Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside that amendment and then call up an amendment that has already been filed.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. REED. No more than 10 minutes, and I will try to be less than that.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are currently debating the Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008. Let me commend Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Specter for their great work on this legislation. As Chairman Harkin said, this bill truly defines America. It defines our Nation's commitment to our children's future through education, it defines our Nation's compassion to seniors and working families, and it defines our hopes in many different areas, particularly in the area of helping to cure disease and improve the public health. This is an extraordinarily important piece of legislation. Both Senator Harkin and Senator Specter have done a remarkable job bringing it to the floor. Let me highlight a few of the important points that I believe should be emphasized. First of all, the bill increases Head Start funding, whereas the President's budget would decrease it. The legislation before us will provide sufficient resources to continue Head Start, which is an important aspect of giving children a chance to succeed earlier in their lives. It also provides resources for higher education: Pell grants, the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership Program--LEAP Program--TRIO, and GEAR UP. All of those are vital to ensuring that our citizens can seize the opportunity of America, and the greatest opportunity is education. This legislation also provides an important safety net for many of our low-income families and our seniors; that is, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. We could see a very severe winter in the Northeast, in the Northwest, and in the Central Plains of America. We are also seeing incredibly expensive prices for oil. Without this LIHEAP money, we will not be able to deal with the issue, and countless families will make difficult choices between literally eating or heating their homes. This legislation, in contradistinction to the White House's proposal, would maintain, not decrease, LIHEAP funding. The legislation provides additional resources--about a billion dollars more--for the National Institutes of Health. This is vital to our ability to do research and to provide new diagnoses and new cures for disease. But it is something else that is important: It provides the infrastructure for research in this country. It gives those young Ph.D.s and M.D.s who are doing research incentives to stay in the field. Without it, we will not only miss out on the cures, but we will also miss out on the physicians and researchers who can give us, over the next 20, 30, 40 years, insight into the problems with disease in human beings. We also are supporting in this bill the vaccination program. The 317 vaccination program, immunization program, has been essential to improving the public health, particularly the public health of children. This bill supports those commitments. It also provides for training and employment resources. In a world of globalization, where jobs are going overseas, we just cannot tell people: Tough luck. We have to give them an opportunity to change their training, change their workplace, to go ahead and seize new opportunities. The President's budget diminishes these programs; this legislation increases the programs. I think that is the right direction. The Job Corps Program--very successful since the 1960s. We have in Rhode Island what I think is the best Job Corps center in the country. I just had the director in a few days ago talking about how they are being evaluated higher and higher in each evaluation across the country in terms of other Job Corps centers, providing not only training but jobs. All of their students are walking out into good jobs. These are young men and women who, frankly, we haven't been able to reach before this stage. Either they have dropped out of high school or they have had a long process to get their GED and to get into this program. Some are just getting their GEDs in this program. This program deserves our support. But there is one area in which we have not committed resources; that is, the Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act of 2007. Trauma--injuries, accidents, falls, automobile wrecks, recreational mishaps--is actually the leading killer of young Americans up to the age of 44. It claims more than 140,000 lives and permanently disables about 80,000 each year. But only one in four Americans lives in an area served by coordinated systems that will transfer patients to designated trauma centers from less-equipped hospitals. This is particularly a problem in rural areas. It affects urban and rural communities but particularly the rural areas. At the highest risk are those people in rural areas. Sixty percent of the trauma deaths occur, even though there is only 20 percent of our population, in rural areas--60 percent of the trauma deaths, 20 percent of the population. This is a program which is desperately needed in rural parts of America. The Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act is an important building block to an improved national network of care across the country. This program would allow for planning, infrastructure development, and standards development to determine the procedures that are most appropriate to do this. It would also require coordination with Federal agencies. It is a sensible investment in a systemic approach to trauma care. I believe it is very important. Amendment No. 3360 to Amendment No. 3325 As a result, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3360.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Community Mental Health Services Improvement Act. For decades, we have known that people suffering from mental illness die sooner, on average 25 years sooner, and have higher rates of disability than the general population. People with mental illness are at greater risk of preventable health conditions such as heart disease and diabetes. With this legislation, we are taking steps to address these disturbing trends. We know that mental health and physical health are inter-related: each contributes to the other. Yet historically mental health and physical health have been treated separately. The vision of this legislation is that the two should be integrated in a single medical home. In a recent survey, 91 percent of community mental health centers said that improving the quality of health care is a priority. However, only one-third have the capacity to provide health care on site, and only one-fifth provide medical referrals off site. The centers identified a lack of financial resources as the biggest barrier to integrating treatment. Accordingly, this legislation provides grants to integrate treatment for mental health, substance abuse, and primary and specialty care. Grantees can use the funds for screenings, basic health care services on site, referrals, or information technology. This legislation is also a comprehensive response to the workforce crisis identified by the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. It provides grants for a wide range of innovative recruitment and retention efforts, from loan forgiveness and repayment programs, to placement and support for new mental health professionals, to expanding mental health education and training programs. Finally, this legislation provides grants for tele-mental health in medically-underserved areas, and invests in health IT for mental health providers. These proposals address the twin goals of improving the quality of mental health treatment while expanding access to that treatment in rural and underserved areas. This bipartisan legislation, which I am introducing with my colleague Senator Smith, has the overwhelming support of the mental health community. It has been endorsed by the National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, Mental Health America, the Campaign for Mental Health Reform, and the American Psychological Association. I am especially grateful for the support of the Rhode Island Council of Community Mental Health Organizations, whose members treat close to 15,000 Rhode Islanders of all ages. Today Senator Smith and I are also introducing the Community Mental Health Infrastructure Improvements Act. It should be obvious that this legislation is a necessary complement to the Community Mental Health Services Improvement Act: without community mental health centers, there can be no services to improve. Accordingly, this legislation provides grants to states for the construction and modernization of facilities that provide mental health services. As a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, I will work to include these important initiatives in legislation that renews and improves Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, programs. It is my hope that with its passage, we can begin to address the challenge of improving and expanding access to mental health services in a comprehensive way. