Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I too yield my postcloture hour to Senator Dodd.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I come to speak against the proposal by Senator Bond which would significantly--in fact, catastrophically-- undercut the affordable housing program we have included in this legislation, with the support of Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby. This legislation is necessary. Even before we had a foreclosure crisis, hundreds of thousands of Americans--millions--did not have decent, affordable housing. So this is not something that is a temporary fix to the mortgage crisis; this is long-term solution aimed at addressing a long-term problem of not having enough affordable housing in this country. It is absolutely necessary. The Bond amendment would essentially say: Well, yes, you can have a housing trust fund, but we are not going to fund it because the funding mechanism comes from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Oh, by the way, you can create a home ownership protection program, but the first 3 years of affordable housing trust fund monies won't be available to help pay for it, which was how we dealt with the objection of Senator Shelby and many others that we not use public funds to help with the foreclosure problem. This is a way in which we can accommodate many objectives: helping people facing foreclosure without using public funds and in the long term creating a permanent, affordable housing trust fund. There is no place in this country--none of my colleagues have places--where the constituents are not coming up and saying we need help with affordable housing. The rent is going up. We can't afford it. We are on the street. Please help us. That problem will not expire when this foreclosure crisis is over. Let me also say I think it is entirely appropriate that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac participate. They were chartered originally as quasi public entities. They have--we have given them and we continue to give them--affordable housing responsibilities. That is part of their mission, part of their mandate. Some would say: Well, listen, if that is the case, let them decide what they want to do. We spent years creating this affordable housing program. One of the criticisms of this program was that if you gave Fannie and Freddie control of the money or required them to spend in a certain way, it would become politicized. They would pick winners and losers not based upon needs in certain parts of the country but based on political advantage. That was a criticism that was advanced most strenuously by my Republican colleagues. So we have created an affordable housing program, part of which is lodged at Treasury and part of which is lodged at HUD. If the Bond amendment is adopted, we are giving up the last chance we have for an affordable housing trust fund in this country, the last major chance. I urge opposition.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the CBO has scored the Banking portion of this bill so that not a penny of taxpayer dollars will be spent. This is not a bailout by taxpayers dollars. Second, the bill in no way benefits lenders. Lenders have to take a haircut, as Senator Shelby pointed out very clearly. Also, this bill is really an amalgamation of provisions, many of which have passed the Senate before, that have been discussed extensively in the Banking Committee. That are the result of numerous hearings. This is not the case where we have created something completely new, completely out of whole cloth. There might be changes, but I think it is quite easy for committee staffs and individual Members to deal with these changes and if there are objections, to make amendments. This motion is to kill this bill. As Senator Schumer pointed out, what we are losing here is help for hundreds of thousands of homeowners--not financial institutions. What we are losing here is a stronger regulatory structure to govern Fannie and Freddie. I have sat on the committee for years listening to people say: We have to get regulatory reform, GSA reform. We cannot let these institutions--Fannie and Freddie--operate without strengthened oversight. That is precisely what this legislation does. So this legislation is about helping homeowners, regulating Fannie and Freddie, and has nothing to do with bailing out companies. Countrywide is mentioned in this motion to recommit. Countrywide was trading a year ago at $38.89. It closed today at $4.83. It is subject to an acquisition by Bank of America. The market has penalized Countrywide. Bank of America will acquire it. By the time this legislation is effective, Countrywide very well might not exist as an entity in the country.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the importance of extending unemployment insurance benefits to workers whose regular benefits ran out before they could get a new job. As we know, the labor market is weak. The unemployment rate has jumped to 5.5 percent in April from 5 percent in March. That is an extraordinary jump. This is the largest single month spike in 22 years and the highest level in 3.5 years. In addition, the Labor Department's alternative unemployment rate, a measure that includes people who want to work but who are discouraged from actively seeking employment because they cannot find full-time jobs, reached 9.7 percent in May. This latter statistic might be more accurate with what has actually happened in neighborhoods across America. For Rhode Islanders, the situation is among the worst in the Nation. The number of unemployed Rhode Islanders has risen to approximately 35,000, which has been trending upward and is the highest since June 1994. Indeed, 6.1 percent are jobless right now, a figure which has remained unchanged over the past 2 months. This is the fourth highest unemployment rate in the United States, and the highest rate in Rhode Island since August 1995, more than 12 years ago. It is also critical to point out that almost half, 41 percent of Rhode Islanders unemployed in January, February and March, exhausted their benefits, which is more than any other State in New England. Unfortunately, other economic indicators are equally discouraging. Economists think inflation is here to stay, and it is likely to get worse. We have received a very poor inflation number this morning which suggests that the forecasts of economists are sadly becoming true. Food prices are high. Consumers are able to afford fewer groceries at the supermarket and restaurants are being squeezed by food costs. Food prices across the country spiked by more than 4 percent in 2007, the biggest jump in 17 years, and they are expected to escalate another 6 percent this year, though some items, including eggs and milk, have gone up much more. So we are not talking about luxury items, we are talking about the basics to survive. They are getting more and more expensive as more and more people are not able to find adequate work. The price of gasoline has risen 35 percent from a year ago, when it averaged approximately $3. In Rhode Island, it now costs $4.11, on average, for a gallon of regular unleaded, making it very difficult for working families simply to get to school, to get to their job, and to get around the State. The gross domestic product, the Nation's total output of goods and services, the measure of the overall economic activity of the country, increased at a mere .9 percent in the first quarter of 2008, which is nearly the same as the fourth quarter of last year. This stagnant growth obviously is highly correlated with the rising unemployment. In April, consumer credit borrowing rose $8.9 billion for the month to $2.56 trillion. This is significantly higher than economists forecast. This means increasingly that Americans are going to their credit cards to get by, and this is a timebomb ready to explode in our economy. More American families are being overwhelmed by debt. More and more families are forced, because they do not have adequate jobs, adequate wages to face the rising cost of gasoline and food, to take out the plastic. That can only last a certain amount of time. This is a looming problem that we have to recognize. Similarly, there is speculation that the impact of the foreclosure crisis will continue to spread. In my home State of Rhode Island, we have the highest foreclosure rate in New England. And the outlook is just as bleak. A recent Credit Suisse report noted that foreclosures could impact about 6.5 million loans by 2012, meaning that nearly 13 percent of residential borrowers could be put out of their homes; 13 percent of homeowners in America are facing the prospect within the next few years of losing their homes. That is a startling and unacceptable projection. Given that the economic situation is significantly harsher now than the start of the last recession, the need to extend unemployment benefits is clear. In doing so, we can start to stimulate the economy. We have virtually no growth, we have a foreclosure crisis with escalating gasoline and food prices. If we want to get this country moving again, we have got to stimulate the economy. We tried with the rebates a few months ago; that has not proved effective. Unemployment insurance benefits have a very high return on their investment. It generates approximately $1.64 in gross domestic product for every dollar we put in, and that makes sense. Individuals receiving these benefits are going to go right to the store, they are going to fuel their cars, they are going to buy food, they are going to try to take care of their children. This money is going right back in the economy. It is going to stimulate 64 cents more than we invest. I am disappointed that the administration has released a Statement of Administration Policy stating that it strongly opposes the bipartisan measure overwhelmingly passed by the House of Representatives last week. I am disappointed that the minority is unwilling to enact this meaningful legislation before us today. This would make a positive difference for America. I think it is reckless and irresponsible. Unfortunately, it is characteristic of this administration that they would oppose unemployment benefits for Americans while they continue to exhort us to spend billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The contrast could not be more stark and, I think, more condemning of this administration. I believe we have to pass this legislation. We have to face it. And for my constituents in Rhode Island, it would be extremely useful. According to the Center for Budget Policy Priorities, we have done this, we have extended benefits seven times over the past half century. They have provided much needed relief to workers. This is not something novel and unique. This is something we have done and we should do. We cannot afford to delay extending these benefits any longer. People are struggling throughout this Nation. It is our responsibility to respond to their needs, to give them a chance, to keep them afloat in a very stormy economic sea. I urge the immediate passage of these unemployment benefits. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I believe I have been put in order for 10 minutes.

