I have noted, there are many positive aspects to this legislation. However, I have deep reservations about a particular provision that was retained in the SAMHSA bill that allows all religious institutions, including pervasively religious organizations, such as churches and other houses of worship, to use taxpayer dollars to advance their religious mission. I oppose this ``charitable choice'' language and offered an amendment to modify it when the original legislation was considered in Committee last year. Although charitable choice has already become law as a part of welfare reform and the Community Services Block Grant, CSBG, section of the Human Services Reauthorization Act, the inclusion of charitable choice in this legislation is particularly disturbing since, unlike its application to the intermittent services provided under Welfare Reform and CSBG, SAMHSA funds are used to provide substance abuse treatment which is ongoing, involves direct counseling of beneficiaries and is often clinical in nature. In the context of these programs it would be difficult if not impossible to segregate religious indoctrination from the social service. Faith-based organizations do have an important and necessary role to play in combating many of our nation's social ills, including youth violence, homelessness, and substance abuse. In fact, I have seen first-hand the impact that faith-based organizations such as Catholic Charities have on delivering certain services to people in need in my own state. By enabling faith-based organizations to join in the battle against substance abuse, we add another powerful tool in our ongoing efforts to help people move from dependence to independence. While there are many benefits that come with allowing religious organizations to provide social services with federal funds, I am concerned that without proper safeguards, well-intentioned proposals to help religious organizations aid needy populations, might actually harm the First Amendment's principle of separation of church and state. The charitable choice provision creates a disturbing new avenue for employment discrimination and proselytization in programs funded by SAMHSA. Under current law, many religiously-affiliated nonprofit organizations already provide government-funded social services without employment discrimination and proselytization. However, the legislation extends Title VII's religious exemption to cover the hiring practices of organizations participating in SAMHSA programs. As I already mentioned, during markup, I offered an amendment that would have addressed this issue by including important safeguards and protections for beneficiaries and employees of SAMHSA funded programs. Specifically, the amendment would have removed the provision that allows religious organizations to require employees hired for SAMHSA funded programs to subscribe to the organization's religious tenets and teachings. Since the bill prohibits religious organizations from proselytizing in conjunction with the dissemination of social services under SAMHSA programs, it seems contradictory to permit religious organizations to require their employees to subscribe to the organization's tenets and teachings when it has no bearing on the provision of services. Second, the amendment would have eliminated the extension of Title VII's religious exemption to cover the hiring practices of organizations participating in SAMHSA funded programs. Ultimately, my proposal would not have reduced the ability of religious groups to hire co-religionists or more actively participate in SAMHSA funded programs. It merely would have eliminated the explicit ability to discriminate in taxpayer-funded employment and left to the courts the decision of whether employees who work on, or are paid through, government grants or contracts are exempt from the prohibition on religious employment discrimination. For the last 30 years, federal civil rights laws have expanded employment opportunities and sought to counter discrimination in the workplace. I recognize that we need the assistance of religious organizations in the battle against substance abuse. However, partnerships with faith-based organizations should augment--not replace--government programs. These partnerships should respect First Amendment protections and not allow taxpayer dollars to be used to proselytize or to support discrimination. I believe we need a far more robust and informed debate before we allow any expansion of current exemptions to Title VII. Nevertheless, this combined legislation has many meaningful provisions that will go a long way towards improving the health and well-being of our children. This legislation not only strengthens pediatric medical research, it also includes important enhancements in maternal and prenatal health as well as several other health promotion and disease prevention initiatives that will greatly enhance the quality of life for children. Similarly, the bill contains elements that will greatly improve mental health and substance abuse services for children and adolescents. I am pleased to have worked on this legislation and look forward to its expeditious passage this year.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we have, for many days, been debating the momentous decision of extending permanent normal trade relations with China. At the essence of our debate is a very simple question: Will we continue a policy of economic engagement with China or will we turn away? I believe we have to continue this policy of engagement. We have pursued this policy for almost 30 years. It has contributed to profound change in China. But it has not transformed China into a classical liberal democracy. It has not led to the establishment of a multiparty democracy, with an independent judiciary protecting the rights of China's people, particularly the rights of expression. It has not cramped China's policy which supports the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. But it has placed China on a very different historical trajectory than could have taken place. This notion of the change brought in China came to me with great force last August when I was traveling through China. I was at Dandong on the Yalu River. We were looking across into North Korea. One of our guides pointed out that in the 1950s and early 1960s, North Korea had a higher per capita income. North Korea was seen as the model of socialist development in Asia. North Korea had had a heavy industrial sector that was competitive with many parts of the world. Yet today--at that time last year--we were peering into a country that was starving, that had an economic system in collapse, that we were concerned could be so unstable they could threaten the peace of the region. They did not choose the trajectory of international trade. They did not choose the path of engagement with the West. One can ask: Had China gone that route, had we not tried to engage China, would we be facing today a country with over 1 billion people hermetically sealed in an economically failing and ideologically driven country, armed with nuclear weapons? If we were confronting such a country, I think we would be much worse off than we are today, even with the frustrating and uneven relationship that we have--and we must admit we have--with China. So I believe that we must continue this policy of engagement, which is at the heart of the extension of permanent normal trade relations. China is now a part of the world and the world economy, but it is also still China. It is a mixture of modernity and also a mixture of the old, indeed, the ancient. One of the examples that I have seen in China--this one occurred just a few weeks ago when I was traveling there again--is the contrast in Wuhan. Wuhan is a city on the Yangtze Sea in China. It is an old city, not like the new cities on the coast such as Shanghai and other cities. It is in some respects the Pittsburgh of China. It is a highly intense, heavily industrial city. You can tell that from the extraordinarily bad air pollution. There are two companies we saw. One was the Wuhan Iron and Steel Company. It is right out of the industrial age. Andrew Carnegie would have been right at home, except for the 386 computers that were running the facility. Then we saw another factory, the Yangtze Fiber Optic Company. Modern; it could have been in Silicon Valley in California, producing fiber optic cable, producing it to world standards, initially a product of investment by the Dutch company Phillips, now a wholly owned enterprise by Chinese owners. These are the examples of the economy--the old and the very modern. In addition to that, when you go out into the villages, you see perhaps the truly ancient. As you drive through China, you see individuals hammering away, as they have for thousands of years, repairing bicycles with hammers and not much else. You see farming activities that could go back thousands of years. It is a diverse country. But it is a country that has been profoundly affected by change in its contact with the West over the last several decades. The other factor that is being seen as a result of this contact is the pressures within China generated by this change. We sometimes, and quite rightly, look to the effects on the United States by this trade deal. We presume that the only effects that are felt in China are positive, are beneficial, that in fact they are not going to make difficult choices and decisions. In fact, the reality is they are already seeing the effects of this change, of this contact with the West. In the New York Times recently, there was