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Community Mental Health Services Improvement Act. For decades, we have known that people suffering from mental illness die sooner, on average 25 years sooner, and have higher rates of disability than the general population. People with mental illness are at greater risk of preventable health conditions such as heart disease and diabetes. With this legislation, we are taking steps to address these disturbing trends. We know that mental health and physical health are inter-related: each contributes to the other. Yet historically mental health and physical health have been treated separately. The vision of this legislation is that the two should be integrated in a single medical home. In a recent survey, 91 percent of community mental health centers said that improving the quality of health care is a priority. However, only one-third have the capacity to provide health care on site, and only one-fifth provide medical referrals off site. The centers identified a lack of financial resources as the biggest barrier to integrating treatment. Accordingly, this legislation provides grants to integrate treatment for mental health, substance abuse, and primary and specialty care. Grantees can use the funds for screenings, basic health care services on site, referrals, or information technology. This legislation is also a comprehensive response to the workforce crisis identified by the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. It provides grants for a wide range of innovative recruitment and retention efforts, from loan forgiveness and repayment programs, to placement and support for new mental health professionals, to expanding mental health education and training programs. Finally, this legislation provides grants for tele-mental health in medically-underserved areas, and invests in health IT for mental health providers. These proposals address the twin goals of improving the quality of mental health treatment while expanding access to that treatment in rural and underserved areas. This bipartisan legislation, which I am introducing with my colleague Senator Smith, has the overwhelming support of the mental health community. It has been endorsed by the National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, Mental Health America, the Campaign for Mental Health Reform, and the American Psychological Association. I am especially grateful for the support of the Rhode Island Council of Community Mental Health Organizations, whose members treat close to 15,000 Rhode Islanders of all ages. Today Senator Smith and I are also introducing the Community Mental Health Infrastructure Improvements Act. It should be obvious that this legislation is a necessary complement to the Community Mental Health Services Improvement Act: without community mental health centers, there can be no services to improve. Accordingly, this legislation provides grants to states for the construction and modernization of facilities that provide mental health services. As a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, I will work to include these important initiatives in legislation that renews and improves Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, programs. It is my hope that with its passage, we can begin to address the challenge of improving and expanding access to mental health services in a comprehensive way. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act of 2007. This bill will improve the loan disclosures given to homebuyers not only when they apply for a mortgage, but also when they refinance their home. As we are all too aware, the percentage of loans entering foreclosure is at its highest level in 55 years. According to RealtyTrac, there were 1.2 million foreclosures reported nationwide last year, up 42 percent from 2005. Many of these Americans going into foreclosure took out exotic adjustable rate and payment option loans which are now resetting to new, much higher monthly payments. Many of these consumers never understood how these loan products worked or how high their payments would be once these loans reset. The Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act of 2007 would for the first time require that the maximum payment that a consumer has to make on a mortgage be disclosed, not only at application, but also seven days before closing. If these disclosures are not made or are made inaccurately, then lenders will be subject to statutory damages. In addition to requiring lenders to disclose the maximum payment under the loan, they will now have to provide consumers who apply for adjustable rate or variable payment loans with a warning that the payments will change, depending on the interest rate. In addition, this bill would require lenders to give firm disclosure regarding the terms of the mortgage not only within three days of application for the loan, but also at least seven days before closing. Lenders also will now need 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. Finally, the bill clarifies that lenders are subject to statutory damages for violations of Truth in Lending disclosure provisions, increases the damages for mortgage violations from $2,000 to $5,000 per violation, and requires that mortgage disclosures be made within the stated time frames. The increasing rate of foreclosures across the country is troubling. Not only are individual families losing their homes and their financial nest eggs, but there is a negative ripple effect across communities and the economy. Although improved TILA disclosures are only a small part of what Congress needs to do in the upcoming year, I believe that giving consumers the information they need regarding the maximum payments they might have to pay under the terms of a loan is an important and vital part of improving the process. Borrowers need to better understand the full financial impact of entering into a particular loan early in the loan decision process, and also before they actually consummate the loan. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and other efforts to help improve the mortgage financing process. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am here today to speak on the Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill, and I begin by thanking the chairman of the committee, Senator Mikulski, and the ranking member, Senator Shelby, for an extraordinarily well-crafted appropriations bill which responds to the needs of the country and responds particularly to those areas which were neglected in the initial submission by the President. This bill will protect our citizens and support law enforcement, which is a critical aspect of our engagement to provide security and safety for all of our citizens. It will strengthen America's competitiveness in the global economy. And it will also go a long way to begin to properly husband and conserve our oceans and coastal communities. Once again, let me commend Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby for a job well done. I hope as we go forward the President will work with the Senate and the House to enact this legislation, to sign it, to fund it appropriately, and to continue to strengthen our country in so many different ways. This bill will restore $1.5 billion in funding cuts to State and local law enforcement programs. We have seen, shockingly in my mind, an increase in the statistics of violent crime in this country. That tears at the fabric of every community in America. We need these funds. I am pleased to see the chairman and ranking member respond to that need by providing additional resources. Since 2001, budgets for these law enforcement programs have been decimated, and many in law enforcement believe these cuts have contributed to this very rise in violent crime. To reverse this troubling trend, the bill provides $2.66 billion in funding for the Office of Justice programs, which includes Justice assistance, State and local law enforcement assistance, community-oriented policing services, and juvenile justice programs. The $550 million for the COPS Program will help local law enforcement agencies combat crime and respond to terrorist threats. There is another dimension. When we enacted the COPS Program years ago, we were thinking of law enforcement at the local level simply being an agent to stop those perpetrators of crime. Now we have to deal, and they have to deal, with terrorists, and they have to be prepared to do that. In Rhode Island, the COPS Program has provided nearly $30 million in Federal funding and helped over 395 police officers--it has helped that many--since its inception. We would have literally hundreds of police officers absent from their place on the streets of Rhode Island if this program had not been adopted, and if this bill does not continue to support it. I have been pleased to be a cosponsor of Senator Biden's amendment, which I think was one of the foundations of the proposal we see today in the appropriations bill. This bill also provides $7.35 billion for the Department of Commerce. This is a diverse agency. It has a significant impact in Rhode Island. It supports, in Rhode Island, ocean exploration. We have the University of Rhode Island School of Oceanography, which is one of the best in the country, and it depends significantly on support from NOAA and the Department of Commerce. Coastal protection: We