Mr. REED. I thank the Chair. Madam President, we have heard a number of interesting opinions on the reasons and potential solutions to the energy crisis in which we currently find ourselves. Unfortunately, yesterday many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle blocked our ability to have a meaningful debate about the proactive steps we should be taking to address the issues that are contributing to skyrocketing prices Americans are paying at the pump. All around the country, high gas prices are contributing to already shaky economic times for the American people. In my home State of Rhode Island, gas prices have increased by over 140 percent since 2001. Currently, Rhode Islanders are paying $4.09 a gallon for regular unleaded gasoline and $4.93 a gallon for diesel. Households in Rhode Island are paying $2,000 more per year for gasoline than they paid in 2001. That is $2,000 more than they were paying in 2001. For the State economy, this means that families, businesses, and farmers in Rhode Island will spend $835 million more on gasoline this year than was spent in 2001 if prices remain at current levels. But these prices seem to be constantly accelerating. Rhode Island residents, farmers, and businesses are on track to pay over $1.44 billion for gasoline this year. That is an extraordinary drain on the economy of my State and on States throughout the Nation. It is well known that our current energy crisis is due in part to the marriage of two uncontrollable circumstances: a fast-growing worldwide demand for oil and increasingly limited oil supplies. The Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act, which was signed into law in December of last year, made important improvements to our national energy policy, and I am confident the provisions in that law will help to decrease our long-term dependence on oil and thus lessen our future vulnerability to its availability. However, there is also a number of controllable variables that are contributing to the volatility of energy markets that we must address immediately to ensure the high prices Americans are paying at the pump are not going into the wallets of speculators and oil companies looking to exploit these difficult times. The Consumer-First Energy Act would take action by incorporating proactive measures to protect against excessive speculation, keep the hedge funds and oil companies honest, and require investments by oil companies toward the development of our Nation's renewable energy infrastructure or face a windfall profits tax. Experts now estimate that well over 25 percent of the cost of a barrel of oil can be attributed to excessive speculation by the financial traders of energy commodities. Yet yesterday we failed to move forward on a bill that would clamp down on excessive speculation by preventing traders from routing their transactions through offshore markets in order to evade speculation limits and subject energy traders to stronger reporting requirements. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say we must open up more land to drilling to solve the current crisis, increase the supply, and lower the demand. The fact of the matter is over recent years we have already opened up significant areas of the land and the Continental Shelf to oil companies and given them tax incentives to subsidize and encourage their exploration and drilling activities. Over that same span of time, oil companies have reported bigger profits--almost $600 billion. Yet we still find ourselves in a precarious energy situation today. Moreover, the Minerals Management Service has reported that of all the oil and gas reserves believed to exist on the Outer Continental Shelf, 82 percent of the natural gas and 79 percent of the oil are located in areas that are already open to leasing. Onshore, 72 percent of oil and 84 percent of natural gas resources are either accessible already or are pending review. We also hear very little about the nearly 91 million acres of land currently open to leasing in the Alaskan arctic area outside of ANWR, of which only 11.8 million acres have actually been leased. The idea that we need to make more areas available to drilling to increase domestic production is not substantiated by the facts. We have broad swaths of land and Continental Shelf that are available for exploration and drilling. They are not being used. Until we have thoroughly reviewed and sited projects there, the idea that we have to open up ANWR is only a subterfuge, an excuse for inaction. Indeed, in the last 4 years, the Bureau of Land Management has issued 28,776 permits to drill on public land. However, during that time, only 18,954 wells were actually drilled. Thus, oil companies are currently holding onto 10,000 unused permits which could just as easily help to increase domestic production as the lands that are currently protected under law. Clearly, the problem is not that there is a lack of places to drill. Thus, drilling our way to energy independence is not the answer. Neither is increasing the importation of foreign oil and natural gas. The answer is investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs that currently save us more energy each year than the amount we consume from any single energy source, including oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power. These investments offer short-term and long- term solutions to strengthen our national security by reducing our energy consumption and making us less reliant on oil from unstable regions of the world. Moreover, they enhance our economic competitiveness by creating American jobs in this new green economy, and they protect our environment by reducing our carbon footprint. There are actions the Congress can and should be taking, which were laid out in the Consumer-First Energy Act, that could ease the pinch people are feeling at the pump. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle also refused yesterday to debate a package of energy and tax extenders that would also go a long way to help investing in new renewable energy sources and the jobs these new sources would create. Other economic indicators are equally discouraging, in addition to those concerning the energy sector. There are particular concerns in our economy today about inflation, slow growth in gross domestic product, significantly higher consumer borrowing, a rising Consumer Price Index for food, and other indications of difficult economic times. But perhaps the most growing statistic and worrisome statistic across the country is unemployment. New monthly job numbers were released last Friday, and they were far worse than economists had predicted. The unemployment rate jumped to 5.5 percent from 5 percent in only 1 month. In Rhode Island, 6.1 percent are jobless right now--unchanged over the past 2 months. This is the fourth highest unemployment in the United States, behind only the States of Michigan, Alaska, and California. It marks the highest unemployment rate in Rhode Island since August 1995--more than 12 years ago. The number of unemployed Rhode Islanders has risen to approximately 35,000, and it has been trending upward. The Providence Journal reported today that about 41 percent of Rhode Island's unemployed in January, February, and March have exhausted their benefits. This is the highest of any New England State. As we all know, the Senate and the House are currently reconciling an emergency appropriations bill. I was especially pleased the Senate version provided domestic spending for LIHEAP and unemployment insurance--two critical issues we are facing today: accelerating energy prices and exploding unemployment numbers. This domestic funding is critical to boosting our economy and helping those who are most in need. Indeed, many economists have pointed to an extension of unemployment benefits as a quicker way to stimulate the economy than the rebate checks that were being passed out and are being passed out today. An extension of UI benefits provides a very high return on the investment, generating approximately $1.64 in gross domestic product per dollar spent. This is especially helpful at a time when people are saving less, making them ill-prepared to cope with a long-term economic slump. In Rhode Island, it is estimated that the number of jobless who could immediately benefit from an extension of unemployment benefits ranges from 6,500 to 8,000 or more. Under the Senate-passed provisions, Rhode Island would not only qualify for an additional 13-week extension, but given our consistent 6.1 percent unemployment rate, we would trigger extended benefits of another 13 weeks. This means Rhode Island could receive up to 26 additional weeks of assistance to help amid these difficult times. That is why I will continue to press also for an extension of unemployment benefits. We had the opportunity yesterday to move forward on progressive, proactive energy legislation, and it was stymied by my colleagues on the other side. We cannot let that happen. And we cannot also let the unemployed go without extended benefits. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, let me do this. I will accede my position to Senator Menendez to speak, and I ask unanimous consent that I follow the next Republican speaker.

Mr. REED. Thank you, Madam President. We are engaged in an extraordinarily important debate here. It is somewhat disappointing that the debate has been shortchanged due to procedural maneuvers by the minority party, which forced the clerk to read the entire bill and forced the majority to file a cloture petition. I think what Senator Kyl and many others have said, I might not agree with, but it is important to have this vigorous debate. I am somewhat disappointed that it has been curtailed. But now we are engaged in something that will impact this country and generations to come in a significant way. Seldom have we debated such an issue with global ramifications over decades and decades and decades. We talk about many times the burden that our children and grandchildren will bear as a result of the Federal debt. But there is an equally daunting burden placed on generations to come if we fail to come to grips with carbon emissions. Each ton of heat-trapping carbon dioxide that human activity releases into the atmosphere remains there for 100 to 500 years, amplifying the warming effect on our planet, changing the climate, and fundamentally altering ecosystems, landscapes and public health. The more carbon that is piled onto this ecological debt today, the more drastic the consequences will be in the future. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases is now the highest it has been in 650,000 years, and it continues to grow. Madam President, what we do or what we fail to do with respect to climate change will have an impact not only on our country but on life on this planet into the next century and beyond. Seldom has this body grappled with an issue with such sweeping global ramifications. We frequently talk about the burden that is placed on our children and grandchildren by the Federal debt, but an equally daunting burden will be placed on generations to come if we fail to come to grips with carbon emissions. Each ton of heat-trapping carbon dioxide that human activity releases into the atmosphere remains there for 100 to 500 years, amplifying the warming effect on our planet, changing the climate, and fundamentally altering ecosystems, landscapes, and public health. The more carbon that is piled onto this ecological debt today the more drastic the consequences will be in the future. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases is now the highest it has been in 650,000 years and it continues to grow. With near scientific certainty, the IPCC tells us that the high level of greenhouse gases in the air has led to the increase in global temperatures that has occurred since the beginning of the 20th century. This increase has accelerated in the last 50 years, making the years 1995-2006 the warmest on record. Indeed, global temperatures may now be the hottest observed in the last 1,300 years. The impacts of climate change are already observable: Higher ocean temperatures have led to an increase in the number of intense hurricanes in the North Atlantic over the last century. In Rhode Island's Narragansett Bay, the water temperature has climbed 4 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 40 years, coinciding with declines of winter flounder and lobsters. Permafrost is thawing and becoming unstable, causing buildings to collapse in the Arctic region. In 2007, the extent of Arctic sea ice was 23 percent less than the previous all-time minimum observed in 2005. Snowpack and glaciers are diminishing and are melting earlier in the spring. This, in turn, is causing a decline in the health of rivers and lakes and is threatening habitat for endangered species. There has been an effect on human health, with increased mortality from extreme heat and changes in infectious disease vectors. For instance, in Rhode Island this has meant an increase in the incidence of tick-borne disease. The best science tells us that we must begin to curb emissions within the next decade in order to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations and avoid the catastrophic effects of climate change. If we fail, temperatures will continue to rise with dramatic results: With an increase of 2 degrees Celsius, millions more people will experience coastal flooding each year. An increase of 3 degrees will result in the loss of 30 percent of the world's wetlands. An increase of 1-5 degrees will place 30 percent to 40 percent of species at risk of extinction. Hundreds of millions of people, including up to 250 million people in Africa, will lose access to reliable water supplies. But this is not a debate solely about plants and animals. It is not merely about feeling better about how we treat the Earth. At its heart this issue is tied to the fundamental national security challenge of this century, energy and our dependence on imported fossil fuels. Changes to the environment do not occur in a vacuum and will have far- reaching impacts on our national interests and our national security. The U.S. intelligence community has recognized the threat and is in the midst of conducting a national intelligence assessment on the effect of climate change on our security. Last year, the CNA Corporation's Military Advisory Board, consisting of 11 former general and flag officers, led by former Army Chief of Staff, GEN Gordon Sullivan, called for action to stabilize global temperatures. They warned: Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world. Projected climate change will seriously exacerbate already marginal living standards in many Asian, African, and Middle Eastern nations, causing widespread political instability and the likelihood of failed states. Just this week, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer reiterated that the alliance must prepare for new threats that stem from the impact of global warming, saying: ``climate change could confront us with a whole range of unpleasant developments--developments which no single nation-state has the power to contain.'' Regrettably, we have already witnessed the political ramifications of climate change. In writing in the Washington Post last summer, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon noted that ``[a]mid the diverse social and political causes, the Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change.'' As Secretary General Ban notes, a protracted drought, likely brought on by climate change, served to spur conflicts over resources and fuel the hatreds that brought genocide to this region. With so much at stake, the United States cannot fail to lead. In fact, we have a special obligation. As noted NASA climate expert James Hansen recently wrote, carbon dioxide from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is still present in the atmosphere today, contributing to the warming our planet is experiencing. He estimates that the responsibility of the U.S. for the level of greenhouse gases is three times greater than any other country. These are the imperatives that bring us to this debate. I commend Senator Boxer for her efforts to bring this legislation to the point where it is today. Certainly, there must be compromise on legislation of this magnitude. As we engage in this debate, I want to highlight some areas of concern. First, we should be setting more aggressive targets for emission reductions so temperature increases are contained within an acceptable range. In that regard, I'm concerned that the bill will reduce emissions, at most, by 63 percent by 2050. The IPCC has estimated that we may need to reduce emissions by as much as 85 percent in order stabilize carbon. Sixty-three percent leaves very little room for error. Given the stakes, I believe we should be setting a higher target. As a cosponsor of the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, S. 309, which sets a final reduction target of 80 percent, I believe this is the goal we should set in this legislation. I am pleased to join as a cosponsor of Senator Sanders' amendment to reach this goal. I am also pleased to join Senators Kerry and Feinstein in their amendment to require a scientific review by the National Academy of Sciences to ensure the goal we are pursuing is sufficient to stabilize carbon concentrations and to require new legislation to be proposed by the President if we are projected to fall short. Second, because we must ensure that emissions begin to decline no later than 2020, we must implement the carbon cap as quickly as possible. I think we should begin implementation in 2010. Equally important, I have serious concerns about the bill's cost-containment provisions which would allow the auction of allowances borrowed from future years in order to provide additional allowances in early years. Although unlikely, this mechanism creates the potential for a situation in which there could be almost no reduction in U.S. emissions through 2028. Even if it is remote, it's not a possibility we should accept. Third, we should ensure that the needs of consumers, particularly low-income consumers are recognized in the policy that we enact. I was disappointed to see that auction proceeds that were dedicated to the Weatherization Assistance Program, WAP, and Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, under the committee-reported bill were removed. As this debate progresses, I plan to offer an amendment that will again provide funding for these programs, which not only help consumers pay their energy bills but also make important strides in reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions. Fourth, I appreciate the steps that are taken to promote and coordinate market oversight among various regulatory agencies, but I am concerned about the capacity of the EPA to lead the effort to provide oversight to a market of this size. Fifth, we need to make sure that in any climate change bill we address the very real impacts that capping carbon will have on everyday Americans living paycheck to paycheck. That is no small task, but no climate change bill will be a success unless we find a way to provide help to middle class families already struggling in an ever more competitive global economy. They must be afforded the same kind of transition assistance that many on the other side want to provide to carbon emitters. Make no mistake, addressing climate change will not be easy. It will involve change and sacrifice, but it also offers opportunity and hope. We hold the power to unshackle ourselves from the dangerous energy resources of the fossil age and develop an economy based on new, clean energy sources and technologies. Instead of becoming increasingly beholden to foreign energy suppliers, we have the opportunity to become an exporter of energy technology and to bring light to the 2 billion people in the developing world who lack access to reliable energy. By making the choice to face the reality of climate change, we will help leave the world a better place for our children, grandchildren, and generations to come. While I hope that we can continue to make improvements to the bill, I believe that this is an essential debate to have.