an article about a factory in China where the workers, who were being let go because of the consolidation of this factory by their Western owners, were seizing the management, were blockading the facility, were effectively revolting from the effects of international trade. There are examples of violence where inefficient state-owned mines and enterprises are threatened with closure and workers are literally rising up to demand that these facilities remain open. So this change has also affected China. This change is recognized by the leadership. I had the opportunity to meet with Zhu Rongji, the Premier, while I was there just a few weeks ago. They understand very well that economic change will lead to political change. They might not welcome it. They might indeed try to avoid it. But they know that political forces, as well as economic forces, are unleashed when markets are open. That is one of the effects we will see through this extension of permanent normal trade relations. For many reasons, I believe to step away would be a mistake. It would immediately embolden those who are our most bitter antagonists within China. It would, in many ways, take away the legitimacy of those forces in China, not liberals, but pragmatists who have sought a relationship with the West, and the United States in particular, that emphasizes trade over hostility, that emphasizes engagement over conflict. To step away would also allow industrial nations around the world to take the benefits of our deal, the benefits of our bilateral relationship, the benefits of open trade with China, while we ineffectively try to use our abstention, our veto of China's entry into WTO, as very ineffectual political leverage to move them. To step away would also represent a serious rupture in our relations with China that could not be explained away as merely a dispute about trade, the technicalities of trade. It would harden attitudes and opinions within China and, indeed, here in the United States at a time when we need a constructive and candid dialogue about our differences. And our differences are real. In order to discuss these differences, in order to maintain this dialogue, the extension of PNTR is essential. It is quite evident at this juncture that a majority of my colleagues in the Senate find these reasons compelling, and PNTR will pass. But looking ahead, we should, at this point, be very cognizant of the possible consequences of PNTR. It will not be a panacea. It will not change China overnight. It will not lead to a huge increase in American exports to China. It will, in fact, create consequences that we may find very difficult. In fact, one of the points I tried to raise with Premier Zhu Rongji is that our expectations of China after PNTR will collide with the reality of China and may, indeed, usher in a period of more tension rather than less. Now China wants desperately to be part of this commercial system that is made up of the United States and our major trading partners--for want of a better term, ``first world'' countries--all in precise terms, all carrying a sense of who the players are. But this system has some embedded values with which the Chinese will have to come to grips. Our system emphasizes the protection of property rights. It also emphasizes the expectation of the regularity of governmental action. That is a polite term for ``no corruption.'' That is at the heart of our trading system. China has to come to grips with that. Moreover, I do not believe China can divorce itself from even more fundamental values that are part and parcel of the world outside of developing countries. They start with respect for human rights, which is at the core of our democratic values, and they include protections for workers and the environment. We may have been unsuccessful in getting into these agreements, with force and with effect, language regarding human rights and worker rights and environmental rights, but no country or economy in the world can operate indefinitely today without recognizing these rights. In a world of increasingly transparent borders, the lessons of the economic, social and, indeed, one would say, moral success which has steadily improved the life of those who live in market economies in the West, do not escape the people in China and the people around the world. To the extent that they open themselves up to trade, they open themselves up to exposing these values to their own people. China has a monumental task as they embrace this notion of free trade. It is not a one-way street. It is a two-way street. They face the task of transforming a system that is seriously undermined by persistent corruption, that pays scant respect to individual rights, that chooses order over law, and is obsessed with the need to keep millions of people working in an economy dominated by inefficient state-owned enterprises. Add to those domestic problems that are real and palpable the fear that internal disorder will lead to the exploitation of China by outside forces, a situation that dominated Chinese history in the last century and up until the 1940s. In one respect that is one of the major reasons why they are militarily provocative in many ways to us, because to us they look as if they want to, perhaps figuratively, take over the world. In China, they recognize that recently their country was divided by Americans, by British, by Germans, and that their country was ruled by others rather than themselves. All these forces are at play. The tremendous challenge to transform this country, the fear of their own security as a nation, because of these realities, we should not be surprised if China promises today more than it intends or even can deliver tomorrow with respect to these agreements. In an article in the American Prospect, James Mann, who is a very astute observer of China, pointed out that we frequently develop perceptions about China that are different than the reality of China. Many perceive China today as this modern country that is an economic monolith of force, of incredible production, a force of endless and cooperative labor. They also see it as a monolithic political system, with the Communist party dominating, that is capable of turning on a dime, turning the switch left or right. The reality is more complicated. The Chinese Communist Party plays the central role in the country, but it is an institution with internal factions. Some favor engagement with the West. Some disfavor it. Some harken back to the Maoist Cultural Revolution as the zenith of China. Others, quite properly--I hope the majority--reject that as a fantasy. But it is also a central authority that is constantly challenged by its provinces, constantly challenged by local political leaders. And the modernity of China, if you go to Shanghai, if you go to Hong Kong, certainly since it has not been absolved back into mainland China, that rapidly diminishes as you go away from the coast, as you go to the older cities, Wuhan and Shenyang, which years ago was known as Mukden, and as you travel to the small villages. Even with the wholehearted support of the leadership and the commitment of the party, it is hard to make things change. Mann relates a meeting between President Nixon and Mao Zedong in 1973. President Nixon opened with a bit of flattery by saying: The Chairman's writings have moved the nation and have changed the world. Mao, without missing a beat, retorted: I haven't been able to change it. I have only been able to change a few places in the vicinity of Beijing. The power, the capability, the willingness of China to change is questionable. But we know with the advent of WTO, even without WTO, with the continued pressure of interaction internationally, China will have to change. It has to reform inefficient industries while it still tries to maintain current employment and create 18 million jobs a year for new entrants into the labor force. This task alone has led to angry and sometimes violent conflict. It has to overhaul its justice system. It has to root out corruption. It also has to convince a very cynical population, particularly cynical about the Communist Party, that their future is going to be better rather than worse. This is not an apology of China. This is, I hope, a statement of the reality of the challenges they face and the challenges that we have to understand as not only trading partners but as major powers in this world together. In this collision between faithful implementation of WTO rules and the prospect of profound change that faces China, the Chinese leadership will be more than tempted to delay or undermine or misconstrue WTO rules. That, I would posit, is a very high probability. When this happens, ironically the business community that is descending upon us today to open up China, to get China into WTO, will descend upon us with equal force and say: Get tougher. And even without scrupulous adherence to the WTO, change is going to come to China. If this change further exacerbates the plight of millions of workers, the leadership could embark on a strongly nationalistic and assertive foreign policy as a means to galvanize support, to distract a disenchanted public from economic shortfalls. This could lead to more proliferation, more bellicose threats to Taiwan, the kind of military rumors that we all find disconcerting when it comes to China. Having said all this, having painted a picture of what, in my view, are some of the realities of China, and having very little confidence that this arrangement will be adhered to scrupulously and fairly and routinely and quickly, one might ask: Then why