are the ``Ocean State.'' We have, per area, the longest coastline of any State in the country. We have a fisheries program. We are an active fishing state, and we need that help and support. I am excited about the opportunities, particularly for increased research with respect to our oceans. Oceans, through fishing, through transport, through recreation, contribute an estimated $120 billion a year to our economy, and they support over 2 million jobs. Yet we do very little to research the ocean. We do little to stimulate aquaculture, commercial fishing, tourism--all of these things which are huge economic drivers to our economy in Rhode Island and in many parts of the country. This bill will begin to pick up the pace when it comes to supporting these important endeavors. There is a Joint Oceans Commission that has been charged with looking at oceans policy, and they have given our country a grade. In 2006, it was a C-minus. It was a little bit better than 2005--that was a D- plus--but we want to get A's when it comes to ocean policy. That means supporting this legislation and putting the money in to help NOAA particularly. This bill provides $4.2 billion for the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, including $795 million to fund the Joint Ocean Commission's recommendations for ocean research, education, observation, and exploration. Let me commend again Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby for making this a part of this important legislation. The world is basically covered by ocean. We spend a very small fraction on ocean research relative to major research programs for the atmosphere, for space. We have to start looking within the oceans, not only for scientific answers but for commercial opportunity. The bill also strengthens U.S. innovation and competitiveness. Following the recommendations of the National Academy of Science's report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' the bill invests in research and technology that will pay dividends for our future. Specifically, the bill provides over $5.1 billion for basic research through the National Science Foundation, including $117.5 million for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research--the EPSCoR Program. This EPSCoR Program has been very critical in my home State of Rhode Island. It has provided a partnership between the Federal Government, academic agencies, schools, universities, and State government to stimulate research. It is a valuable catalyst for research going forward. Now, with more than 50 percent of NSF's funding going to seven States, this EPSCoR Program makes sure that the other States--the other 43 States--get a little attention and a little cooperation and a little support. It is incredibly important to Rhode Island, and I particularly thank the chairman and the ranking member for their support. Let me mention something else about NSF funding, something else about research funding. It is not just the foregone experiment, the foregone program research; without robust funding for the National Science Foundation and other areas of academic endeavor, we are losing a whole generation of researchers, of academics. I went to the laboratory at Brown University, the neuroscience lab-- terribly sophisticated, doing remarkably good work. I talked to a young researcher, a Ph.D., a woman in her early thirties. She said not only did she need additional support, but she looked back at her class of Yale graduates, Ph.D. scientists, and she is the only one of about seven of those Ph.D.s from Yale who has the money to do the research. She pointed out that if you don't get that money at 30 years old to do this fundamental research and establish yourself, you will not get tenured at 39, and as a result, you quickly decide you are leaving the field. You can go to a pharmaceutical company; you can go to an investment bank and use your skills in terms of analyzing portfolios and investments. You won't be doing basic research, expanding the knowledge, teaching other scientists and other young students. That is what is so critical about this, in addition to simply making sure we continue to do the research, and I thank my colleagues for their support. Let me also mention another program, and that is the manufacturing extension program. All of my colleagues, without exception--and I include myself--come to the floor and talk about the decline of American manufacturing, the fact that we used to have, particularly up my way in the Northeast, communities that revolved around manufacturing plants at every corner. Growing up in Rhode Island, when you drove through communities such as Pawtucket in the 1950s on a Saturday, all you could hear was click, click, click. Those machines were working overtime. There was no air-conditioning; the windows were open until 11 o'clock at night. It is silent there now. We are losing manufacturing. This manufacturing extension program is the only real money we put in to directly aid manufacturing. It gives them new techniques, new technology. It gives them suggestions about how they can be competitive on a global basis. It helps the small manufacturer. It is critical. It is the last support for many of these individual companies, the last support they get to face a very competitive world. I again appreciate so much how this money has been included in this appropriation. This bill also provided $283 million to the Economic Development Administration. EDA is one of those critical agencies of the Federal Government that will allow local communities to fulfill their plans for local economic development. We have used this program repeatedly to jump-start progress at the local level. They have gone in and they have funded, and they have a rather wide mandate that they can justify as economic development, but they have funded programs that have allowed investments by States and cities and private entities to really give us a leg up in terms of providing employment, providing new economic oppor- tunities for my communities in Rhode Island. Again, it is a very valuable agency. Of this funding, $15 million is for trade adjustment assistance for firms, and this is targeted to medium-sized manufacturers and agricultural companies that experienced loss from foreign imports. Again, related to the struggle of our manufacturing companies, we are seeing so much that used to be produced in America is now imported, and what is lost in the balance is many jobs, and this money will help, at least a bit, to ease that transition. It allows people really to retool themselves for a new economy. It gets them off the unemployment rolls more quickly than otherwise and gives them something more important than just a check; it gives them new hope. For many of my constituents, it is particularly distressing when you reach midlife, you have worked very hard, you got out of high school in the 1960s and thought you could have a whole career based on a high school diploma, and guess what. Now the company is gone. You have to have new skills. Where are you going to turn? This helps these individuals, not just with the monetary compensation, not just with a little bit of assistance, but with a new hope that they can get on with their lives. It is very important. So much of this bill is commendable, and it is the work of not only the hands but the hearts of both Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby that have made this such a worthwhile piece of legislation. I am proud to support it. I hope we can move it forward quickly, and I hope the President will sign it. I believe it will be a victory for all Americans. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act of 2007. This bill will improve the loan disclosures given to homebuyers not only when they apply for a mortgage, but also when they refinance their home. As we are all too aware, the percentage of loans entering foreclosure is at its highest level in 55 years. According to RealtyTrac, there were 1.2 million foreclosures reported nationwide last year, up 42 percent from 2005. Many of these Americans going into foreclosure took out exotic adjustable rate and payment option loans which are now resetting to new, much higher monthly payments. Many of these consumers never understood how these loan products worked or how high their payments would be once these loans reset. The Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act of 2007 would for the first time require that the maximum payment that a consumer has to make on a mortgage be disclosed, not only at application, but also seven days before closing. If these disclosures are not made or are made inaccurately, then lenders will be subject to statutory damages. In addition to requiring lenders to disclose the maximum payment under the loan, they will now have to provide consumers who apply for adjustable rate or variable payment loans with a warning that the payments will change, depending on the interest rate. In addition, this bill would require lenders to give firm disclosure regarding the terms of the mortgage not only within three days of application for the loan, but also at least seven days before closing. Lenders also will now need 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. Finally, the bill clarifies that lenders are subject to statutory damages for violations of Truth in Lending disclosure provisions, increases the damages for mortgage violations from $2,000 to $5,000 per violation, and requires that mortgage disclosures be made within the stated time frames. The increasing rate of foreclosures across the country is troubling. Not only are individual families losing their homes and their financial nest eggs, but there is a negative ripple effect across communities and the economy. Although improved TILA disclosures are only a small part of what Congress needs to do in the upcoming year, I believe that giving consumers the information they need regarding the maximum payments they might have to pay under the terms of a loan is an important and vital part of improving the process. Borrowers need to better understand the full financial impact of entering into a particular loan early in the loan decision process, and also before they actually consummate the loan. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and other efforts to help improve the mortgage financing process. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I anticipate it will not be more than 5 minutes for myself and Mr. Whitehouse. That will be more than enough.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I talked with the managers. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 minutes as in morning business and then at the conclusion of my remarks that my colleague, Senator Whitehouse, be recognized immediately after me so we can pay tribute to a State legislator and friend who passed away in Rhode Island.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my friend, Senator Whitehouse, to recognize the life of Paul Crowley, a Rhode Island State Representative who distinguished himself with an extraordinary career as a business leader and particularly as a civic leader in the State of Rhode Island. Paul passed away on September 24, 2007, after serving nearly 27 years as a member of the Rhode Island General Assembly. Indeed, I had the privilege and pleasure of serving with Paul years ago. He was a friend to me. He was a source of wise counsel, and he was someone who was universally admired for his commitment, particularly his commitment to children. Paul's passion was to try to reform the educational system of Rhode Island. He brought that passion with him every day to the State House in Providence. He was someone who was unafraid of taking on anybody when it came to helping children perform better in school. It was not confrontation for the sake of confrontation; it was constructive, robust debate--always with the focus on improving the opportunities for children to learn in our State so they can take those skills and build strong families, a strong community, and a great nation. Paul is a contemporary. He was born, as I was, in 1949. He graduated from the University of Rhode Island in 1973 and was first elected as a Democrat from Newport in 1981. In the intervening years he has, more than any one person in Rhode Island, profoundly shaped education policy for our State. As I said, he took it upon himself with a passion, with a commitment, with a sense that this country is all about opportunity, and the greatest engine of opportunity for Americans is a good public education. He was an unstinting advocate. He was someone who understood the nature of the educational process. He worked ceaselessly, tirelessly, and he bore the frustrations of public service with a sense of purpose. At the end of his career, he could look back at profound changes for the better in the educational system of Rhode Island. He was way ahead of his time in terms of emphasizing school accountability, standards-based reform, and measuring student progress. Years before these ideas were embraced and supported at the Federal level, Paul was talking about them at the State level and led a State- wide reform effort. He was committed to making sure education was available for all our citizens, regardless of race, background, or income; that they would have access to a high-quality public education as a foundation to higher education. He was also an advocate for career and technical education, understanding that one size does not fit all; that the essence of education is finding the talent in that child and giving that child the opportunity to use that talent. For many, it is career and technical education. He understood that in this new global economy, Americans could not stand pat when it came to education. They had to be better than they were before, better than the rest of the world. He fought for that vigorously and tirelessly. He was someone who understood it very well and every day gave his all so every child in our State would have a better chance to make the progress that is the essence of this country and seize all its opportunities. Paul's greatest passion was for his family, Diana, and their three children, Meredith, Matthew, and Edward. In his family, he has a reflection of all the values he stood for, honesty, decency, integrity, effort, success and community spirit--reaching out to help others. All of these good people do it every day. They are inspired and sustained by his example. Also high among his cherished ideals was his Irish heritage. Paul looked like a map of Ireland, with a shock of white hair and his ruddy complexion and his great Irish tenor voice. He would sing Irish ballads with his musical group, and he would remind us all of the great poets of Ireland and the great dreamers of Ireland. But similar to many of them, he transformed the songs, the poems, and the dreams into real action. Today we come to this floor to praise him, to thank him, to let his family know what they already know. He has won the esteem and the love of his neighbors in Rhode Island, richly deserved for a life well spent serving others. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Yes, it is.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, could I make a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. REED. I think the Senator from Virginia suggested that the amendment is pending, so that the Senator from Vermont would not be requesting to set it aside; he just wants to speak to his amendments.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise at this moment to speak in strong support for the renewal of the Children's Health Insurance Program. It is an issue that is fast upon us. The House of Representatives passed this legislation last evening. We will, I hope, do the same, and will send it to the President. This is an issue that is not just an economic issue; it is also a moral imperative. If we cannot ensure the children of this country have the opportunity to have access to good health care, then we cannot ensure that we keep pace with the basic notion of this country: opportunity for all of our citizens. Health care and education together are the engine that moves this country forward. They give children a chance to use their talents, develop their talents, and go on and contribute to this great country. But also it makes tremendous economic sense. As we invest in children's health care, we hopefully will ensure that throughout their lifetime they will not only have healthy lifestyles, but they will have the advantage of a good start, so that their efforts can be directed toward contributing toward their community, and contributing to this economy. We understand that the costs of health care are skyrocketing, and that for many families they have, unfortunately, had to make the choice of forgoing it, to leave their children vulnerable, without access to good primary care, without access to specialized care when they need it. We also understand that these children, when they get sick, ultimately find their way to an emergency room and we end up paying much more, because a child who can be seen on a regular basis could have access to preventive care. Arriving at the emergency room with a very serious condition requires a great deal more resources than seeing a child before that condition becomes serious, and becomes an emergency. So we should be, I think, smart, as well as morally responsive to the issue before us. And that directs me to my strong support for this legislation. The final bill which will be coming before us will invest $35 billion in our Nation's children and their future. It preserves coverage for 6.6 million children, but it will also reduce the number of uninsured children by 4 million. In fact, the final bill improves upon the Senate bill that I proudly supported weeks ago. It provides quality dental coverage to all children enrolled. That is critical. I can recall listening to a foster mother in Rhode Island. She had six different foster children. What was her biggest complaint? She could not get a dentist. They would not see her because she did not have dental coverage. Her complaint to me was a repetition of what her child said to her in so many words, which was: What do I do? How do I take care of a toothache? How do I go to school when I cannot bear to concentrate because of the pain? For most of us here in this room, that would be a simple call to the dentist, a trip there, and immediate relief, and for our children also. But for millions of Americans, that is not the