Mr. REED. Madam President, reclaiming my time, I am informed that we are attempting to alternate between the Republican and Democratic side, and so I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Jersey be the next Democrat to speak, because we are informed somebody is coming from the Republican side.

Mr. REED. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I wish to focus my remaining remarks on the supplemental appropriations bill which is pending before the Senate. We passed a supplemental appropriations bill out of the Appropriations Committee, which I serve on, last week. This bill contains $168.9 billion for funding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is the amount the President requested. But importantly, this bill also includes significant contributions to the domestic economy of this country, to the needs here at home, not just overseas. It includes funds for LIHEAP. At a time when oil is topping $130 a barrel, the drain on low-income Americans and seniors particularly, simply to pay heating prices, and in the Southwest and South of our country, cooling prices this summer are extraordinary. It is a burden. It is a huge burden. We have incorporated some funds for that situation. We also have moneys for unemployment insurance, not only necessary to sustain families in a time of economic crisis but also one of the most effective stimulus devices. The money from unemployment insurance goes quickly from the recipient to the local market, to all the needs of a family struggling in this economy to get by. It is a tremendous way to stimulate our economy. So it has both individual benefits and economic benefits for the country as a whole. I must also point out that included in these domestic provisions is extraordinary legislation by Senator Webb, my colleague from Virginia, the enhanced GI bill of rights. Senator Webb has done an extraordinary job, and it is not surprising. He approaches this not only as a very astute legislator but as a combat marine veteran of Vietnam. He has borne the burden of battle. He understands now, in the famous words of President Lincoln, that it is our responsibility to take care of those who have borne the burden of battle. This responsibility is, I think, one of the most paramount we face, and his legislation goes right to the concerns of so many returning veterans: How will I get back to education? How will I fund my education? How will I be similar to my predecessors, the generation of my father--when so many had the opportunity to go to college, and then not only did they contribute to their own family's well-being, they helped build an economic powerhouse we have seen in America since World War II. This is a program, again, which I think is extraordinarily important. I commend Senator Webb for his vision, for his persistence, and for his passion. I hope we include it in the final version of the supplemental appropriations bill. As I mentioned before, we are putting funds in for LIHEAP. I offered an amendment to include $1 billion. It is so necessary. In places such as California, there are 1.7 million households behind in their utility bills. That is up 100,000 from last year, and last year was a difficult year for many. There are 650,000 households in Pennsylvania that are receiving shutoff warnings, a huge number of families who are facing the end of their utility service. In a very uncertain economy, it is difficult to reestablish that relationship going forward unless we help them. We have seen a 162-percent increase in energy costs since 2000. It is extraordinary. There is no paycheck for working Americans that has gone up 162 percent, but their energy bills have. We have seen heating oil prices in the last year increase 35 percent. So this is something that is absolutely critical, just as unemployment insurance, just as so many aspects of this legislation. There are also included provisions not requested by the President. There is some assistance for the global food crisis and for the terrible natural disasters in Myanmar and China. We also include, as another aspect of the legislation, something that is absolutely, I believe, critical, and that is conditions on our policy with respect to Iraq, particularly. This Congress has, over my strenuous efforts otherwise, essentially given the President a blank check. He demands money, and he has been given money but without conditions. I think it is the responsibility of this Congress to impose reasonable conditions on the funding, to not only govern our operations but also to make it clear to the Iraqi Government that they are ultimately responsible for their own safety, their own future, their own stability, the future of the Iraqi nation and the Iraqi people. It is not something we can do for them. We have rendered extraordinary assistance to them, but the task is truly theirs, and they must seize that task. These conditions, I think, are terribly important. One would, for example, ensure the readiness of our troops, who are being stretched to the limit, ensure they are ready when they are deployed. That is something I hope no one is arguing with. Another provision directs the Government to negotiate cost sharing for fuel and troop training with the Iraqis. The Iraqi Government has accumulated upward of $10 billion or more because of the surging oil prices. Very little, if any, of those funds is being devoted to their own people or to the joint effort we have undertaken with them to stabilize the country. It is only fair that they should begin to pay their fair share, particularly since they are sitting on a significant amount of money resulting from high energy prices. That money should be devoted to stabilizing their country and helping their people, much more so than they are doing today. Then there is another provision which is something Senator Levin and I have been stressing for many months now, and that is to begin a transition of the missions our military forces and diplomatic forces are performing in Iraq, particularly our military forces, instead of an open-ended mission, and we have seen this mission from the President's standpoint change dramatically. As you will recall, the first mission was to find and destroy the weapons of mass destruction, a very difficult mission, since there were no weapons of mass destruction. Then there was the mission of creating a democratic oasis in the Persian Gulf, a very grandiose mission, more or less, and that mission, I think, has been discounted dramatically over the last several months by the President's own rhetoric. He has talked now about simply creating a country that will sustain itself and not threaten its neighbors. We have to focus not on these globalized missions which are more dogmatic and ideological, but on things the military should be doing for our protection in the context of redeploying forces out of Iraq. Those missions are, in my view, force protection--we have to ensure our forces are fully protected--counterterrorism, because we cannot surrender that mission anywhere in the world; we have to be able to seek out and destroy those terrorist cells that are plotting and planning against the United States and our allies; and third is to train the Iraqi security forces because we do have to provide a force that will stay behind, a force that will help stabilize that country. The essence of the Levin-Reed amendment has been to move from the open-ended missions of today to these discrete missions and, in so doing, begin a deliberate, consistent disengagement of our forces and a reduction of our forces in Iraq. That is a policy that will, I think, work, and it is a policy that eventually, ultimately must be followed. I think the reluctance of the administration to entertain any conditions whatsoever over the last several years has undermined, in the long run, our ability to influence the Government of Iraq and also to reassure the American public we are not into an open-ended, unlimited commitment, stretching years and decades and beyond, that our mission is discrete, that our mission in terms of military presence is coming down and will not reverse itself, and that we are doing all we can in that context to save lives in Iraq. On 9/11, this country was struck by terrorists. The United States, this Senate, the Congress, the administration rallied together with unanimity and with purpose. We authorized and supported an attack against Afghanistan because that is where the perpetrators were lodged, that is where al-Qaida was headquartered. They were collaborating with the Taliban government. They were given safe haven there. The planning for so much of what went on, on that fateful day, originated from Afghanistan. That is where bin Laden, that is where the leadership of al-Qaida was. We struck there, and I must say in an extraordinarily successful operation--and credit and criticism must be given, and there is great credit in terms of the leadership of the administration, our military forces conducting a very sophisticated operation, an operation that used our advantages with precision weapons, used very effectively our special forces, and used collaborative efforts with forces on the ground in Afghanistan and also the collaboration and support, in many respects, of the international community. But rather than consolidating our gains after that successful operation and pursuing al-Qaida in Pakistan, where the leadership fled, the administration turned immediately, almost immediately, to Iraq. And not out of any, I think, strategic need, but out of a dogmatic political, ideological need. They thought Iraq would be a relatively easy target. They were speaking in those days, informally at least, about a very short operation, and that almost immediately Iraq would blossom as a source of democratic inspiration and market economics in that region. We know the history has not been that cheerful. And that diversion to Iraq, I believe, was a deeply flawed strategy. It was an attack on a country that did not represent an immediate threat to the United States, a point I made on the floor of this Senate as I opposed the resolution of 2002 to conduct those operations. Because we were pursuing not a strategic necessity but an ideological obsession, it was not a mission that was well advised or well planned for. There was more hope than planning involved, more ideology than practical commonsense application of force to a threatening situation in the world. One of the unfortunate ironies of this is that as we have been obsessed and committed in Iraq, al-Qaida has reconstituted itself as an incredible force once again. The whole purpose of our attack in Afghanistan, the whole thrust of our efforts immediately after 9/11, was to decisively and, we hoped, irrevocably destroy al-Qaida. Al-Qaida is back. While we have been engaged in this hugely expensive mission-- expensive not only in terms of resources but in terms of the lives of our soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen, and also the wear and tear on our military forces--al-Qaida has been quietly rebuilding. The other thing that has happened unwittingly is that Iran has become a much more credible threat to stability in the region; has become even more influential and powerful. In some respects, this is a direct result of our engagement in Iraq. Also in that time period, we stood by as the North Koreans overthrew the agreed framework, seized the plutonium that was in the reactors around Yongbyan and took it away. Now we are trying desperately to put together another agreement with the North Koreans, but after years in which they not only tested longer range missiles but also detonated a nuclear device. They crossed a threshold that had never been crossed before, they detonated a nuclear device, and our reaction was, I think necessarily perhaps because of our engagement in Iraq, one of seeking, perhaps too late now, a diplomatic approach. But if you go back to 2000, we had a framework in place that looks very much like the framework they are working out today. We had the plutonium secured, North Korea had not tested a nuclear device, and there were hopes that with further active negotiations we could make additional progress. That, I think, too, is a cost of our engagement in Iraq. It has also greatly diminished our standing in the international community. This is not just a nice thing to have. An essential attribute of national power is the respect, the esteem, the cooperation, the good wishes, the goodwill, and the political and diplomatic support of other nations, because in this world most of the great challenges cannot be met alone. That was contrary, I think, to the unilateralism that abounded in this administration; that if in fact we are going to do something significant, longstanding and sustainable, it requires a multinational approach and the foundation of that approach is the goodwill and good wishes of the people of the world. This administration has squandered much of that. It also is contributing, and we can debate how much, to this faltering economy. Oil today is $130 a barrel. Some of that is attributable to the instability in the gulf region; the fact that Iraq has not been producing the same volume of oil consistently over the last several years that it did before the operation. This geopolitical uncertainty has contributed significantly to the price of oil and it is also, I think, contributing to the overall economic issue we are addressing here today, a very critical issue in the United States. Another aspect of this policy is that we have stretched our military, our land forces, to the brink, if you will. They have seen significant deployments consistently time and time again and the toll is adding up on our military forces. We are now left, and the next administration is left, and this Congress and the American people, with dealing with the consequences of this flawed strategy. I believe we have to begin to recognize and realistically assess the political and military situation in Iraq. We have to begin to develop and implement achievable missions for our U.S. forces there and their civilian counterparts, and then we must turn our attention to restoring our economic prosperity and growth, and rebuilding our military, which has been significantly stretched and stressed by this operation. We have to also reorganize our civilian resources to deal with the ongoing threats in the world. That is something this administration has yet to do effectively--to develop a complementary power of our State Department officials, our agriculture officials, and all those people who must be part of this approach to a kind of warfare that is, in many cases, less about firepower and more about reaching people with economic progress and educational reform, and water systems. Those are more potent weapons sometimes than any precision-guided missile we might deploy. I think our first step in all of this is passing this supplemental appropriations bill, with conditioned funding for our forces, with reasonable conditions about the mission and the responsibilities the Iraqi Government should have, and also once again beginning to invest in the American people, investing in keeping them warm in the winter through LIHEAP and keeping them cool