do it? We might not be getting a lot out of PNTR. Indeed, by voting for PNTR, we may only be trading the certainty of hostility for the chance to continue a relationship that is frustrating at best. But this relationship is critical to stability in the region and around the globe. For this reason, national security reason, if you would so describe it, this opportunity for stability, opportunity for time to work out some of these very fundamental problems is worth the effort. We should also understand, as I have described the rigorous change that might come to China, that this agreement will not be painless for the United States. There will be economic sectors, communities, families who will see their lives changed. We hope for the better, but we know that change works both ways. Industries are less competitive in certain cases. Products can be produced more efficiently, more effectively, more cheaply overseas, displacing American workers. So we have to recognize, too, that our response to this issue is not simply passing this legislation this week. It is continuing our efforts, indeed, redoubling our efforts to ensure that we have an education system in the United States that can prepare people for this world of intense competition, that we have a health care system that will allow families, particularly children, to have access to the best care in the world, that we will have a disciplined fiscal policy in this country that will provide the foundation, along with sensible monetary policy, for the continued expansion of our economy so that those economic benefits can flow not only to the very few but to all Americans. Our task is not to reject PNTR. Our task, if we accept PNTR, which I suspect we will, is to ensure that our efforts are directed to improve the quality, the competitiveness, the abilities of our workers. When we do that, we will have much less to fear about the disruptive change that will come through PNTR. Now, I have spent some moments speaking about the major themes I see emerging with respect to PNTR in relationship to China. Let me take a few more moments to talk about the tangible aspects of this legislation before us. This legislation is unlike other trade arrangements that I have debated and voted upon, specifically regarding NAFTA, where we were lowering our tariff barriers and opening our markets, and we were looking at a comparable lowering of barriers in Mexico. This is a situation where our markets are already open to China. Our markets have been open for years. This is the first time, though, we have had meaningful tariff reduction by the Chinese, meaningful elimination of nontariff barriers by the Chinese, opening up of a broad range of American industry--industrial, service industries, all of them--so that they can enter into China, allowing our companies to operate without necessarily having Chinese partners, allowing our companies to have their own distribution systems within China. This is a deal, economically, that represents concessions by the Chinese in terms of tariff barriers, nontariff barriers, entry of American business, and investment with very little, if any, concessions on our part because the reality is we have already, in effect, made those concessions years and years ago. The agreement binds tariff rates that China will charge on our goods because of the WTO framework, so that it can't unilaterally raise the tariffs. As I mentioned before, it covers a broad array of American products, banking, insurance, telecommunications, business, and computer services--all of which have had a difficult time getting into China. It also attempts to protect in a very meaningful way potential surges in goods of China coming in to the U.S. It allows us to use some domestic dumping tools that we already have in our legal inventory. It has gone a long way to try to counteract a surge of Chinese products coming in. But opponents, and indeed proponents, of this legislation point out an inescapable fact: We are running huge trade deficits to the world and, in particular, China. These trade deficits are something we have to deal with. Coincidentally, today, it was just announced that the trade deficit has hit an all-time high. It continued to break records this spring as foreigners kept pouring investment into the American economy and Americans stepped up their buying of foreign goods. We have a huge problem with our trade deficit. It is a ticking time bomb. China is a big part of it, but China is not the only part of it. Interestingly enough, a rapidly increasing percentage of American imports now comes from nations where wages are actually higher than in the United States--including Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Austria. They all enjoy booming exports from the United States. The current stereotypical thinking is that cheap wages in China is why they proliferate all their goods, and that is our problem; we are competing the heck out of the old European countries. But it turns out that is not the case either. In this world, company productivity, efficiency, quality in the workforce, and to be productive are just as determining. My point in all of this is that we have a trade deficit, but it is not solely, exclusively a function of China. I believe the response to that is not rejecting PNTR. It is first recognizing consciously the difficulty and beginning consciously and deliberately with respect to all of our trading partners to get more American products into their markets, to properly look at the techniques they are using to get their goods into our market, and to, in effect, look at this problem not as a Chinese problem but as an American problem. And it will be an American problem if we do not pay sufficient attention. It will be manifested in a sudden and rapid deterioration of our currency if enough forces come into play. At present, we are living in a world in which the security of the American market, the attractiveness of our investments, rules and regulations of the SEC, and a host of other things, make America a safe haven, a place where you want to put your money. But there may come a day when investors--and not principally Chinese investors, but others-- decide they are going to start selling American currency short because they can put the money elsewhere. Now, we have all seen the benefits of trade with China. I have seen it in Rhode Island. It has been growing from a very small base to a moderately larger base, and it continues to grow. In fact, years ago, one of the first glimpses I had of the global economy was going to an Italian parade on Federal Hill in Providence, RI, meeting a gentleman with whom I chatted. I took him to be a jewelry worker or somebody who worked in the plant. It turns out he owned that business in Rhode Island. We were chatting and he asked me, ``Have you ever been to China?'' That was 5 or 6 years ago. Then, he casually said he owned an aerosol factory in Beijing. So I knew when you go to an Italian festival in Providence and chat with a businessman and he owns an aerosol factory in China, the world is getting much smaller. It is happening all across the country. What we have tried to do in this agreement--we, the negotiators--is to recognize that some of our products that are very dear to the hearts of our economy will get some benefits. For example, on precious metals and jewelry--a huge part of our economy and still an important part-- China will reduce its tariffs from 40 percent to 11 percent. That, we hope, will help. In terms of information technology products, that is something we would like to be a bigger part of our economy, but it is a growing part. China will eliminate all duties on computers, electronics, fiber optic cable, as well as on scientific and measuring equipment. We have some of the oldest industrial measuring companies in the world, such as Browne and Sharpe; they, too, will benefit. And there are several more products where we can see advantages that will accrue directly to my home State of Rhode Island. Also, there is just a general benefit to the businesses and workers of America. It is very much manifested in small- and medium-size businesses because they are doing more and more trade with China. It has doubled in the last 5 years from about 3,100 small- and medium-size businesses trading with China to about 7,600 trading today. That should increase even more. Part of this arrangement in the President's proposal in terms of making PNTR work is making the Department of Commerce more active in promulgating trade with China--going out and educating small- and medium-size businesses about the advantages of trade with China, and show them through web sites and informational brochures how to get into the Chinese market. Once again, I believe-- and maybe this is the essence of our mutual faith in this country--that once our business- people and our workers have the idea and the knowledge to go out and do something, they are going to do it and do it very well. As I mentioned previously, we have already built in some protections against inevitable, or at least possible, surges of Chinese imports into our country. We have special provisions that will last 12 years, which deal with market disruptions and will not be limited to any one product but to all the products the Chinese may export to this country. We also will still have access to sections 301 and 201, and anti- dumping mechanisms that are American laws, but the Chinese have agreed to allow them to be used in this transition and in this implementation of PNTR and WTO. Congressman Levin of Michigan, as part of the bill