case. Here we have a chance to give them what we too often take for granted. I think it is going to be an important step forward. I am particularly proud, because the architect of this program 10 years ago was Senator John H. Chafee of Rhode Island. He stood on a bipartisan basis with many in this Chamber and pushed for the adoption of the children's health care bill. It stands as a legacy to him. It is a vibrant legacy which we in Rhode Island cherish and we hope we can extend through this legislation. The final bill that will result we hope in passage and signature by the President will give Rhode Island an increase in Federal funding from $18 million to $93 million. It will prevent future shortfalls. Last November on the floor of the Senate before we went out, I insisted that we could not leave until we provided help to States that had already run out of their SCHIP funding. We were able to do that. But those stopgap measures at the eleventh hour do not provide for the kind of planning and predictability that are essential to keep the costs down and keep the program going. I do think, again, this is a bill that is worth all of our efforts and all of our support. If we can afford to spend $12 billion a month in Iraq, we must be able to afford to spend a fraction of that to give children health care in this country. I just left the Appropriations Committee hearing. Secretary Gates is urging $50 billion more funding for Iraq. That is quite a bit more than we are asking over 5 years for the children's health care program. That is just for several months in Iraq. The American people, I believe, will demand that we pass this legislation. If we can find the resources overseas, we have got to be able to find the resources here for this compelling issue. The other aspect of this is this legislation is fully paid for, unlike the spending in Iraq which is deficit spending, which we are literally sending forward to the next generation of Americans to deal with. This is fully paid for by an increase in the cigarette tax; sound fiscal policy as well as sound public policy. Now, we have heard a lot from the President, particularly about why he is proposing to veto this legislation. I find it hard to discover any logic at all. It is full of misrepresentations, frankly. The bill does not cover children up to 400 percent of poverty. In fact, about 80 percent of the newly insured children are from families below 200 percent of poverty. Those are the new children to be enrolled. This bill is well targeted, and provides incentives to ensure that the lowest-income children are insured first. This does not federalize health care or socialize it. In fact, in Rhode Island this children's health care program is run by private health insurance companies, and that is a very effective and efficient approach. What I have noticed over the last few years is not that private health insurance has expanded dramatically in this country and this legislation would constrain that. Quite the opposite. With private health insurance, the number of insured Americans has decreased. They are losing their private insurance. It is too expensive. So the idea that this somehow is going to throttle the attempts of the private insurance industry to insure those children is, on its face, preposterous. Those children will not be insured because their parents cannot afford to pay the coverage, and because private insurance companies operate at a profit, they do not extend coverage because they feel like it. This is the way to expand coverage. This is the way to protect children. This is the way to invest in our future. This is the way to do it in a fiscally responsive manner by increasing the cigarette tax. It makes sense on every ground. The President's suggestion that he is vetoing it has to be something other than common sense. In fact, it strikes me as slightly spiteful. This is something on a bipartisan basis we have done for 10 years; something on a bipartisan basis that we will continue to do. And to be frustrated by a Presidential veto, I think, would add insult to the injury of not having children insured in this country. I call on the President to reconsider his veto threat. I call on the President to join us in providing health insurance to the children of America, to provide them a foundation for their education, provide them the foundation to proceed forward as good citizens, good workers in the economy, and contributing members. I hope that will happen in the next few days with passage and signature by the President. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Levin, for yielding time and also for being the principal author of the Levin-Reed amendment, the amendment we are considering today. There will be a vote shortly. The amendment recognizes that we have responsibilities in Iraq, but it also recognizes the constraints we face in Iraq. The first principal constraint is a lack of sufficient forces to maintain the current force level there. That alone must drive a change in mission for our military forces in Iraq. But it also recognizes the fundamental dynamic in Iraq, which is a political dynamic. It is a political dynamic that must be achieved, not by the United States but by Iraqi political leaders. When the President announced the surge in January, he made it very clear that the whole purpose was to provide these leaders with the political space and the climate to make tough decisions. Frankly, those decisions have not been made. What we have gained on the ground has been tactical momentum. Any time you insert the greatest Army and Marine Corps and Air Force and Navy in the world into a situation, you are going to make progress--and we have. But the real question there is, Will that progress last when we inevitably begin to draw our forces down, as General Petraeus has announced? I think most people would suggest probably not. So we are left with the reality on the ground and the reality here at home--waning support for a policy that the American people believe is misguided and has been incompetently executed by the administration. We have to change the mission, and the core of the Levin-Reed amendment is to change that mission, to go away from an open-ended ``we will do anything you want, Mr. Maliki, even if you don't do anything we want'' to focused counterterrorism, training Iraqi security forces, and protecting our forces. It also recognizes that we have to have a timeframe in which to do those things. I am encouraged and I think all should be encouraged that a year ago when we started talking about initiating withdrawal of forces from Iraq, that was an item which was not only hotly debated on the floor but severely criticized. General Petraeus has told us he will propose and will probably implement a withdrawal of forces before the end of this year. That is part 1 of the Levin-Reed approach. The second is to begin a transition to these missions, and we hope that can be accomplished in a very short period of time. Finally, we would like to see these missions fully vetted, fully set out and implemented on the ground, moving away from the open-ended approach within a fixed period of time. This approach, together with a very aggressive diplomatic approach, we believe is the key to contributing not just to the stability of Iraq but to the long- term interests of the United States in the region and the world. I hope we are able to agree to this amendment, to pick up support. We have listened to General Petraeus. Frankly, he has in part agreed with us, in terms of beginning withdrawal. He has suggested, but not definitively, that some transition sometime down the road must take place. But I think--surprisingly to me, at least--when asked what should we do in the next year, he essentially said: I can't tell you until next March, and then I will tell you. We have to have a plan, a strategy for this country that certainly goes beyond next March. The world and our strategic interests will not start and stop in March. They are continuous, they are challenging, and we have to face the best course of action going forward. We believe--I believe strongly--this is the best course of action. This war in Iraq has cost billions of dollars. More profoundly and more fundamentally, it has taken the lives of over 3,700 American service men and women. It has injured countless. I think the American public is genuinely not only concerned but in a literal sense heartbroken about what is going on. They are asking us--indeed, demanding of us--if the President is unwilling to act, that we act to change the course, to provide a strategy and a policy that is consistent with our interests, with our resources, and with our ideals that will help us move forward. I hope in the next several minutes as this vote comes to the floor that the message of the American people will be heard and heeded and that we will adopt the Levin-Reed amendment. I yield my time.