through LIHEAP in the summertime; giving them a chance, if they lose their job, to at least keep looking for some support with extended unemployment benefits, and so many other things we have included in this. I think that is critical. Now, I mentioned before I have felt since 2002 that the strategy of the administration toward Iraq was flawed significantly. It was, I think, a product of a dogma. No one can I think dispute the power of democracy, and it is a power that is not exclusive to our culture. It is a human demand, the ability to live with a sense of personal integrity and personal freedom. But I think the administration didn't realize you need the institutional capacity to have a democratic government, and this capacity is not automatic nor is it built up in a matter of weeks or months. We have seen in Iraq, and in so many other places, that democratic elections do not necessarily lead to democratic political forces controlling a country; that you need to build carefully over, I would suggest, many years the institutional capacity so that elections lead to true democracy, not simply legitimizing those people who are antidemocratic. I think this has been one of the tremendous flaws of the President's concept of the mission. As a result, we started off with, obviously, I think, an ill-conceived mission of eliminating weapons of mass destruction in a country in which it turned out there were no weapons of mass destruction. People forget that the United Nations put inspectors on the ground, and that it was this administration who hastened their departure, rather than using these inspectors over time to establish whether there were weapons or whether there were no weapons, or at least to do it in a way in which subsequent military action would be legitimized by either noncooperation of the Iraqis or the fact that the questions couldn't be established or answered. But they quickly rushed to a military option, and I think that option has had unfortunate consequences for the United States. One of the principal consequences, and I mentioned this in my introductory comments, is the fact that al-Qaida, the existential threat to this country, as evidenced by 9/11, has in fact reconstituted itself, not only in the border regions of Afghanistan, to a degree, but much more particularly in Pakistan, in the federally administered tribal areas. These are poor tribal areas ill governed by the Government of Pakistan. In fact, there are provisions in their organic laws which limit their real access to these areas. It has a population of 3 million people, and in that 3 million people al-Qaida, bin Laden, and al Zawahiri have found sanctuary and a safe haven, that continues today. In a sobering report released last month by the Government Accountability Office, they stated: The United States has not met its national security goals to destroy terrorist threats and close the safe havens in Pakistan's FATA. And this is 7 years after 9/11. Since 2002, the U.S. has provided Pakistan with $10.5 billion in military, economic, and developmental aid. Half of it has gone to the military. But despite these actions-- despite this extraordinary amount of money--GAO found broad agreement, as documented in the National Intelligence Estimate, State and embassy documents, as well as defense officials in Pakistan, that al-Qaida had regenerated its ability to attack the United States and had succeeded in establishing a safe haven in Pakistan's FATA. Now, I thought the point of our national strategy after 9/11 was to destroy al-Qaida and to eliminate any possibility of a safe haven anywhere in the world. And according to these documents, our embassy, our Defense officials, our national intelligence agency, al-Qaida has reestablished itself and has found safe haven. I would suggest that is, I think, a stunning indictment of the strategy of this administration over the last several years; again, I think an unfortunate consequence of the obsession that they have chosen to pursue in Iraq. An even more disturbing finding of GAO is: No comprehensive plan comprised of diplomatic, economic, intelligence and military efforts for meeting U.S. National security goals in the FATA has been developed. The one thing that seems to be consistent about the administration is they do not do much planning. There was no plan for Iraq and, according to the GAO, there is no plan for Pakistan and the federally administered tribal areas there. A key part of the plan that must be developed in Pakistan is economic development. Because what I have witnessed, in the several times I have been to Pakistan, is that this is not strictly, as so many of these conflicts are, a military action. It requires providing economic support, it requires giving people a sense that their fate should be linked to their legitimate government, and that government should be pursuing goals which are not strictly sectarian. That government should be a government relatively open and democratic, and that the appeal of the extremist is weakened if people have that sense of confidence in their government, confidence in their future. That is not a military issue essentially; that is an issue of economic development, of supporting legitimate institutions of the state, be it Pakistan or elsewhere. That has been recognized by, I think, many experts. But the senior U.S. Embassy officials in Pakistan admit there has been overreliance on the Pakistani military to achieve U.S. national security objectives; that we have not developed a complementary approach of a comprehensive strategy which includes economic, political, and social development also. As a result, in March, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Michael Hayden, described al-Qaida's safe haven as a ``clear and present danger to the United States.'' The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Michael Mullen, has stated: If I were going to pick the next attack to hit the United States, it would come out of the FATA. Now, let us be clear. It is not out of Iraq, it is not out of Mosul, or Basra, or Baghdad, it is out of the FATA. That is the view of the chief uniformed officer of the United States. The 2008 Director of National Intelligence annual threat assessment, which represents the combined judgments of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, has concluded that: The resurgence of the FATA now poses a preeminent threat to the United States national security. The problems of the FATA are being highlighted by deteriorating conditions in Afghanistan. What we have seen from the initial success in Afghanistan has been a steady, at times rapid, deterioration of conditions there. It is evident that our efforts in Afghanistan are being undermined by what is happening in Pakistan. Not only have we taken our eye off the major threat, al-Qaida, and allowed it to reconstitute, we are in danger of seeing the progress we have made in Afghanistan slip away. In 2003, the Taliban, the former government, and their followers, who have continued to try to assert their will in Afghanistan, were operating squad size units. Now we have reports they are operating in battalion size units of almost 400 people, showing the climate has changed radically. Suicide bombers have attacked at rates that were not observed in Afghanistan until relatively recently, but as you have no doubt surmised, it is something that has been imported through terrorist networks into Afghanistan. Afghanistan's index of corruption is among the highest in the world. You have a state that has marginal capacity to govern well and wisely. Again, this is after many years of our involvement, our engagement. Also, there was a sense that, initially at least, before Iraq, Afghanistan was the major test of our ability, not only to defeat al- Qaida but also to create or help create, in collaboration with the Afghanis, a stable government. That test is in danger of failing miserably. Afghanistan now provides 93 percent of the world's opium. One of the great additional ironies, now it is one of the major suppliers of drugs, and it is doing so while we maintain our military and diplomatic presence there. We have a NATO contingent there, but frankly NATO has not been able to fulfill all of its obligations, putting more pressure on our military alliance forces. I think we have to urge NATO to be more helpful. Hopefully, they will. But, as a result, we have sent additional forces in there, about 4,300 troops. We are prepared to send more. This is adding additional stress and strain on our military forces. As I look, we are seeing a situation in which the principal objective in response to 9/11, the principal place where our enemies were, has now been relegated to the third page of the paper, as the headlines are dominated by Iraq. I think we have a situation where we have literally taken our eye off the major existential threat. We have another consequence of our operations in Iraq, and that is we have empowered Iran. Iran is heavily involved in Iraq. Its objectives are questionable. They have an interest in maintaining strategic depth by keeping the regime in Baghdad as one that is friendly to them, not hostile as the Baathists were. Also, they have many colleagues in the Iraqi Shia movement. Some of these individuals actually fought with the Iranians against the Iraqis in the 1980s in the Iraq-Iran war. Iraq is materially assisting all the major Shia parties. They have not limited themselves to one party or one particular group. As we all know, in March of this year, President Ahmadinejad visited Iraq for 2 days. The present government in Iraq, Prime Minister Maliki and all, rolled out the red carpet--literally. He arrived in a motorcade and ran around Baghdad in a sport coat. When any of our colleagues go or when any of our major administrative officials go, it is surreptitiously, it is guarded, and it is in a flak jacket. So there is something going on there with respect to this Government of Iraq and Ahmadinejad and his warm welcome. I think it graphically shows the influence they have in that country. We are finding a steady supply of IEDs which our military authorities trace to Iran, or at least their technology. Iran is heavily engaged in funding social organizations and building a model they have used elsewhere--Hezbolla in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian Authority-- where they are able to not only help them organize the military force but help them carry out social functions, helping people, helping widows, providing relief. That is very powerful when you have a dysfunctional government and that is the case in Iraq. We also know, on another track, the Iranians are attempting to develop a nuclear fuel cycle. The IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Administration, has been spending decades trying to track the developmental work of the Iranian Government. In 2006 there were documents found of possible nuclear dimension to their program in Iran. This is of great consequence to us. There is a legitimate concern that if the Iranian Government were able to develop a nuclear fuel cycle and could produce nuclear material, they would not be able to resist the temptation to develop a nuclear device. That would be of significant consequence in the region and in the world. All that is happening in the context of our energies and our attention being overwhelmingly devoted to Iraq. There is a connection between the growing geopolitical clout of Iran in the region and our situation within Iraq. In the long run, I think we might look back and discover that one of the real costs of Iraq was the emergence of a much more difficult, much more threatening, much more powerful Iran. As I mentioned earlier, while we have been focused so strenuously on Iraq, North Korea has broken out of the Agreed Framework. They have expelled international inspectors. They have withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They restarted their nuclear installation at Yongbyon. It is estimated that up to 50 kilograms of separated plutonium, enough for at least six nuclear weapons, have been taken by the North Koreans and dispersed somewhere in the country. On October 9, 2006, the North Koreans conducted a nuclear test-- crossed a red line they had never done before, detonated a nuclear device. Fortunately, over the last several months the administration has reinstituted serious negotiations with the North Koreans. Under the able leadership of Ambassador Christopher Hill, they have begun to identify and work with the North Koreans to identify where the plutonium might be, where there are other nuclear materials, nuclear technologies, and they are beginning to walk back where we were, ironically, in the year 2000 and provide some sense of a diplomatic solution to a very pressing problem. But I would argue this would be a very different situation if we were not so decisively involved and engaged in Iraq. I mentioned also, in the course of these last several years, our involvement in Iraq has hurt us in terms of the world's opinion. That is not just a nice thing to have, it is an essential thing to have. In late 2001, 52 percent of Turkish citizens and 75 percent of our British allies viewed the United States favorably. Now that favorable view has dropped to 9 percent in Turkey and 51 percent in Great Britain--one of our longest and most significant allies, Great Britain, and Turkey, one of the most significant members of NATO and also a Muslim country. We have seen our public approval drop precipitously. In a poll conducted by the BBC just last month, 47 percent of citizens in 25 countries said the United States is playing a mainly negative role in the world. That type of public opinion will not inspire political leaders around the world to help us very much. In fact, to do so they have to consciously operate against their own public opinion. That is a difficult challenge anywhere. Last month, Zogby and the University of Maryland surveyed citizens of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon, and the UAE and found 83 percent had an unfavorable view of the United States. These countries are moderate Arab countries, so to speak, whose support in this effort in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere is necessary. Their unfavorable view of the United States is alarming. One of the keys we know of prevailing in this struggle is to challenge and rally the forces of moderation and democracy through the Arab world, of getting the people of the Arab world to understand that we are trying to assist them. That is not working, unfortunately. Then, as I mentioned, we have the economic consequences of the war. In December 31, 2002, the New York Times reported: The administration's top budget official estimated today that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion, a figure that is well below earlier estimates from White House officials-- Then OMB Director-- Mitch Daniels would not provide specific costs for either a long or a short military campaign against Saddam Hussein. But he said the administration was budgeting for both, and earlier estimates of $100 billion to $200 billion in Iraq war costs by Lawrence B. Lindsey, Mr. Bush's former chief economic adviser, were too high. To date