we are considering today, has also created an executive-legislative commission that will oversee not only the trade impact but also the human rights issues that have been raised time and time again on this floor. This commission will be another vantage point from which we can assess and evaluate our relationship with China and their fidelity to the agreements they have signed. The long and the short of it is that this is an agreement in its details which gives advantages to the United States which will help us and which I believe should be supported. We are at a point where this measure I believe will pass. We are at a point at which we are embarking on a continuation of our relationship with China, but again a relationship that is still troubling to many. PNTR will not cure all the defects we see in China, nor eliminate all the defects they see in the United States. But it will continue to give us a framework to be engaged. It will continue to give us the opportunity and the time to work at some of these very fundamental problems. It will challenge the Chinese in many respects to do as much as we will be challenged --some would argue, even more. We, fortunately, have a system of government that is not dominated by a bureaucratic--and one would say anachronistic--single party. We have a citizenry that is educated. We have social networks. We have Social Security. We have Medicare. China--which is one of the ironies of that great socialist bastion-- has no system of national health care, has no system of pensions, has no system of Social Security. It is all tied into the terribly inefficient state-owned enterprises. And if they try to change these state-owned enterprises, they are going to have to create, in effect, a social welfare system, which we already have in place. But I also don't want to minimize the fact that in the lives of many American families, this legislation could force change. But the opportunity to continue this engagement, the opportunity to insist that the Chinese not only participate in a world order but be responsible for values of that order, is an opportunity I don't think we can pass up at this time. I will support this measure. I also look forward to the opportunity to come back here again when, in implementation, we see that they fall short; when, in implementation, they see us as falling short; but just the opportunity, and I think to be able to have a forum to carefully discuss these issues. It is better than turning away from China. It is better than inducing hostilities. It is better than the alternative. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Heidi Kirk Duffy upon her receipt of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany, First Class. Heidi was selected to receive the Order of Merit to recognize her ``outstanding contribution to the development of academic and economic interchanges between universities and companies of the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany.'' The Order of Merit will be bestowed upon Heidi in particular recognition of her commitment to the cultivation of a strong relationship between the University of Rhode Island's International Engineering Program and the Federal Republic of Germany. A native of the Dusseldorf area, Heidi is currently the Chair of the Advisory Board of the University of Rhode Island's International Engineering Program. At the conclusion of this five-year program, graduates receive two degrees, one in English and the other in German. Recently, the University of Rhode Island has also added degrees in Spanish and French. This International Engineering Program is considered to be one of the most unique programs of its kind in American higher education. Under her direction, the University of Rhode Island's Engineering Program provides both German and American students a global education. Due to Heidi's dedication and hard work, the Program has been truly successful in strengthening a transatlantic relationship between the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany. Heidi was notified earlier this year by the Consul General of the Federal Republic of Germany, Dr. P.C. Hauswedell, that she had been selected to receive the Order of Merit. The Verdienstkreuz 1. Klasse des Verdlenstordens der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, as it is known in German, is one of the highest honors give to civilians by the Federal Republic. She will receive the Order of Merit on Friday, August 4th at ceremonies in her honor in the Rhode Island Capital. I congratulate Heidi for her accomplishments and wish her luck as she continues in her endeavors.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to voice my objection to a particular provision of the Fiscal Year 2001 Defense Appropriation Act. Overall, I believe this legislation does much to meet the needs of the U.S. military. However, I believe that a provision relating to the procurement of C130Js sets a dangerous precedent which may jeopardize the military readiness of our nation. The Air Force requested two C130J aircraft in the FY01 budget. No other aircraft presently in the Air Force inventory can do what the C130 does. It is capable of taking cargo into small, unimproved airfields where larger, jet engine aircraft are not capable nor designed to go. The C130 is our only ``intra theater'' airlift, unlike the C17s, C141s and C5 which are ``inter theater'' airlift. Each year that the Air Force has received appropriations for C130Js, it has assigned the aircraft to those units in its total force which were in greatest need. In 1978, the Air National Guard even developed sound guidelines, based on objective criteria, to ensure that the units with the most aged and corroded aircraft received replacements first. This allocation method has been fair and effective and ensured that all units of our Air Force are modernized in an appropriate manner. For the past twenty-one years the Air Force has had the authority to determine where newly acquired aircraft were assigned--and the units most in need received the planes. However, many units are still flying planes which first flew in Vietnam and are rapidly reaching the end of their useful service life. This year, however, the Defense Appropriations Act directs that the two C130Js go to Western States Air National Guard units for firefighting. First, let me say that I am sympathetic to anyone at risk for forest fire damage. However, I question whether firefighting should be the determining factor for the allocation of military aircraft, particularly when the aircraft in this bill would be used to replace existing firefighting aircraft. Secondly, the designation of these aircraft for Western States deviates from the guidelines which the National Guard designed and has followed for the past twenty years. These aircraft units are not at the top of the Air Force's priority replacement plan. Lastly, and most importantly, the inclusion of this directive language could set a very bad precedent. This would be the first time Congress has usurped the authority of the Air Force in determining which units should receive new C130 aircraft. It is my hope that this provision is an exception to the rule and that next year the Congress will not override the decision of the Air Force to allocate aircraft based on an objective evaluation of need. I hope that, and will work to ensure that, Congress allows the Air Force to exercise its judgement in deciding which units should be modernized with any aircraft approved in the budget process. To do otherwise raises serious doubts about our commitment to military readiness.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. REED. I am aware of that. It is one of the situations where, after months and months of cooperating, of trying to accommodate, mutually, the desire and the recognition of getting things done, at some point when we see no movement with respect to our constitutional obligation to confirm judges, no real movement, when we see the elementary and secondary education bill that has been put out to languish and perhaps not to see the light of day for the rest of the year, when we see a process in which the price of bringing a bill to the floor is an agreement to surrender the rights of individual Senators to amend that legislation, to make that amendment process subject to the approval of the majority leader, when we see all those things, what I think we have to do and what we must do is insist that we get back, away from that process of majority oppression. Perhaps that is too melodramatic. We have to get back to the rules of the Senate, the spirit of the Senate, which, I believe, is open debate, open amendment, and a vote. Frankly, if that were the rule that was forthcoming from the majority leader, if the majority leader said, bring ESEA back, open up the amendment process, vote; when we finish the amendments, if the debate goes too long, in my prerogative, after long debate, I will enter a cloture motion--that is the way the Senate should operate. I suggest that is not the way this Senate is operating. That is why we are here today. There is responsibility for every individual Senator for what happens on the floor of the Senate. Certainly the management of the Senate is within the grasp and the control immediately of the majority leader and the majority. That control has been deliberately, I think, to thwart the nomination and the confirmation of judges and deliberately to frustrate legislation important to the American people because there might be amendments that are uncomfortable for consideration by some in this body.