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise in support of the proposal my colleague Senator Levin has offered. I participated in this with him. This is a legislative proposal we have advanced in various forms for over a year. It seeks, quite simply, to initiate a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq. I think it is interesting to note that General Petraeus announced he too is recommending a withdrawal of forces, about 5,700 troops, before the end of this year, which essentially complies with at least a portion of our proposal dating back over a year. But it goes further than that. It would require a transition to three discrete missions from the open-ended war-based mission that today our forces are pursuing. The first mission would be counterterrorism, which is essential not only in Iraq but across the globe. That requires attention, energy, and persistence, and we would urge and support such a mission in Iraq; not just in Iraq, but, frankly, worldwide. The second mission would be to continue to train Iraqi security forces and provide robust training, support for those forces, because we need to provide the Iraqis the ability to defend themselves and pursue opponents of the legitimate Government of Iraq. Third, and something that is essential every time we deploy our forces, is to protect our forces, to give commanders in Iraq the ability and the forces needed to ensure that American forces will be protected. Those three missions represent not only what is in the long-term interest of the United States but also within the capacity of the United States to effectively carry out not just in the next several weeks or months but for a period of time. My perspective has always been that the President is much more comfortable with slogans than strategies. We have a new one now, ``return on success.'' It follows a long line of slogans, ranging from ``when they stand up, we will stand down,'' ``mission accomplished,'' and many others. But what we need now at the national level, not at the circumscribed level of just Iraq, is a national strategy that in the long run will deal with the significant threats that face this country. In the interim of our involvement with Iraq, starting several years ago, we have seen some remarkable developments which suggest very strongly that the strategy the President pursued is deeply flawed. We have seen the resurgence of al-Qaida. That is not the opinion of myself alone. It is the conclusion of the National Intelligence Estimate most recently released to the public. We are seeing a virtual--in fact, a real safe haven in Pakistan for bin Laden, Zawahiri, and others. And from that relative area of safety for them, unfortunately, they are able both to direct in a limited way actions across the globe and also to inspire other unrelated cells who are conducting these operations. We just witnessed recently in Germany where, through good police and intelligence work, the capture of a cell comprising ethnic Germans who converted to Islam and Turks, who were contemplating a major terrorist attack against American facilities, not perhaps directly related to al- Qaida but certainly inspired. And there is evidence that suggests perhaps there was even some remote link. But they are there in Pakistan in a safe haven. It seems to me ironic that the President would talk about creating a safe haven in Iraq when, for all intents and purposes, we are at least acknowledging, recognizing, perhaps even not effectively acting against the safe haven in Pakistan. Also, when it comes to the discussion of a safe haven for Sunni jihadists in Iraq, we have to recognize, too, that one of the benefits of the last several weeks in Iraq has been what is required and called the Sunni awakening. That has been an incidental result of our increased troop presence. It was not the purpose, but certainly it is a favorable development. That is simply the result of Sunni sheiks realizing that Sunni jihadists of al-Qaida are more a threat to them, to their families, and to their way of life than the new government in Baghdad or the presence of American forces. Through the able and effective and courageous work of American soldiers and marines, these sheiks have been enlisted to attack and are attacking al-Qaida elements. That is a positive sign and tends, in my view, to mitigate against those dire warnings that there will be an automatic and predictable reflexive creation of a safe haven for al-Qaida in Iraq. In addition, there is a Shia government there that is committed to certainly disrupting and eliminating Sunni insurgents, particularly al- Qaida insurgents. So we see, in terms of the strategic picture, a virtual or a real safe haven in Pakistan, arguably problems in Iraq, but certainly I think showing how our preoccupation in Iraq is taking our eye off a much more serious and potential threat. The other very serious threat that faces us in the region and worldwide is the growth of Iran. That growth has been fueled by oil prices at $80 a barrel. That makes their bottom line look a lot better and gives them a greater sense of confidence as they look out and pursue their plans. Second, frankly, is our vulnerabilities in Iraq, the fact that the Iranians have strong influence in that country, the fact that the government in Baghdad, the Maliki government, has not just associations but long-time associations with Iranians. They are coreligionists. I am not trying to suggest that they are agents or clones, but there certainly is a rapport and understanding and an appreciation of the proximity of the Iranians and their potential impact in Iraq. That situation has given rise to a resurgence and a strategically more empowered Iran. So you have a strategy that the President has pursued that has not mitigated these major threats against the United States but actually has enhanced them. That might be the definition of a bad strategy. So our involvement in Iraq has taken us away from critical threats. In that term alone, we have to begin to think seriously about our approach forward. The status quo has not worked. There is scant evidence it will in the next several months. There is another issue we have to look at. That is not only in terms of the strategic threats, but it is our capacity. The real driving factor in the proposal that General Petraeus made is not what is happening on the ground in Iraq, it is the force structure. It is the number of Army and marines that we have to commit. If you talked to anyone months ago, they could have told you essentially what General Petraeus was going to say, which is by next spring, beginning in April and going through July, we would have to reduce by 30,000 our forces in Iraq; that the surge had an end point unrelated to what was happening on the ground, to the success or lack of success. Simply we could not sustain that large a combat force on the ground. That is essentially what General Petraeus confirmed in his testimony to the Congress when he returned from his mission in Baghdad. So we are limited in what we can do. That is not a function of success, return on success, or anything else. In fact, I was always under the impression that in a military context, when you have success, you reinforce it. You don't talk about a return on success, you reinforce it. But, quite frankly, we do not have the resources available to reinforce. So we are being driven by the constraints of our military forces more than what is happening on the ground. We have to respond to that. It also drives the real question: In the next several months, after the surge is over and it has been announced it is over, what missions can we responsibly take on, what missions will support our national security, and what missions will be within the grasp of our manpower and personnel resources? Again, that underscores the need for change and underscores the need for adoption of limited missions as we propose in the Reed-Levin amendment. When General Petraeus came before the committee, he made several points. First, he would recommend a redeployment of forces this year. That is something we have been arguing for and urging for over a year, many of us. Many accusations have been hurled at us that we were irresponsible and reckless. They are not being hurled at General Petraeus. But the reality is, he, too, recognizes that we have to begin to redeploy our forces. Second, he is talking about reducing the forces by 30,000. If you recall, the military premise of the surge was, if you inserted 30,000 additional troops focused on Baghdad, you would have now sufficient forces to conduct a different type of mission, population protection. You could disperse them in the localities. You could conduct more aggressive patrolling. I think the announcement by General Petraeus that those troops are coming out begs the obvious question: How do you maintain that population protection mission without those 30,000 troops, and particularly without, as most people recognize, the ability of the Government of Iraq to replace our forces with reliable Iraqi security forces? In a sense, the progress we have seen--and there is progress on the ground; there is tactical momentum. No one should be surprised when we commit American forces to a mission that they obtain dramatic and immediate results. But the real question is, are those successes permanent or transitory? Are they reversible or irreversible? My sense is that they are highly reversible, that as we depart, insurgents, opponents of the Government in Iraq, will move back in and try to exploit the absence. Without a sufficient and reliable Iraqi security force, that probably could be accomplished. So