we have approved $526 billion for operations in Iraq--far in excess of any of the estimates of the administration. That spending is affecting what we can do to help our own citizens, what we can do to play a positive role in the world--not in a military sense but in a diplomatic and international sense, helping in so many different areas. Now, to gain some perspective on the $500-plus billion that we have committed to Iraq, what we could have used it for, this amount accrued plus the amount in the supplemental we are considering would have been sufficient to provide health insurance coverage to all the 45 million uninsured Americans for the timeframe 2003 to 2008. That is taken from the Joint Economic Committee. That would be a significant benefit to the people of America, but that is a benefit foregone. I have pointed out all this money to date has been deficit spending. This is not something we have paid for. One of the complaints we often hear around here is that it is irresponsible to spend money without somehow offsetting it. That line of thought does not persist with the administration when it comes to funding this war in Iraq. We have also piled up huge contingency costs as we go forward. The direct costs are significant, but the indirect costs and the future costs are also important to note. We have to repair and replace the military equipment that is being used. We have spent money to increase recruitment and retention, and we have to do that for many years. We have had economic disruptions caused by deployment of the National Guard and Reserve troops who have to leave their jobs to go into the military. According to a November 2007 report compiled by the Joint Economic Committee, the impact of the war on the U.S. economy to date is $1.3 trillion or $16,500 for every American family of four. So the costs, both direct and indirect, have been staggering. Those costs continue. One of the critical costs we are going to face is the cost going forward of helping our veterans. I was very pleased last year to act as the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs while Senator Johnson recovered, and now I am equally pleased to know that he is chairing that subcommittee and doing a remarkable job. But we were able to pass a significant increase in spending for our veterans. But the real challenge for us is will we do that 5 years from now? 7 years from now? 8 years from now? 20 years from now, when these veterans still need the help but time has passed? I hope we will. That would be a test--and if I am here, I hope I will be able to remind people that the test is each year not 1 year or 2 years. As Professor Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate, pointed out, this cost, when you aggregate it all, is in the trillions of dollars going forward, looking at the consequential costs today, looking at the direct spending. That is taking its toll on the economy of this country. Another place where the toll is being taken is on our Army and Marine Corps, particularly; our military in general, but particularly our Army and Marine Corps. I recall, as so many of us do, years ago, August 3, 2000, to be precise when Governor Bush stated: Our military is low on parts, pay and morale. If called upon by the Commander in Chief today, two entire divisions of the Army will have to report ``Not ready for duty, sir.''. Well, Army readiness is worse today than it was in 2000, and if that is the metric to measure the success of the Commander in Chief, I would argue that that metric has failed. If we look at readiness today, while we have a situation which our brigade combat teams that are deployed or are preparing to deploy are considered ready, the Army has only one ready brigade combat team in reserve for any other contingency in the world. Strategically our flexibility has been constrained almost to the vanishing point. That is a consequence of Iraq. On February 26, the Army Chief of Staff, General Casey, said before the Senate Armed Services Committee: The cumulative effects of the last 6 plus years at war have left our Army out of balance, consumed by the current fight and unable to do the things we know we need to do properly, sustain our all-volunteer force, and restore our flexibility for an uncertain future. He added: We are consuming readiness as fast as we build it. I would ask, rhetorically, I wonder if General Casey had to report how many divisions are not ready today, it would probably be more than two, if you aggregated all of the brigades, that for reasons of training, equipping, and personnel are not at 100 percent. On April 8, General Cody, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on readiness: I have been doing this for 6 years. As you know I was at G- 3 of the Army and vice chief now for almost 4 years. And I have never seen our lack of strategic depth where it is today. We have 162,400 troops serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. There are 33,000 troops in Afghanistan serving in the ISAF and Operation Enduring Freedom. Since 2002, 1.6 million troops have served in either Iraq or Afghanistan, and many of them are multiple tours. Of those on active duty, 336,000 have 1 tour; 108,000 have had 2 tours; and 30,000 have had 3 or more tours. This is a pace that cannot be sustained. It is a pace that is taking a tremendous toll on our troops and their families, and it is a toll again that cannot be indefinitely sustained. For our reservists, we have had many of those who have had at least 1 tour, 97,000; 9,000 have had 2 or more tours; and the notices that went out this week to mobilize and alert roughly 42,000 troops include significant Reserve and National Guard deployments, brigade combat teams in the National Guard that will go again. I suspect for many of them it will be at least their second tour and perhaps for some their third. So we have had tremendous turbulence in terms of deployment of our land forces. Our military personnel are dedicated. They are doing a superb job. But they cannot keep up this pace. That is one aspect of it, personnel. The other aspect is equipment. We have fought tirelessly here in this Congress to give our forces the equipment they need. I can recall returning in 2003 from Iraq, seeing my National Guard military police people in Baghdad being told that they did not have armored humvees and they needed them because they were in the middle of a fight in Fallujah. I contacted the military authorities. I came to the floor of the Senate, proposed we increase the funding for armored humvees, and that was an initiative that started with my colleagues here in the Senate and the House, reluctantly agreed to, I think, from my perspective, by the administration. It took us many months to begin to get sufficient armored vehicles into Iraq. Similarly we are now on a second and third generation with MRAP, the mine resistant vehicles. That too was a result of many efforts here in the Congress to get that equipment out to our troops. I believe, I hope, they have everything they need, the latest technology. That is something that is absolutely essential. But all of this equipment is being used and overused. Roughly 30 percent of the Marine Corps' ground equipment and half of the Army's ground equipment is in Iraq and Afghanistan, again leaving very little back here in the United States, relatively speaking, for the training and the contingency operations that might take place here in a natural disaster or some other major contingency. It is a harsh, hard environment. The operational tempo is wearing out this equipment. I recall being out in Anbar Province getting ready to go on a Marine helicopter. They were briefing us routinely, claiming that the engines on these helicopters were operating way beyond where they would normally operate. They assured me it was safe to get on the helicopter. But one wondered, as you got on: Would this rate of operational use, if the stress and the strains eventually, would it result in malfunctions for our troops, our forces, our marines in the field. So we expect, the Army expects, to need $12 to $13 billion per year to reset the forces. The Marine Corps estimates it will need $15.6 billion for reset over the next several years when the operations begin to wind down. The Army National Guard has little more than half of its required equipment and they will need $22 billion for the next 5 years to build the equipment up to 75 percent of authorized levels. So we have a tremendous impact on our Army because of our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and principally Iraq. The other aspect of readiness is training. Because the time back home of Army forces has been reduced effectively to 12 months, they cannot do the same type and the same level of training they had been doing previous to Iraq. In fact, if you talked to most troops, they come back from Iraq, and then they start training, not for the range of missions our military force has to be prepared for but for their next deployment into either Iraq or Afghanistan. In that time they have to squeeze in time with their family, they have to squeeze in the administrative details that are part and parcel of being in home base. Their training is being pressured. Some of the equipment they need to train is not there. It is already overseas and it remains over there. There is this increasing concern that the only mission they are training for is counterinsurgency and urban combat, because Iraq dominates so much of the time, attention, and resources in the Army. Another aspect of readiness is recruiting, and this high operational tempo has led the Army in some cases to miss their recruiting goals. Recently, they have been achieving those goals, but it is not without lowering standards, it is not without huge incentives or significant incentives. It is something that over the course of the next several months and years will show increasing strain and stress on the military force, their ability to recruit, their ability to retain. In 2005 the Army missed its active-duty recruiting targets by 8 percent. That was the first time they had ever missed recruiting targets since 1999, and by a margin not seen since 1979, in the early years of the volunteer Army. Since 2006 the Army has met its yearly recruiting goals, but only by taking some extraordinary measures. In 2007, more than 20 percent of the new Army recruits needed waivers; 57 percent for conduct, 36 percent for medical reasons, and 7 percent for substance abuse. There was a time prior to Iraq when the Army prided itself on approving very few waivers and was trying to drive the standards up, not lower the standards. Thus far in fiscal year 2008, only 82 percent of the recruits have high school diplomas. The longstanding goal of the Army is at least 90 percent. The maximum age for new recruits has been raised from 35 to 42. Now, all of these soldiers are doing their job. But we have to ensure, as we were doing before Iraq, that to the greatest extent possible we increase the quality of our forces. All of these reductions in standards will come with some cost as the Army continues to go forward. There is another similar picture with respect to retention. The number of officers the Army needs grew by 8,000 as we increased the size of the Army, with 58 percent of this group in captains and majors. As the Army grows, they have to retain more and more of these captains and majors. While the overall officer loss rate for fiscal year 2007 equaled the 10-year average of 8.5 percent, this loss rate must drop to 5 percent in order to maintain this increased size of the Army at these critical positions of captains and majors. What is happening is that the tempo of operations, the limited time with family, the cycling in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan, is causing these very talented officers, captains, majors, senior noncommissioned officers, to decide that they, for personal reasons, have to leave the service. And this is depriving the military, not only today, but for many years, of the talent and the skill they need, which is a great factor in our military forces. We have got sophisticated equipment, but if we do not have the high quality officers, senior noncommissioned officers, in all of our services, then we will not be as effective as we must be. The cost over the long term is a loss of many talented young men and women who otherwise would be committed to a career in the military. We are taking efforts to retain these people with bonuses. But more and more what I am hearing is that the financial incentives, the other incentives, are not compensating for the time away from home, for the treadmill in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the toll will mount despite these incentives. There is another aspect too of what is happening, and that is something that has become the signature injury of these operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, that is, the increasing number of mental health issues arising within our forces. Post-deployment health reassessments which are administered to servicemembers 90 to 120 days after returning from deployment indicate that 38 percent of soldiers and 31 percent of marines report psychological symptoms. The figure in the National Guard is 49 percent. Of the 1.6 million military personnel who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, almost 800,000 who have left active service are now eligible for VA benefits, VA care. Of these almost 800,000 veterans, roughly 300,000, or 37 percent, have obtained VA health care since 2001. Of this roughly 300,000, 40 percent, have been diagnosed with a mental disorder. That is a staggering total, a consequence of the stress, the strain, the types of combat situations, the types of weapons deployed against them. But that is a staggering figure. If that number is projected throughout all of those who have served, that is a huge number of active personnel and veterans who are suffering some type of mental consequence of their service in Iraq. In January, Dr. William Winkenwerder, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, announced the Army's suicide rate in Iraq has been about a third higher than past rates for troops during peacetime, another very significant and very sobering statistic. Anonymous postdeployment surveys show that 20 percent of married soldiers plan to separate or divorce in 2006, another consequence of this operational tempo. The incidence of alcohol-related instances has substantially increased over the last several years. The VA has identified that one in four homeless persons are veterans of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is again another sobering statistic and a result of the operations that are being conducted and the requirements to deal effectively and principally with those veterans who are returning and those active-duty personnel who are returning. We have encountered huge costs because of the failed strategy and incompetent execution of this operation in Iraq by the administration. We have seen over the last several months a surge that was promoted as giving the Iraqi Government the ability to reconcile itself, but that reconciliation has not yet been achieved. We have seen, as I pointed out, that in Iraq today, probably the most influential country, certainly challenging us, is not a democratic country, but Iran, not a country that is committed as we are to the same democratic principles. The Maliki government is a Shia government. It is operated in collaboration with the Kurds who have their own aspirations for autonomy. The odd-group-out still remains the Sunni population. We have seen over the last several weeks operations in the south in Basra that started off inauspiciously and ended quickly with the help of Iran. We have seen operations now directed against the Sadr's militiamen in Sadr City, the JAM, the Mahdi army. This is rapidly becoming a fight not against international terrorism but a fight for power within Iraq among various factions and sectarian groups. We are being thrown into it day by day. It also raises serious questions about, frankly, what we have done in the last several years to prepare for this day, to prepare not only the military forces in Iraq but the political institutions of Iraq to deal effectively and peacefully, we hope, with their citizens and to help develop a stable country that can stand on its own. We are in a situation also where we have--and I think this was a calculated risk, one that was taken and is working, but the question is, How long it will work?