Mr. REED. Reclaiming my time, essentially what the Senator is arguing, by implication, is that the majority leader has the sole responsibility and sole prerogative to pick who will come to this floor for consideration as a judge. I am amazed at this whole process. Look at judges who have been pending for almost a year and their names are not coming to the surface. That is something more at work than the breaks of the game. That is a deliberate attempt by the majority to suppress the nomination of individual judges. Frankly, an offer to bring some judges to the floor is, in my view, insufficient unless that offer was transparent, saying we will begin to work down the judges who have been pending longest, with perhaps other criteria, such as districts or circuits that need judges. But that is not how it is working. These magnanimous offers of bringing up a couple of judges--I believe I saw yesterday where three judges from Arizona were just nominated by the President, and they already have hearings scheduled. We have other judges who were nominated over a year ago, and they have not even had a hearing, a year later. Some magnanimous gestures by the majority leader are self- serving and ultimately had to be rejected by the minority. I respect the Senator, but I will continue my discussion on some other points.

Mr. REED. These two letters are strong statements on behalf of the legislation, the Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act, which I have spoken about and which I ardently desire to see acted upon in this session in the next few weeks. Bill Gray, as many know, is a former distinguished Congressman from Philadelphia, PA. He is now President of the College Fund, which was formerly known as the United Negro College Fund. He points out in his letter the long association between the United States and Liberia and urges that we act quickly and decisively to pass this legislation. The letter from the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service also makes that same plea for prompt and sympathetic action on this legislation. It is signed also on behalf of numerous organizations: the Catholic Charities Immigration Legal Services Program; the Episcopal Migration Ministries; the National Ministries of American Baptist Churches USA; the Lutheran Social Services of Minnesota; the Union of American Hebrew Congregations; the United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; and it goes on and on. Again, this is the heartfelt plea by the church community and the religious community in general of this country for a favorable and immediate response to the plight of these Liberians who are here with us.

Mr. REED. The youth crime gun interdiction initiative and the national integrative ballistics information network are important issues. Those are the issues we are talking about. They are a subset of what I argue is the larger issue. The larger issue: Is the Senate going to be the Senate? Or is it some type of smaller House of Representatives where the leadership dictates what is coming to the floor, what judge's name might come up, what bill might come up, what amendment might come up, when it all comes about? That, I think, is the key point. Let me take up another key point in terms of the demonstration of why we are not doing our duty. We have before the Senate a very difficult vote on extending permanent normal trade relations to China. It is a very difficult vote. We know that. It is a vote that bedeviled the House of Representatives. It was controversial. It was difficult. But after intense pressure and vigorous debate, the House of Representatives brought it to a conclusion and voted. Now that measure is before the Senate. It is controversial. It is, like so many other things, languishing. It could have been accomplished weeks ago. The business community would argue vociferously it should have been accomplished weeks ago. It has been couched in many terms, but one term I think is most compelling is that it is a critical national security vote. It is a critical national security vote. Yes, it is about trade. Yes, it is about economic impacts within the United States and around the world. But it is also about whether or not we will continue to maintain a relationship of engagement with China, or if we reject it, or if we delay it indefinitely and open up the distinct possibility of confrontation and competition with China. Yet this critical national security vote, this critical vote which is probably the No. 1 objective of the business community in this country, again languishes. Some would say there are reasons. We want to talk about Senator Thompson's and Senator Torricelli's amendment about proliferation. But, again, it is symptomatic of a situation in which the Senate is not responding as it should to its constitutional and to its public responsibilities because of the political calculus. Our side is not immune to political calculation. But the leadership of this body has created a situation in which avoidance of difficult issues, nullification of constitutional responsibilities and obligations to confirm judges, and deferment of critical national security issues for short-run advantages, is the standard of performance. I believe that is not the role the Senate should play and that is the heart of this discussion today. Let me suggest one other point with respect to the business of the body. We confront a range of issues that deal with those world-shaking, momentous issues like China trade policy; issues with respect to domestic tranquility; the safety of our streets; the funding of the appropriations bills for law enforcement when it comes to firearms. Then there are issues that are not important to the vast number of Americans in the sense it doesn't affect them directly but are critically important to many Americans. One is a measure I have been trying to find the opportunity to bring to the floor, and that is to somehow help the Liberian community in this country who came here in 1990, in the midst of their violent civil war, and who for the last decade have been in the United States. They have been residing here. They have been contributing to our communities. Many of them have children who are American citizens. Yet they are in a position where they face deportation October 1. The clock is ticking. This is not an issue that is going to galvanize parades through every Main Street in America. But for these roughly 10,000 people who are caught up in this twilight zone while they are here, they want to remain here with their children, many of whom, as I said, are Americans, but they face a prospect of being deported back to a country that is still tumultuous, still dangerous, still threatening to them and many others. This is legislation that has been supported by Senator Chafee, my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Hagel, Senator Wellstone, Senator Kennedy, Senator Landrieu, Senator Kerry, and Senator Durbin, legislation that will materially assist these individuals. But, once again, we are not moving with the kind of rapidity that allows for the easy accommodation of this type of legislation on the floor. I hope it does come up soon, but I think it represents the cost of this overcontrol and this inflexibility, perhaps, that we are seeing as the management leadership style here today. Let me just briefly set the stage about the need for this legislation. Liberia is a country that has the closest ties of any African nation to the United States--it was founded by freed slaves in the middle 1800s. Its capital is Monrovia, named after President Monroe. It is a country that did its utmost throughout its existence in the 1800s and the 1900s, to emulate American Government structure, at least. But it erupted into tremendous violence in 1989 and 1990. Over the next several years, 150,000 people fled to surrounding countries. Many of them came to the United States-- many being about 14,000. In March 1991, the Attorney General recognized that these individuals needed to be sheltered, so he granted temporary protected status, or TPS. Under TPS, the nationals of a country may stay in the United States without fear of deportation because of the armed conflict or extraordinary conditions in their homeland. People who register for TPS receive work authorizations, they are required to pay taxes--and this is precisely what the Liberian community has done in the United States. They went to work. They paid taxes. However, they do not qualify for benefits such as welfare and food stamps. Not a single day spent in TPS counts towards the residence requirement for permanent residency. So they are in this gray area, this twilight zone. They have stayed there now for 10 years because the situation did not materially change for many years. Each year, the Attorney General must conduct a review. The Attorney General did conduct such a review and continued to grant TPS until a few years ago, until the fall of 1999, when the determination was made that the situation in Liberia had stabilized enough that TPS was no longer forthcoming. At that, many of us leaped to the fore and said the situation has changed. The situation has changed in Liberia, but it has also changed with respect to these individuals here in the United States. They have established themselves in the community. They have become part of the community. Their expectations of a speedy return to Liberia long ago evaporated and they started to accommodate themselves--indeed many of them enthusiastically--to joining the greater American community. The situation changed in Liberia. The change there was more procedural than substantive. What happened