I think that just the numbers drive us to start thinking about missions that we can perform. The other factor of General Petraeus's testimony is that he very clearly begged off from any suggestion of what do we do after next June or July. Frankly, we have to have a strategy, a plan that goes beyond the next 6 months. It is unsatisfactory that both, it seems, the President and, indeed, the commander on the ground will say simply they don't know. No one knows perfectly, but we have to have at least their sense of what their best guidance is beyond that in terms of troop levels, in terms of some of the questions I have raised. Going back, again, to this notion of troop levels, if you recall, the focal point of the surge was stabilizing Baghdad, a large city, stable population. But the operations since then necessarily have taken our forces well beyond Baghdad, and the areas in dispute in Iraq are well beyond Baghdad. So the simple calculation of military forces versus population has been thrown out the window in the sense of the appropriate level of forces versus the real population and the real area that we are trying to stabilize. In this regard, we have to recognize what is happening in the south; that is, the British forces are, for all intents and purposes, withdrawing into base camps. Their presence has shrunk dramatically, roughly 5,000 troops. That area now is becoming an area that is extremely hospitable to Shia militia, to Iranian influences, and has a long-term potential to provide further instability in the country. Yet we don't have the forces to go down there. We are not attempting to go down there, and yet that poses a real challenge to the long-run security and safety and stability of the country. I sense, for all these different reasons, that we do have to change our course. That is at the heart of the Levin-Reed amendment, to identify, first, clearly the direction of our forces, which is to begin a phased redeployment; second, to focus on missions that are within our capacity and will, to the best of our capacity, advance our interests in the region, not just in Iraq but in the whole region. We all were waiting for the report of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. There were other reports. General Jones and the General Accounting Office came forth almost simultaneously. We hoped these reports would provide both the President and the Congress with the information they needed to begin to change our direction in Iraq. Unfortunately, it appears at this juncture, unless we are successful with this amendment, that change is not going to take place. The GAO was the first to release their report, and it was sobering by anyone's standards. Of the 18 economic, security, and legislative benchmarks set by the Iraqis themselves last January, GAO found that 3 had been met, 4 had been partially met, and 11 had not been met. I think it is important to emphasize--because now the benchmarks were being seen as, oh, just some interesting construct of the Congress unrelated to what was happening in Iraq, et cetera--but these were the points the Iraqis stressed as critical to their progress. They were the points that were deliberately embraced by the President of the United States. In January, when he talked about the surge, part of that--a large part of it-- was to allow the Iraqis the political space, the time to achieve these benchmarks. What appears to have happened, having failed the test, the President decided the test was not worth giving, and he ignores the results. But those results, I think, speak volumes. For example, the Iraqi Government still has not completed revisions to the constitution, or enacted legislation on de-baathification, oil revenue-sharing, provincial elections, amnesty, or military disarmament. When Ambassador Crocker was here, he said: Well, we have not done it formally out there, but they informally are distributing the oil revenues. That goes, I think, to the point I have tried to suggest in other contexts. If it is informal, then it is highly reversible. If it is informal, it is transitory. Legislation is not as reversible and transitory. We do a lot of that around here, but at least you have to go back through the legislative process. But these informal arrangements may be just temporary and expedient, and probably are temporary and expedient. But the real work, the commitment the Government of Iraq made months ago to make these changes, has not been accomplished. The Iraqi Government has not eliminated militia control of local security, eliminated political intervention in military operations, ensured evenhanded enforcement of the law, increased Army units capable of independent operations or ensured that political authorities made no false accusations against security forces. Again, we have been engaged for years in training Iraqi security forces. At the entry level of that training--to give the ability of a squad leader to read a map, to call indirect fire, to call a medevac-- we have made progress. To give the skills for an individual infantryman to low-crawl, to clear a building, we have made progress. But it is at the critical levels where politics and security intersect that there has not been the adequate progress. That is the most decisive level. Until there is a force in Iraq that is not only technically capable but can operate with a certain degree of independence, then their ability is, I think, undermined. We are making progress in that direction. The Levin-Reed amendment calls for the continued training to achieve not just technical proficiency but we hope some day a force that is professionally capable and deployed in a way where they can secure the country of Iraq--their country--without fear or favor with respect to political or sectarian allegiance. Now, the Iraqi Government also pledged to spend $10 billion of their own money on reconstruction. We have sent billions of American dollars over there for reconstruction. To date, only $1.5 billion of Iraqi funds has been allocated to do that. I think it raises the question among many Americans: If we are spending all these billions of dollars--and the President is going to send the supplemental up shortly asking for billions and billions of dollars more--why cannot the Iraqis spend at least their own money they have for their own people for their own needs? I think it is a question that the longer it goes unanswered, the more unsettling it is to the American public. The GAO also noted: It is unclear whether sectarian violence in Iraq has decreased--a key security benchmark--since it is difficult to measure the perpetrators intent and other measures of population security show differing trends. The situation, which is understandable given the chaotic nature, given the conflicting motivations that are engulfing the country and producing violence--it is hard to say what is criminality, what is a politically motivated event, what is the mixture of the two--but these measures, I think from our perspective, whether they go up or down, probably do not suggest the atmosphere which most Iraqis endure, which is an atmosphere of violence, potential violence, of fear. It is an atmosphere that has caused 2 million people to be external refugees, 2 million people, roughly, to be internally displaced. It also is reflected in polling conducted within Iraq about the sense of security and the sense of the future the Iraqi people have. These numbers have been declining. It was at a zenith, obviously, after the operations in March 2003. But since then there has been, I think, a significant and continued deterioration. Because this violence--to us it makes a difference that it is sectarian versus criminal--but to someone on the street, it is violence. Again, the progress in stabilizing the country that the Iraqi Government said they were committed to has not materially been changed throughout the country. Now, General Petraeus and General Jones did report improvements in the Iraqi security forces, and they should be recognized. But the progress is uneven and slow. I suggested at the zenith, where it is most critical in terms of stability of the country, where it is commanders, not squad leaders, who are making decisions, that is the most difficult to achieve, and it is, so far, lagging based upon the reports we have heard. Now, we recognize the last 2 years have been enormously challenging for the Government of Iraq and our participation there. We recognize, too, that both General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker came with great experience, great professional acumen, and great patriotic service to the country, and gave us their best report. There is another aspect of this debate which is as important as what is going on in Iraq, and that is what is going on in the United States. Frankly, the support for our operations has rapidly faded since the heady days of March 2003. Before the September reports by Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus and the speech by the President, 64 percent of Americans polled by CBS felt things were going badly in Iraq; after the reports and speech, 63 percent. My point is, that is an important factor in the conduct of any national security policy: the support of the American people. In fact, the manual General