--recognized Sunni militias. They are called the Sons of Iraq or Concerned Local Citizens. These groups are standing by at the moment watching as the Maliki government tries to assert its authority over JAM and some of the Shia extremist groups. But their future direction is uncertain. We are paying them. We have lobbied heavily that the Government of Iraq assume this responsibility. But there is a real question whether the Maliki government will ever truly recognize the 91,000 Sunni militiamen who are organized in the country, and there is the real potential that without this integration, this is another source of not only friction but of significant conflict in Iraq. There are numerous scenarios that could play out. One scenario is, if Maliki is successful to a degree in disrupting the Shia militias and the JAM, he might decide it is now time to take care of the CLCs, the Sons of Iraq. This could prompt significant fighting. The other possibility is that the Sunni militias, the Sons of Iraq, the CLC, decide the moment is right for them to reassert themselves as a much more powerful force in the political life of Iraq. None of this is certain. But with each passing day, we are further away from weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism and al-Qaida. We are closer and closer to a struggle between contending Iraqi forces for the power to run their country. That is a struggle they must resolve. We cannot. It is a struggle that indicates, again, that our course must be to change our policy, to assist legitimate forces to train to go after whatever remnants of terrorism exist in the country and any place else in the world, and to at all times protect our forces. Embedded in the supplemental is that policy decision which I hope we make positively. If we can begin our redeployment, successfully and without deviation, from Iraq, then we can begin to focus on what to me are much more critical and central issues--al-Qaida elements in Pakistan, the stability of the Government of Pakistan, renewed support for the Government in Afghanistan, and the successful effort to not only defeat the remnants of the Taliban but to do what we have not been able to yet, which is to create political institutions that will outlast us, that will be committed to a fair view of democracy and a fair view of the treatment of their own people. The economic infrastructure to support such a government, not through opium but through legitimate commercial transaction, that, too, is a difficult task. And then, too, I think we can focus and must focus our attention on Iran, dealing with their nuclear aspirations and also recognizing that ultimately our success in the region of the Persian Gulf depends upon diplomatic efforts involving all countries in a positive way. This is a tall order. It is a consequence of a misinformed strategy and failed implementation. I hope we can begin with this supplemental to change course, to move forward. I urge my colleagues to consider this supplemental, consider the fact that we have to change direction in Iraq and redirect resources here in the United States. I hope in that spirit we can pass this supplemental and move forward. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow in my office, LCDR John Croghan, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate on the supplemental bill.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this is an opportunity for me to speak about the supplemental appropriations bill, but I would be remiss if I did not recognize the extraordinary life and service of President Lyndon Baines Johnson. I can remember graphically, as a high school student at La Salle Academy in Providence, RI, going down to, at that time recently named, Kennedy Plaza in Providence to see President Johnson in a motorcade on his way to Brown University to deliver a major policy address with, at that time, the senior Senator John O. Pastore. They were both celebrating tremendous legislative accomplishments in education, health care, and civil rights, none of which would have been wrought except by the vision and work of Lyndon Johnson. We are commemorating an extraordinary President, an extraordinary gentleman, someone truly larger than life whose contribution and whose influence is with us today. In fact, many days on this Senate floor, I think our tact is to live up to his ideals and his accomplishments and to make them fresh again in both the heart and spirit of America. I hope on our best days we do that.

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, last week was National Tourism Week, established by Congress in 1983 and celebrated annually since May 1984. To mark this 25th celebration, I would like to recognize the accomplishments of the Blackstone Valley, which recently won international recognition for its sustainable tourism program. Last month, the World Travel and Tourism Council recognized only one destination in America, the Blackstone Valley of Rhode Island and Massachusetts, with the Destination Award for 2008. This honor was bestowed upon the Blackstone Valley Tourism Council to recognize the organization's trailblazing destination stewardship approach to tourism development, including its work to preserve the area's natural, cultural, and historical heritage. At the heart of the valley is the Blackstone River, which runs from Worcester, MA, to Providence, RI. The river's waters once powered the Slater Mill in Pawtucket, which was America's first successful textile mill and the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution in this country. While this transition from farm to factory brought many years of prosperity, by the 1970s, the valley's economy had declined as industry moved on from the area, leaving behind a tarnished facade and environmental damage. Today, thanks to the coordinated efforts of the Blackstone Corridor Commission, the National Park Service, the Blackstone Valley Tourism Council, businesses, environmental organizations, 24 municipalities, and the States of Rhode Island and Massachusetts, the valley has made a remarkable resurgence as a living landscape of natural and historic treasures. The Blackstone Valley Tourism Council has shown that eco-friendly tourism can revitalize a weakened economy, restore natural surroundings, and revive residents' pride in their communities. Through innovative programs like the Sustainable Tourism Development and Planning Laboratory, the tourism council has created a model for destinations around the country to follow. It is a notable achievement for any river to be at the center of a revolution; but it is a rare feat for the Blackstone River to have spawned two. I congratulate the people of the Blackstone Valley and the Tourism Council for spearheading an economic redevelopment strategy that has made great strides in improving the quality of life in the area.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are here today in the midst of another filibuster in which the FAA reauthorization bill is before us, but we have to wait for a cloture vote and we have to wait many, many days past, I think, what was appropriate. But it does give us an opportunity to talk about the issue that is of most concern to Americans at this moment; that is, the economy. We have an economy that is heading, unfortunately, toward recession. Some economists have already declared it here. Over the last few months, I have spoken about the situation and particularly, I say to the Presiding Officer, in our home State of Rhode Island where, as we go about, we are stopped constantly by our constituents, our neighbors, our friends who, quite rightly, complain about the current economic situation. The Senator from Illinois was very accurate and very insightful when he noted that the incomes of most Americans have not risen over the last decade or more and that these individuals--and we are not talking about low-income Americans, entry-level workers; we are talking about going way up close to $100,000 or more--they have seen no real income growth. But what they have seen is accelerating prices. Now, for several years, they thought they would be buttressed against these accelerating prices and slow income growth by the value of their homes. But, as we know now, we are seeing a huge recession in the real estate market. The values of homes are beginning to fall. They certainly are not rising as they were. The foreclosure situation is deepening everywhere. Again, in Rhode Island, there were traditionally a few notices each week in the paper. Now it seems there is a whole section devoted to foreclosures in the Providence Journal. It is evidence of the worsening of the economic situation. Now, the pressure of flat wages, flat incomes, housing values falling--these accelerating prices are becoming very difficult to endure by Americans everywhere. According to a review, a recent survey by the Pew Research Center, fewer Americans now than at any time in the past half century believe they are moving forward in life. One of the great aspects of my youth in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s is not only did families deal with moving forward, they also were of an unshakeable belief that their children would have a much better life than they enjoyed. That belief is being shaken today, seriously. Many parents--again, we are not talking about low-income workers; we are talking about a range of Americans--believe that unless we take positive and effective action, we are going to be in a situation where the next generation of Americans will have it even more difficult than we do today. That is why it is very difficult to bear these filibusters because ultimately, this is not about parliamentary maneuvering. It is about whether we can provide the leadership and the policies to reverse course in America today and provide for that better future for our sons and daughters tomorrow. Seventy-nine percent of Americans today believe it is more difficult to maintain their middle-class standard of living. In fact, one of the great hallmarks of this country in the last century was the creation and the expansion of the middle class. Again, there are many people who are sensing that the middle class is not expanding any longer, but that it is shrinking. It is shrinking on the load of increasing prices, flat incomes, and decelerating housing values. That is not just the sum of statistics and analysis and reports; that is what people are talking about everywhere in this country. In Rhode Island, for example, with respect to prices, the average price of gasoline is soaring to record levels. Regular unleaded is currently at more than $3.60 per gallon. Diesel is getting close to $4.50 per gallon. For our trucking industry, for all of the businesses that depend on moving their goods around, for the service people who have to get to their service calls, when prices go up--gasoline and diesel--that is an additional business cost. It is an additional tax on them because of, I think, the failed policies of this administration, and it is a tax that is taking a big bite out of their well-being and the welfare of their families. One thing we can do, and I think we should do--we could do it immediately--is we can refrain, at least temporarily, from filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That seems to be a very simpleminded approach to lessening, at least in a small way, demand for oil at a time that oil is surging to around $119 per barrel. I think it also will send a signal that we are at least doing something to relieve the pressure on working families, and that can be done with the signature by the President and ordered by the President, and it should be. At the same time families across this country and businesses across this country are seeing extraordinary price increases, oil companies are seeing extraordinary profits. I think we have to take action, and that action, once again, stalled on the Senate floor several months ago to eliminate some of the tax breaks that oil companies are receiving. I thought that at $119 a barrel, there would be sufficient incentives to go drill, but apparently the oil companies need tax incentives as well. I thought the market would be working in this case, but apparently it works in strange ways for these oil companies. I think we also have to think about a windfall profits tax. We have huge expenditures. The President, as the Senator from Illinois pointed out, is sending up a supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq for billions of dollars. All of that is expended, and yet we can't tax some of the extraordinary profits of companies that are doing very well and don't seem to be reinvesting it robustly in drilling or searching for alternative sources. I think we also have to protect consumers from price gouging at the pump, and something else--and that is speculation in the world oil markets. There are experts who suggest that more than 25 percent of the cost of crude oil may be the result not of supply and demand but of market speculation. We need to give the principal regulator for the energy-commodities markets, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the tools they need to review these transactions and to ferret out unscrupulous conduct in speculation. That is why I support the Close the Enron Loophole Act that has been introduced by Senator Levin. It has been included in the Senate-passed farm bill, and I continue to advocate that provision should be adopted very quickly because without it, I don't think we can effectively provide regulation to a market that is exacting, in some estimates, a 25-percent premium, not because of supply and demand but because there are financial forces at work speculating in these commodities, and that speculation will go on until we authorize the appropriate regulatory authority to begin to supervise, regulate, and review those transactions. The price of food is also, in