was the situation in which there was an election, which was monitored by outsiders, which elected a President, the former warlord, Charles Taylor. Based upon this procedural process change, the State Department and others ruled, essentially, that the situation was now ripe for the return of Liberians from the United States and surrounding countries to Liberia. But at the heart, the chaos, the economic disruption, the violence within Liberia did not subside substantially. As a result, Liberians here in the United States have genuine concerns about their return to Liberia. What has happened most recently, because this is an evolving situation, is that Charles Taylor, the President, again, duly elected President, has not renounced all of his prior behaviors because it is strongly suggested that he has been one of the key forces who is creating the havoc in the adjoining nation of Sierra Leone. All of us have seen horrific photographs of the violence there, of children whose arms and hands have been cut off by warring factions in Sierra Leone. The Revolutionary United Front is one of the key combatants in that country. Part of this is an unholy alliance between Taylor and the Revolutionary United Front for the purpose of creating, not only mischief, but also for exploiting diamond resources within Sierra Leone for the benefit of Taylor and the benefit of others. But all of this, this turmoil, once again, suggests that Liberia is not a place that is a stable working democracy where someone, after 10 years of living in the United States, could return easily and gracefully and immediately. Last year at this time, after being approached by myself and others, the Attorney General determined that she could not grant TPS again under the law. But she did grant Deferred Enforced Departure, or DED, to Liberians, which meant the Liberians could remain in the United States for another year but essentially they are being deported. It is just stayed, delayed for a while. They have been living in this further uncertainty for the last year. My legislation would allow them to begin to adjust to a permanent residency status here in the United States, and hopefully, ultimately, after passing all of the hurdles, to become citizens of this country. They arrived here, as I said, about 10 years ago. They came here with the expectation that they would have a short stay and would be home, back in their communities, back in Liberia, but that expectation was frustrated, not by them but by the violence that continued to break out throughout Liberia. Now they have established themselves here. They are part and parcel of the community, and they are extremely good neighbors in my State of Rhode Island, as well as in other parts of this country. I believe equity, fairness, and justice require that we offer these individuals the opportunity to become permanent resident aliens and ultimately, as I said, I hope they will take the opportunity to become citizens of this country. Our immigration policy is an interesting one, idiosyncratic in many cases, but it is important to point out there are several other countries around the globe that have already dealt with a problem like this: Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, and Great Britain. After a certain length of time, even if you are there temporarily--certainly 10 years is a sufficient time--you can, in fact, adjust your status to something akin to permanent resident of the United States and pursue citizenship. We have done this before. We have made these types of adjustments for other national groups that have been here and for many of the same reasons: Simple justice, length of stay, connections to the community of America, continued turmoil in their own countries. For example, in 1988 we passed a law to allow the Attorney General to adjust to permanent status 4,996 Polish individuals who had been here for 4 years, 387 Ugandans who had been here for 10 years, 565 Afghanis who had been here for 8 years, and 1,180 Ethiopians who had been here for 11 years. The 102nd Congress passed a law which allowed Chinese nationals who had been granted deferred enforced departure after Tiananmen Square to adjust to permanent residency. Over the next 4 years, 52,968 Chinese changed their status. In the last Congress, we passed legislation known as NACARA. Under this law, 150,000 Nicaraguans, 5,000 Cubans, 200,000 El Salvadorans, and 50,000 Guatemalans who had been living in the United States since the eighties were eligible to adjust to permanent residency status. A separate law allows Haitians who were granted DED to adjust to permanent residency. As one can see, we are not setting a precedent. We are doing what we have done before in response to similar motivations: fairness, length of stay here, turmoil in the homeland to which we propose to deport these individuals. Another important point is why we believe we have a special obligation to Liberia. As my colleagues know--and I have mentioned before--this is a country that shares so much with the United States. In 1822, a group of freed slaves in the United States began to settle the coast of western Africa with the assistance of private American philanthropic groups and at the behest of the U.S. Government. In 1847, these settlers established the Republic of Liberia, the first independent country in Africa. Five percent of the population of Liberia traces their ancestry to former American slaves. They modeled their constitution after ours. And they used the dollar as their currency. Before the 1990 civil war, the United States was Liberia's leading trading partner and major donor of assistance. When Liberia was torn apart by civil war, they turned to the United States for help. We recognized that special relationship, and we offered aid to Liberia. We offered it, as I said, to assist those who were fleeing destruction and devastation. We should continue to do that. We have had a special relationship with Liberia over history, and we have formed a special relationship throughout this country with those communities of Liberians who have been here for a decade and who seek to stay. Again, this is some of the legislation we could be considering, some of the legislation with which we could be dealing if we had a process that allowed that free flow of legislation to the floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two letters be printed in the Record: A letter from Bill Gray, President of the College Fund, and a letter from the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.

Mr. REED. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the current posture of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill on the floor. It seems to me that we are in the doldrums. Our sails are unfurled, the crew is at their positions, but the ship is not moving. There are many reasons for that. But I suggest one of the principal reasons is that over the last several months--indeed, throughout this entire Congress--the leadership has taken it upon themselves to essentially try to nullify the President's constitutional authority to appoint judges to the Federal courts. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution is quite clear that the President has the right to appoint Federal judges, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. But what has happened with increasing enthusiasm is that these appointments arrive here and then languish month after month after month after month. At some point, this type of nullification, this avoidance of responsibility under the Constitution, subverts what I believe the Founding Fathers saw as a relatively routine aspect of Government: Presidential appointment and consideration within a reasonable time by the Senate of these appointments. It has not been a reasonable time in so many cases. Repeatedly, appointments to the Federal bench have been made by the President. They have come to the Senate and have been virtually ignored month after month. At some point, we have to be responsible not only to the Constitution, but to the people of the country and act on these appointments. Now, that doesn't mean confirm every appointment. But it certainly, in my mind, means to have a reasonable deliberation, a hearing, and then bring it to a vote. It is far better, both constitutionally and in terms of the lives of individual Americans, to decide their fate, decide whether or not they will serve on the bench in a reasonable period of time than to let them twist slowly in the wind--some for upwards of a year or more. That is what has been happening. It is a reflection of a deeper paralysis within the system. The Senate is not operating as it traditionally has, as a forum for vigorous debate, amendment, and discussion, and after a vigorous debate, a vote. We have seen a situation in which measures are brought to the floor only after concessions are made about the number of amendments, the scope of amendments, and the type of amendments. That is operational procedure that is frequently associated with the other body but which defies the tradition of this body, where we pride ourselves on our ability to debate and amend, to be a place in which serious discussions about public policy take place routinely and just as often decisions are made by the votes of this body. We haven't seen that. We introduced on this floor for consideration--and it has been the pending business now since May--the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Every 5 years, we reauthorize the education policy of the Federal Government--the education policy with respect to elementary and secondary schools throughout this country: the title I program, Professional Development Program, and the Eisenhower Program that assists professional development. Yet this major piece of legislation has come to this floor and then, like judges, has been languishing in the shadows for months now. Why? Well, some suggest it is because the majority doesn't want to consider amendments with respect to school safety and gun violence. Those amendments might cause difficult votes. But in any case, we are likely, this year, not to discharge our routine duty of every 5 years reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We are going to--using a sports metaphor--punt. All of these things together have caused us to stop and essentially ask why can't we refocus our operations, refocus our emphasis, and begin to renew the tradition in this body of debate, wide-open amendment leading to votes with respect to substantive legislation and with respect to appointments by the President to the judiciary and other appointments. That is why I believe we are here in these doldrums. The lights are on. We are assembled, but we are not moving forward. I think we have to begin to look at what we are doing and why we are doing it. Perhaps that is the most useful aspect of this discussion this afternoon-- because I hope that eventually we can emerge from these doldrums and begin to, once again, take up the people's business in a reasonable and timely fashion leading to votes after debate. Some may go the way we want. Some may not. But in the grand scheme of things, when we are debating and bringing the principles of the debate to conclusion by voting, we are discharging the responsibility that the American people entrusted to us when they elected us to the Senate. There are many examples of what we could be doing if we adopted this approach. For example, I have an amendment which I would like to introduce with respect to this Treasury-Postal bill regarding the enforcement of our firearms laws in the United States. We hear time and time again--particularly by the opponents of increased gun safety legislation--that all we have to do is enforce the laws. Yet in the past we have seen the erosion of funds going to the ATF for their enforcement policies. I must say that this year's Treasury-Postal appropriations bill has moved the bar upwards in terms of funding appropriate gun safety programs, and I commend the Chairman and Ranking Member for their effort. But there are two areas in which they have failed to respond. One is the youth crime gun interdiction initiative by the ATF. I would request in my amendment an additional $6.4 million, which would bring it up to the funding requested by the President. This, to me, is an absolutely critical issue--not only in the sense of making sound public policy, but critical because in every community in this country we are astonished by the ease of access to firearms by youngsters. We are horrified by the results of this access to firearms. A few weeks ago in Providence, RI, we were absolutely devastated by the murder of two young people. They had been in Providence on Thursday evening at a night club. They left. One youngster was working and the other was a college student. They were chatting by their car, waiting to go to their homes that evening when they were carjacked by five or six young men. They were driven to a golf course on the outskirts of Providence. Then they were brutally killed with firearms. Where did these accused murderers get these firearms? It is a confused story. But there was an adult, apparently, who had lots of weapons. Either they were stolen from this individual, or he lent the firearms to one of these young men. But, in any case, this is one of those searing examples of young people having firearms being desperate, being homicidal, and using those weapons to kill two innocent people. The program, which is underfunded in this appropriations bill, would authorize the ATF to work with local police departments to develop tracing reports to determine the source of firearms in juvenile crimes. There was some suggestion initially and anecdotally that most of these firearms were stolen, but then preliminary research suggested not; that, in fact, there is an illegal market for firearms and that too many weapons used by juveniles in these heinous crimes are obtained in this illegal firearms market. This type of information is extremely useful in terms of designing strategies to interdict access to firearms by youth perpetrators. We need this kind of intelligence in the Nation, if we are going to construct appropriate programs that are going to deal with this problem. This, again, is a reflection of what I sense happened in Providence. It is unclear precisely what happened. But here you have the possibility that the individual with the firearms either sold them or lent them, got them into the hands of young people who, in turn, used them to kill other young people. It would be extremely useful if we knew collectively and not only individually how these weapons moved through our society, because without this knowledge it is very hard to create counterstrategies. That is one important aspect--these trace reports--for appropriations that I will seek to move today with respect to appropriations. Indeed, the Senate Appropriations Committee report emphasizes the importance of the partnerships that are underlying this initiative, and underlying also the ability to deal with the incidents of youth firearm crimes. In their words: The partnership between ATF and local law enforcement agencies in these communities-- The communities that are already participating in this program-- is invaluable to the mutual effort to reduce gun-related crimes. The tracing information provided by ATF not only allows local jurisdictions to target scarce resources to investigations likely to achieve results, but also gives ATF the raw data to be able to investigate and prosecute the illegal source of these crime guns. The Committee continues to believe that there are significant disruptions in these illegal firearms markets directly due to investigative leads arising from this regional initiative. Frankly, the committee recognizes that this is a useful initiative. I would like to see it fully funded. That is something we could be talking about. Indeed, I hope we can move to incorporate that within the appropriations bill that is before us. There is another important firearms enforcement measure that was not funded by the committee which I would like to see funded, and that is the national integrated ballistics information network. I would like to see that appropriation moved up by $11.68 million to meet the President's request. This would integrate two systems that try to identify bullets based upon their ballistic characteristics so they can be more useful in investigating crimes. The ATF has an integrated ballistics identification system, which is called in shorthand IBIS. The FBI has what they call the ``drugfire'' ballistic system. I have seen demonstrations of these systems. They are remarkable. They recover a slug at a crime scene. They take it to a lab, which has the computer equipment that is designed to run this system. They are able to identify the characteristics of the particular slug that is being examined and then, through their data banks, match it up with a known group of slugs, make a positive identification, and the positive identification leads, in many cases, to the arrest, or certainly to the identification of the weapon that was used. It is very similar to fingerprinting, with which we are all familiar. We have these two systems. They work very well independently. But they would work much better if their databases were combined; if the source was engineered to cooperate and work interdependently. That is what this appropriation would do. We have seen success already. Both of these systems, working independently, have produced more than 8,000 matches and 16,000 cases. For the first time we can take a slug from a crime scene, match it up with known weapons, leading, hopefully, to arrests and ultimately conviction. In a way, it is not only like fingerprints, it is like DNA, like all the scientific breakthroughs we are able to use to more effectively enforce the laws and bring lawbreakers to justice. I hope we can use this system more effectively by integrating the two programs, the ATF program and also the FBI program. One of the reasons I am offering this amendment is to ensure we have the money this year. There is a 24-month proposed schedule for the deployment of this system. The work has been done, the plans have been done, but if we do not appropriate sufficient money in fiscal years 2001 and 2002, then we will fall short of this scheduled deployment. We will create a situation in which, again, when we ask why the American people get so frustrated with government, the situation in which we have been planning, we have been expending money, we are all ready to move forward on an initiative that will materially aid law enforcement authority, and then we stop short and go into a hiatus for a year, and maybe at the end of the year start again. But, more than likely, it will be more expensive, and we have lost months or years in terms of having effective tools for our law enforcement authorities. That is one of the frustrations. It is frustration based upon our inability to be able to move efficiently and promptly to do the people's business. I hope we can deal with this issue of both the youth crime gun interdiction initiative and the national integrated ballistics information network. These are the types of appropriations measures we should not only be talking about, but