many cases, spinning out of control for so many working Americans. Since March 2007, the price of eggs has jumped 35 percent, a gallon of milk is up 23 percent, a loaf of white bread has gone up 16 percent, and a pound of ground chuck is up 8 percent. Overall, food prices in 2008 are expected to rise 4 to 5 percent, about double the increase of recent years. Again, this is not just an economic statistic. Talk to the bakers-- and the Presiding Officer knows these families, such as the Calise family and other families in Rhode Island who have been baking Italian bread for 70 or 100 years--they have never seen the increase in wheat prices they have seen over the last several months. It is affecting their ability to make ends meet for their businesses. When you have accelerating energy prices, oil prices, gasoline prices, accelerating commodity prices such as wheat, a business such as that, a family-owned bakery, it is very difficult. It is extremely difficult for those families who are struggling to get by to get, frankly, to the supermarket, fill up their basket, and not walk out very much impoverished by the experience. That is why I have requested the Senate Agriculture Committee to hold a hearing on the food versus fuel balance in U.S. agriculture policy. We have been encouraging ethanol production. That would bar us using some of our commodities, our agricultural commodities, but I believe we have to begin to focus on the tradeoff between energy production and food production. I have also sent a letter to the Agriculture Secretary expressing concern with the cost of wheat, as I indicated, based upon comments I received from our bakers in Rhode Island, and requested that the Secretary work with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy to look at the need to develop a mechanism to balance this tradeoff between food production and fuel production, and requesting information about how the Department of Agriculture is managing the wheat stockpile--which is something that will influence the price of wheat--as well as requesting information on how it is monitoring new speculative investment in commodities and its impact on prices. All of this has to be done. What is becoming also more difficult to bear on top of everything we have talked about--flat income, rising prices, declining home values-- is the fact that now we are seeing unemployment begin to accelerate. In Rhode Island, we are unfortunately experiencing a 6.1-percent unemployment rate--higher than the rest of New England. It is causing real problems, and it is something we have to address. I think we have to begin to recognize that as we lose jobs, we have to think seriously about employing people again. As I mentioned, Rhode Island has a 6.1 percent unemployment rate right now. It is close to the highest unemployment rate in the United States, only behind Michigan, Alaska, and California. It is the highest unemployment rate in Rhode Island since August of 1995, more than 12 years ago. There are 35,100 people in Rhode Island who are unemployed, and this is a trend that has been going up, unfortunately, not down. We have also seen a shift in employment recently from February to March of 2008. In just a single month, 3,100 less people were without jobs in Rhode Island, a decrease in 3,100 jobs. For a State with a population of just 1 million, that is a significant factor. It adds not only to the decline in the unemployment, but the velocity of that decline. Things seem to be trending much quicker downward than rebounding. Now, it is no wonder that the Labor Department announced today that the number of first-time claims for unemployment benefits rose to 380,000 nationwide. That is the highest level in 4 years. Today's announcement concluded that Rhode Island had one of the largest increases in initial claims numbering 1,779. The direction is unfortunate, and it is the wrong direction. Approximately half of those unemployed workers were eligible to collect unemployment insurance benefits, and of this number, nearly 19 percent face long-term unemployment. The number of Rhode Islanders in 2008 who continue to collect unemployment benefits has also increased--14.1 percent above the number of the same period last year. As a result of this situation of deteriorating employment and longer term unemployment, a significant number of Rhode Islanders are exhausting their benefits. They are receiving their final payment. That has occurred for more than 1,900 people, and that percentage is increasing also. All of these numbers suggest something very obvious: more and more people need unemployment insurance. More and more people are on unemployment longer. The economy is not responding to their needs. This economy is not generating jobs, it is shredding jobs. That ultimately leads to the fact that the benefits run out if we do not extend unemployment insurance benefits. Now, I think that is something we have to do. I think we have an obligation in this economy--which is getting worse, not better--to go ahead and provide extended unemployment benefits. By the way, these benefits are one of the best stimulus programs we have because the proportion of the money that is expended that gets reinvested quickly-- respent in the economy--is significantly higher than other programs. I was pleased the Senate passed and the President signed into law the Economic Stimulus Act in February. I voted for this package. It will provide tax rebate checks. They are on their way out to many families across the country. But given the historically high unemployment in Rhode Island and in other parts of the country, I believe we need to do much more. This is a national problem. It needs attention. That is why I believe we have to extend unemployment benefits. In those States that are hit hard by this economic crisis, individuals should be eligible for benefits for an additional 13 weeks and another 13 weeks of emergency benefits in States where the unemployment rate is exceptionally high. I pressed, as so many did, for inclusion of these extended unemployment insurance benefits last February, and I commend my colleagues who have fought also for this benefit, including Senators Kennedy and Durbin and Stabenow. As I indicated, many economists have also pointed to the extent of unemployment benefits as not only something that helps the individual, but it provides further stimulus for our economy. An extension of these benefits provides a very high rate of return on the money expended, generating approximately $1.64 in gross domestic product per dollar invested in this program. This is especially helpful when we are looking for ways to get the economy moving again. We get news each day of declining economic statistics. The last notice of our gross domestic product for the last quarter was a very unimpressive .6 percent. We need urgent action to move the economy. We need urgent action to help families who are struggling. They have worked. They have worked hard, and they are running out of their benefits. We can't run out on them. That is why we need an economic stimulus package that will not only recognize obligations overseas, but we will recognize obligations at home. I hope we will enact a very robust extension of unemployment benefits for all Americans. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the custom is to alternate to each side. Senator DeMint is here. After he has concluded his remarks, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I strongly support passage of H.R. 5715, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act. As an original cosponsor of the Senate companion of this legislation, I am pleased that this bipartisan bill seeks to proactively address the impact of the credit crunch on the student loan market, and ensure that students attending college this fall have sustained, uninterrupted access to affordable Federal grant and loan aid. In an effort to increase college access and affordability, last fall Congress passed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, to provide over $20 billion in new student financial aid. I was glad to help write this law. It increased the maximum Pell Grant by nearly $500 this year and to $5,400 by 2012, providing Rhode Island students with $7.8 million in additional grant aid this year and nearly $85 million over the next 5 years. To help students and families borrowing for college, this law also cut the interest rate on Federal loans in half for undergraduate students over 4 years; capped monthly payments on Federal student loans at 15 percent of a borrower's discretionary income; and encouraged public service by forgiving loan debt for those like nurses, teachers, and librarians after 10 years. However, the current instability of the credit markets has raised concern in my home State of Rhode Island and across the country regarding the availability this spring of Federal loans and how parents will be able to pay tuition for their sons and daughters to attend college in the fall. Although we have not heard of a single student or parent unable to receive a Federal loan yet, the busy time of year for borrowing has only just begun as most student loan applications are not due until the beginning of May. Additionally, we know that over 50 lenders nationwide have stopped offering federally subsidized loans. As such, this bill takes important initial steps to ensuring that students and their families have the necessary financial means to attend and succeed in college. It provides additional grant aid opportunities for low-income students to reduce their reliance on student loans by directing savings generated by the bill into increased Academic Competitiveness and National SMART Grants. These two grant programs provided nearly 2,100 Rhode Island students with over $2.2 million in additional grant aid in 2006-07. It also reduces student reliance on costlier private loans by expanding the amount a student may borrow through a modest raise in the Federal Stafford loan limits. The bill also improves the availability of lower-interest federally subsidized PLUS loans for parent borrowers by providing an option to defer repayment of these loans until after their child graduates college, and ensuring that parents recently impacted by the downturn in the housing market can continue to qualify for these loans. The bill also takes a number of actions to provide an overall Federal backstop so students do not have to borrow higher cost private loans. First, to ensure lenders have the necessary capital to make new Federal loans, the bill gives temporary authority to the Department of Education to act as a secondary market for loans originated in the federally subsidized student loan market. It also eases the process by which a guaranty agency or institution may be deemed eligible as a lender of last resort, ensuring the further availability of Federal student loans. And the direct loan program is on stand-by for institutions concerned that their students may experience difficulty finding a Federal loan this year. Direct loans are directly originated by the Federal Government and as such, not subject to credit market instability and fluctuation. I thank Senators Kennedy and Enzi, and their staffs, for their work and leadership on this bill. I will continue to very closely monitor this situation and explore any additional necessary options in the coming weeks to ensure that the credit crunch does not prevent deserving students from attending college.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this week we celebrate the 45th annual Small Business Week organized by the U.S. Small Business Administration. I would like to recognize the accomplishments of a small business owner who is a leader in his field and a contributor to Rhode Island's vital hospitality and tourism industry. Today, the SBA will present the 2008 National Jeffrey H. Butland Family-Owned Business of the Year award to Robert Antignano of Angelo's Civita Farnese in Providence. This national award, which will go to a Rhode Islander for the first time, honors a family owned and operated business that has passed from one generation to another. Angelo's Restaurant opened in 1924 and has become a landmark on Providence's Federal Hill as the State's longest operating family-owned restaurant. The founder and namesake of the restaurant, Angelo Mastrodicasa, envisioned a place where the working people of the neighborhood could find good food at affordable prices. Mr. Antignano, who is the third generation of his family to run the restaurant, has continued to pursue this mission with great success. Since assuming ownership of Angelo's in 1988, Mr. Antignano has tripled the number of employees and increased revenues by more than 300 percent. From Hollywood stars, New England sports legends, and national political figures to the family who comes in for Sunday dinner, Angelo's is the backdrop for so many memorable occasions. This restaurant is more than a place to eat; it is a slice of Americana where people from all walks of life sit elbow to elbow at the same white marble tables their grandparents and other family members may have shared over the years. The Butland award recognizes Angelo's legacy and its prominent place in our hearts. I am proud of Mr. Antignano, his hard-working, committed staff, and all small business owners in Rhode Island, who together form an essential part of Rhode Island's economy. According to the SBA, small businesses comprise 96 percent of all businesses in the State. Time and again, small businesses, by virtue of their size, have proven their ability to be innovative and flexible, meeting emerging needs for new products and services and improving on those that already exist. Once again, I congratulate Mr. Antignano and his family on their success and wish them many more generations of good customers, food, and spirits.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I strongly support passage of H.R. 2831, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. We must continue to ensure that workers are protected from pay discrimination and treated fairly in the workplace. As an original cosponsor of the Senate companion of this legislation, I am pleased that this bipartisan bill seeks to address and correct the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision from last spring that required employees to file a pay discrimination claim within 180 days of when their employer initially decided to discriminate, even if the discrimination continues after the 180-day period. The Ledbetter decision overturned longstanding precedent in courts of appeals across the country and the policy of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under both Democratic and Republican administrations. H.R. 2831 returns the law to the pre-Ledbetter precedent and would make clear that each discriminatory paycheck, not just the first pay- setting decision, will restart the 180-day period. This allows workers to demonstrate and detect a pattern or cumulative series of employer decisions or acts showing ongoing pay discrimination. As Justice Ginsburg noted in her Ledbetter dissent, such a law is ``more in tune with the realities of the workplace.'' The Supreme Court majority failed to recognize these realties, including that pay disparities typically occur incrementally and develop slowly over time, and they are not easily identifiable and are often kept hidden by employers. Many employees generally do not have knowledge of their fellow coworkers' salaries or how decisions on pay are made. Yesterday was Equal Pay Day, an opportunity to recognize the progress we have made as a nation on ensuring fairness, justice, and equality in the workplace. But there are barriers still to be overcome to close the pay gap and make certain that an individual's gender, race, and age are not an impediment to their economic and employment growth. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is one step forward in the direction of ensuring this growth and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, Rhode Island currently has the highest foreclosure rate in New England. According to the most recent National Delinquency Survey from the Mortgage Bankers Association, 3.9 percent of all the loans being serviced in the State are in foreclosure. Foreclosure initiations were up 11.8 percent from the previous quarter. As far as subprime adjustable rate mortgage loans, ARMs, are concerned, 8.2 percent of them are in foreclosure, which is up 18.8 percent from last quarter. And we know that a majority of these ARMs have not yet reset and are scheduled to do so sometime during the next year. Many families' homes are now worth less than their mortgages, giving them no ability to refinance or sell their homes. With the cost of energy, food, health care, education, and other needs at an all time high, they are trapped between a rock and a hard place. The legislation before us, the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008, is a start. I want to thank Senators Dodd and Shelby and their respective staffs for all of their hard work in helping us move forward on this legislation. I am pleased that the bill contains the provision I authored, from my bill, S. 2153, to amend the Truth-in-Lending Act to improve home loan disclosures. This provision will ensure that consumers are provided with timely and meaningful disclosures in connection with not just home purchase mortgages, but also for loans that refinance a home or provide a home equity line of credit. The bill requires that disclosures be provided no later than 7 business days prior to closing so borrowers can shop for another loan if not satisfied with the terms. If the terms of the loan change, the consumer must be notified 3 days before closing of the changed terms. If consumers apply for adjustable rate or variable payment loans there will now be an explicit warning on the one page TILA form that the payments will change, depending on the interest rate, and an estimate of how those payments will change under the terms of the contract based on the current interest rate. The bill also requires a new disclosure that informs borrowers of the maximum monthly payments possible under their loan. The bill provides a right to waive the early disclosure or requirements if the consumer has a bona fide financial emergency that requires that they close on the loan quickly, and increases the range of statutory damages for TILA violations from the current $200 to $2,000 to $400 to $4,000. Finally, it requires lenders to include a statement that the consumer is not obligated on the mortgage loan just because they have received the disclosures. This will give consumers the opportunity to truly shop around for the best mortgage terms for the first time ever. They will be able to compare the payments and costs associated with a certain loan product, and decide not to sign on the dotted line if they do not like the basic terms of the loan. I believe that giving consumers the information they need regarding the maximum payments is critical. Borrowers need to better understand the full financial impact of entering into a particular loan early in the process, and before they actually consummate the loan. They also need to have the chance of backing out of a loan with bad terms before they get to the closing table. I am pleased that my Republican colleagues agreed that improved disclosures are an important part of the process moving forward. Importantly, FHA modernization legislation has been included in the bill, which will provide more safe, fixed-rate mortgages, a particular help for families who would like to refinance out of more exotic mortgage products. This section of the bill also contains provisions I authored to improve the HUD Post-Purchase Housing Counseling Program. This amendment expands access to HUD-approved counseling programs by allowing any low- or moderate-income homeowner to be eligible for financial counseling services. Since we know that millions of homeowners are facing resets of their mortgages during the upcoming year, this change, combined with the additional funding that we are providing in this bill for housing counseling, should help at least 250,000 families to get the advice or assistance they need to help keep their home. I believe we need more funding for this, and I will keep advocating for these housing counseling services. Additionally, the bill contains language that allows $25 million in FHA savings every year to be used for the purpose of improving FHA's technology, processes, and program performance, and for providing appropriate staffing for the FHA mortgage insurance programs. This funding is critical to ensuring the success of FHA modernization since it will allow FHA to access cutting-edge mortgage insurance industry practices and procedures. The FHA section of the bill also contains some of the provisions that I coauthored with Senator Allard to improve the home equity conversion mortgages, HECM, for seniors. Other noteworthy provisions include: $10 billion in Federal tax- exempt private activity bond authority that will provide for the refinancing of subprime loans, mortgages for first-time homebuyers, and multifamily rental housing: $4 billion in new community development block grant, CDBG, funding to help communities impacted by foreclosures by allowing localities with high foreclosure rates to purchase foreclosed properties for rehabilitation, rent, or resale; assistance for returning soldiers to avoid foreclosure by lengthening the time a lender must wait before starting foreclosure from three months to nine months after a soldier returns from service and providing returning soldiers with one year relief from increases in mortgage interest rates; the requirement that the Department of Defense establish a counseling program to ensure veterans and active service members can access assistance if facing financial difficulties; and an increase in the VA loan guarantee amount, so that veterans have additional homeownership opportunities. However, I think that this legislation has failed to deal with the core issue at the center of this crisis--helping struggling families whose homes are now worth less than their mortgage loan--the so-called ``underwater mortgages.'' I think the Durbin amendment, which I cosponsored, would have helped substantially in this regard. To help families save their homes, the Durbin amendment was strictly limited and would have only applied to families that could pass the strict means test in bankruptcy--and therefore could prove that they couldn't afford the current mortgage. It also would have limited the provisions to families that were currently struggling with nontraditional and subprime loans. Moreover, a judge's authority to change the terms of a mortgage was strictly limited. Judges would have only been able to reduce interest rates to the prime interest rate plus a reasonable premium for risk and could only have extended the life of the loan up to 30 years. In addition, if a family sold their home within 5 years of the court- supervised mortgage change, any increase in the market value of the home up to the original mortgage amount would have been given back to the lender. There is no credible evidence to support the claim that the mere possibility of a small subset of mortgages being changed in bankruptcy would have somehow raised the cost of all mortgages by 1.5 to 2 percentage points, as some have claimed. In fact, a study released earlier this month concluded that allowing strip downs would have had no impact on the cost of credit at all. The Senate should have had a straight up or down vote on this amendment, so that we could start the process of helping the families who want to honor their financial obligations get a court-ordered payment plan that will enable them to stay in their homes at no additional cost to taxpayers. However, the minority did not allow that to happen. This was unfortunate, and I believe a mistake. We are going to have to figure out a way to help the housing market deal with all of these underwater mortgages in an efficient and orderly manner. As the housing crisis deepens, it is clear that its effects are reverberating throughout our entire economy. Indeed, employers shed 80,000 jobs in March, the worst decline in 5 years. In addition, the jobless rate jumped to 5.1 percent from 4.8 percent in February, the highest since September 2005. Unfortunately, Rhode Island has been hit especially hard in the current economic downturn as the unemployment rate has climbed to 5.8 percent. As I mentioned, families throughout Rhode Island are coping with rising energy, food, health care, and education costs, all while workers are losing their jobs and wages have remained stagnant. That is why I spearheaded a letter earlier this year urging the inclusion of an extension of unemployment insurance, UI, benefits in the original stimulus package. Given that this extension was not included in the package signed into law and the economic situation has since worsened, I believe Congress needs to act now to ensure Americans who have played by the rules and worked hard all of their lives can make ends meet. It is critical that we extend this important program. Doing so would not only stimulate our economy, but help workers who have lost their jobs by providing much-needed and temporary income support. Indeed, economists have found that the extension of UI benefits provides a very high return on the investment, generating approximately $1.64 in gross domestic product per dollar spent. Although I support the Foreclosure Prevention Act, I hope that we can revisit the Durbin amendment, look more closely at Senator Dodd's proposal to deal with underwater loans, and analyze other remedies that will deal with the heart of this crisis--millions of families trapped in loans that cost more than the value of their homes. If we do not provide an orderly unwinding to this problem, I fear our entire economy is going to be affected for quite some time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, on March 25, 2008, we marked the 187th anniversary of Greek independence. Throughout 400 years of oppressive rule by the Ottoman Empire, the Greeks were able to maintain their language, religion, and their sense of identity. In 1821, the Greeks began an 8-year war of independence and in 1829 became the first country within the powerful Ottoman Empire to achieve its freedom. Today, Greece remains one of the oldest democracies in the world, a tribute to those brave Greek citizens who risked everything in the quest for liberty and freedom. Our own Founding Fathers were deeply influenced by the philosophers and statesmen of ancient Greece who first imagined the idea of a republic. The United States enjoys a long history of cooperation with our Greek friends, and we owe much of our civic foundations to the Greek concept that the power to govern is vested in the people. Throughout the 20th century, Greece has been a stalwart ally, and is one of only three countries in the world outside the British Commonwealth that has allied with the United States in every major international conflict. American and Greek soldiers have fought alongside each other in efforts to advance freedom, democracy, peace, and stability. In this century the Greece-U.S. relationship has deepened as the two countries have partnered to spread greater security, stability, and prosperity throughout the Mediterranean, Southeastern Europe, and the Caucasus. Today, Greek defense forces are deployed as part of the International Security Assistance Forces in Afghanistan, maintain two battalions of troops in Kosovo as part of the NATO peacekeeping force, train Iraqi military officers at the Multi- National Peace Support Center, and provide logistical support to U.S. military forces throughout the Mediterranean region. The historic friendship between Greece and the United States has been one of mutual respect and support. In history they have inspired, and in the present they enliven our great Nation. It gives me great pleasure to join my colleagues as a cosponsor of S. Res. 476 designating March 25, 2008, as ``Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy.'' I send all Greek Americans my best wishes as we celebrate Greece's independence and contributions to our national heritage.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I add my commendation to the leaders' commendation of COL Michael Barbero. Colonel Barbero is an extraordinary soldier, a family man, someone who has dedicated his whole life to the service of this Nation in the uniform of the U.S. Army. He has done it with distinction. He has done it with fidelity to the basic ideals of this country. He has demonstrated not only great competence but extraordinary character in doing that. Mike graduated from West Point in 1982. I was teaching his class. Fortunately for Mike, he avoided my class and therefore prospered as a soldier and as a scholar. He later himself went on to the Georgia Institute of Technology to receive a master's degree. He returned to West Point and taught as a professor in the Department of Systems Engineering. His military career began as an armor officer. He qualified as a U.S. Army Ranger. He served in a succession of demanding responsibilities as an armor officer, a troop commander, a battalion staff officer, with serious contributions as an armor officer in the U.S. Army. His career represents a continued commitment to excellence as a professional and someone who has maintained the highest standards of a military officer. I first got to know Mike when he assisted me on several trips overseas. Not only was he extraordinarily competent and well organized, he was a decent, cheerful, innovative, and enthusiastic colleague on these trips. He made them all work. They were in very difficult circumstances in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in every moment--sometimes in duress, sometimes in great difficulty--he was unflappably cheerful and ingenious and extraordinarily helpful to me. We all stop and note his service. We also thank him and commend him and his family: his lovely wife Vicki, his two children Mary and Michael. They are the example of what Americans should be in their dedication to country. The motto of West Point is: Duty, Honor, Country--and no one has lived it more significantly than Mike Barbero. I thank him for his service and wish him well as he retires. Thank you, Mr. President.