we should be voting for. Again, we are in this predicament because there has been such a conscious, overt effort on the part of the leadership to deflect consideration, deliberation, and decision on so many important issues that are critical to the future of America. Lifetime tenure on Federal courts is being withheld because there is a hope, an expectation on one side, that these judges will go away, these nominees will go away, in 6 or 9 months. I don't think that is what the American people want Congress to do. They want Congress to either approve or disapprove, but they want Congress to act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me conclude my overall remarks by saying, as I began, that we are in the doldrums. We are here but we are not moving. I do not think it is sufficient to simply, on a day-by-day basis, make a little concession here and a little concession there. I think to get this Senate under full sail again, moving forward, proudly, purposefully, is to once again summon up the spirit which I always thought was inherent in this body, the spirit of vigorous and free and open debate, of vigorous and wide-ranging amendment, unfettered by the individual proclivities of the leader, whoever the leader may be, and then, ultimately, doing our job, which is to vote. This afternoon, I have tried to suggest several areas where we have neglected that obligation. With respect to Federal judges, it seems to me that there has been an attitude adopted here that our advice and consent is sort of an optional thing. If we do not choose to do it, then no judges will be confirmed. In a way, it is very subversive to the Constitution. Frankly, I don't think anyone would object if judges were brought to this floor and voted down. That is a political judgment, a policy judgment, a judgment based upon their jurisprudence, their character, a host of issues. But what is so objectionable is this notion of stymying the Constitution by simple nonaction, by pushing it off into the shadows, allowing individual nominees to languish, hoping that no one pays attention to it, and that at the end of the day these judges will go away and more favorable judges will be appointed. I do not think that is the way to operate this Senate. We have legislation, such as the ESEA, which has been permanently--or apparently permanently--shelved, not because there is something inherently wrong with the bill as it has been presented--we can debate the merits of that--but because to bring it back to the floor would invite amendments that might be uncomfortable. I think that is also wrong. Then I think we have a measure which everyone claims is critical to our economy, critical to our future national security, critical to our relationships with Asia and China, particularly, over the next several decades. That, too, has been shunted aside, not because of substance, but because of political calculation. Once again, I think that is wrong. In return, what has been suggested, is: Why don't you take a little of this and a little of that, and we will give you an amendment here, and we just might bring up two judges, but we don't know who they are. That, in comparison, is not an appropriate response to the basic question of: Will the Senate be the Senate? I would hope that we would return to that spirit, that spirit which I think drew us all here initially, with the hope and the expectation that we would debate and we would vote--we would win some; we would lose some--but ultimately, by debating and by voting, and by shouldering our responsibilities--not avoiding them--the American people would ultimately be the great victors in this Democratic process. I hope we return to that spirit. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I extend my welcome to President Estrada of the Philippines. The Philippines and the United States are allies. We have a special relationship with them, as we have a special relationship with the country I have been speaking about; that is, the country of Liberia.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the 26th anniversary of the Turkish invasion and occupation of Cyprus. Twenty- six years ago today, Turkey seized on a period of political unrest in predominantly Greek Cyprus and invaded its shores. Landing on the north coast of Cyprus with 6,000 troops and 40 tanks, nearly 40 percent of the island was in Turkish control in less than a month, displacing 200,000 Greek Cypriots from their homes. Today, there are still more than 1,600 Greek Cypriots who remain unaccounted for, serving as silent reminders of the unlawful invasion. Turkey continues to defy the international community and United Nations' Resolutions with its policy towards Cyprus, keeping more than 30,000 troops in the north of the island. I believe that if we want to see future progress in resolving the injustices of a divided Cyprus, the United States, European and international organizations must put further pressure on the government in Ankara. It is Turkey's military and financial backing that provides the leverage for the Turkish Cypriot leadership and its unwillingness to make any compromises. Late last year, the European Union accepted Turkey as a candidate for admission into the 15-nation economic bloc. The EU has indicated that resolution on the Cyprus matter is a key condition to Turkey's membership, and it has outlined specific economic and humanitarian standards that must be accomplished. One such condition is an end to restrictions on the human rights of Greek Cypriots living in the occupied northen region. I was pleased to cosponsor my colleague Senator Snowe's Concurrent Resolution 9 to bring attention to this issue. Greece and Turkey are critical members of the NATO alliance and have both been key allies to the United States, supporting our operations in the Balkans and no-fly zones over Iraq. We know the two nations can work together in times of crisis. Last fall, following a massive earthquake in Turkey, Greece was among the first to send aid. Greek rescue teams helped pull Turkish victims from the rubble. Then Greece endured its own deadly quake and Turkey was quick to respond, saving many Greek lives. These examples of bilateral cooperation should also be employed by Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders to demilitarize the island and establish a unified Cyprus with constitutional guarantees for all Cypriots regardless of ethnicity. A new round of proximity talks began on July 5, 2000 between Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders in Geneva, Switzerland. These talks recessed on July 12 but will resume again in early August. Little information has been available due to the mutual observance of a press blackout. However, I hope that these talks will initiate commitments by both sides to come to an agreement. In the past few years we have seen remarkable progress on seemingly intractable international conflicts. Northern Ireland is closer to peace than any time in history and whatever the outcome of the current Middle East Summit, just the fact that Prime Minister Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat have been talking for nine days is of great historic significance. I believe the people of Cyprus want and deserve the same opportunity. This year, the Senate version of the FY01 Foreign Operations Bill again appropriates $15 million to reduce tensions, promote peace and cooperation between the two communities. However, I think we can do more. It is my hope that my colleagues and the Administration will commit to actively assisting the parties in resolving the situation in Cyprus. Then we can commemorate the reunification rather then the division of this Nation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to join my colleagues in expressing my sadness and my condolences in behalf of the family of Paul Coverdell. In the more than 3 years that I have had the privilege of serving in the Senate, he was someone who was respected for his work, for his effort, and for his sincere commitment to ensuring that all the viewpoints were heard, and that we moved forward and acted for the people of this country. He was particularly protective, obviously, of his State of Georgia and his constituents because he felt deeply for their needs. He worked hard to achieve benefits for his constituents. He had talent, personality, and character. You could disagree with him, but he was not a disagreeable person. He was a consummate gentleman. He was polite. He was civil. He was approachable. He had those personal qualities that endeared him to all who serve in this body. He was someone respected by all of us. We all admired him. Other colleagues have talked about his many efforts in educational policy, such as his efforts to ensure appropriate response for our military posture around the world. I had the occasion just briefly in the last debate about Colombia to work with him and speak with him. He was committed to ensuring that our policy in that part of the world was not only consistent with our ideals as a democratic nation but also helped decisively stem the tide of drugs that has weakened this country. He did it in his typical fashion--quietly, diligently, without a lot of fanfare but with great success and great results. We shall miss his temperament. We shall miss his commitment to this process. We shall miss his character and his contribution to the country. To his family I offer my sincerest condolences. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I believe my colleague, Senator Gorton, has a modification to my amendment, which I will accept. He is prepared to offer the modification to my amendment.