Petraeus helped author at Fort Leavenworth, the counterinsurgency manual, makes that point specifically, that public support within the United States is a critical--critical--attribute for policy, particularly long-term policy in a counterinsurgency conflict. We have seen, frankly, the American public being quite concerned, in fact disheartened, about what is happening in Iraq. I think that also calls--in addition to what is happening on the ground--for a change in our policy, for a change in the direction Senator Levin and I are suggesting. It is very difficult and some would argue impossible for any administration to carry out a policy without the strong support of the United States, particularly a policy that does not seem to be matched by an equal commitment by those whom we are trying to help. I believe we do need a change of policy, not only because it is a more effective way to go forward, but it, I think, would represent to the American people a needed sense that we have heard them, we are moving forward, and we are moving forward in a way that can be sustained and be supported by the American people. Everyone has to recognize the extraordinary contribution of our military forces. They are serving well, and they continue to serve well. But I think their effort has to be matched by a wiser policy on our part. That policy, I think, is necessary. I hope we can do that within the context of the amendment we propose. There is another issue here, too, and that is not just public support but also the financial support. We are spending $12 billion a month in Iraq, Afghanistan, et cetera. That price keeps going up. We understand the costs are not short term. There are hundreds of thousands of veterans coming out of the gulf who for the next 50 years will require support and assistance. This is not going to be something that when we look back 5 or 10 years, even when the fighting stops, we can ignore. We have a long-term commitment to these individuals and a long-term costly commitment. We have to measure our policy against our resources, not just the brave men and women who serve, but our ability to finance their operations and finance their long-term care as they come back. This amendment, as I indicated previously, calls for a transition which I believe is long overdue, a transition to counterterrorism, a transition to training Iraqi security forces, and protection of our forces, coalition forces. I think the transition will help us in terms of what is happening on the ground, what is happening in the country, and what should be happening in the region. Also, our amendment talks about a very aggressive diplomatic approach, something I think has been missing. We have to engage the regional community and the world community to help us. I think there might be an opportunity, indeed, when we talk about the context of training, to go forward to our allies in NATO and say: You could help us on this training mission. This is not a direct combat operation. This is something well within the capacity of your armies across the globe. This could put an international approach to our problems, which would be very helpful not only in terms of putting men and women on the ground to assist the Iraqi security forces, but indicating this is not America's problem alone, this is an issue that should be addressed by all the nations of the world. Now, for 5 years our military forces have fought with valor, courage, and sacrifice. Their families have borne their absences. They have supported them remarkably and magnificently, and I think that has to be recognized. But we have to provide them a diplomatic support that has been lacking all these years. Many of my colleagues have traveled to Iraq many times. I have. Since the beginning, there has not been an adequate complement through diplomats and AID personnel and agronomists, and all the specialists you need to provide the public nonkinetic--as military people describe it--aspects of counterinsurgency. Those forces have been lacking. There have been efforts recently to improve them, but they are still significantly lacking. So for many years--all these years--we have had an Army and Marine Corps at war, supported--I should say not just supported but it has intimately involved all our services--but we have not had the full commitment of our national resources. We have not had a full commitment of our civilian agencies that is so necessary. Today, that, I think, is not being manifested enough. So for that reason, also, I think we have to recognize a change is necessary. I hope we can change the policy. I think in the long term it will be beneficial to the United States. I hope we will allow ourselves to begin to focus more resources on threats that are, I think, much more severe: the virtual safe haven in Pakistan from where bin Laden sends tapes to us and al-Zawahiri sends tapes to us that inspire terrorist organizations in Europe that are approaching closer and closer to the United States--that was, I think, the whole premise for our global war on terrorism, to effectively prevent another attack on our homeland-- the growing power of Iran, not only in terms of its influence in the region, its connection to other terrorist groups, but its aspirations to be a nuclear power, which we are finding very difficult to counter diplomatically. I hope we can refocus our efforts in Iraq, and we can also refocus our efforts to meet these other emerging and very dangerous threats. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have submitted this resolution with my colleagues, Senator Whitehouse and Senator Clinton, to honor the life and accomplishments of George Sears Greene, the distinguished general from Rhode Island who helped lead the Union to victory at the Battle of Gettysburg. General Greene was born and raised in Apponaug, RI before moving to pursue work in New York. At the age of 18, he was appointed to the United States Military Academy at West Point and excelled in his studies there, graduating second in his class. After resigning his commission in the Army in 1836, Greene went on to become a founder of the American Society of Civil Engineers and Architects. As an engineer, Greene designed projects throughout the United States including a reservoir in Manhattan's Central Park and municipal water and sewage systems for several cities, including Providence. But General Greene is perhaps best known for his heroism at Gettysburg. Greene returned voluntarily to the defense of the Nation at the age of 60, when the governor of New York appointed him colonel of the New York 60th Infantry regiment. At Gettysburg, General Greene led the 3rd Brigade of New York at Culp's Hill. His regiment's defense of the Union army's right flank helped secure victory for the Nation at that decisive battle. General Greene's memory will be honored this Saturday at the 100th anniversary rededication ceremony of his monument on Culp's Hill. I ask that you join Senators Whitehouse, Clinton and me in recognizing his exemplary public service.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to make general comments on the legislation that is before us today--the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008. This legislation provides critical funding for our Nation's transportation infrastructure and supports programs that are essential to creating vibrant neighborhoods and communities throughout the United States. I particularly wish to commend Senator Murray and Senator Bond for their leadership on this very important legislation. They have been long-time supporters not only of Transportation projects but also the Housing and Urban Development projects inherent in this bill. We are all aware of the Nation's aging infrastructure. Senator Klobuchar pointed out very eloquently the terrible situation in Minnesota with the collapse of the bridge over I-35. This bill provides $40 billion to the Federal-aid Highways Program and helps State and local governments maintain bridges, build roads, reduce congestion, and improve air quality. The funding level of $631 million more than the administration requested and more than $1.13 billion than what was provided in 2007. Frankly, even this robust amount is probably not adequate to deal with the crises we face across this country. After the tragedy in Minnesota, every State looked very closely at their bridges and their roadways, and it turns out that in my State of Rhode Island we have one of the highest percentages of structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges in the country. We need resources, but we are not alone. Every State in this Nation needs these resources. This bill is very critical in responding to that need. Again, I commend Senator Murray and Senator Bond for doing that, and I particularly commend Senator Murray for her amendment yesterday increasing the allocation for this type of work on bridges with an additional $1 billion. The Transportation provisions in this legislation are critically important to the future of the country. The other important part of the legislation is the Housing and Urban Development programs. Here again, we have to be terribly concerned about what is going on in the United States. We are all aware of the unfolding subprime mortgage crisis. We are aware of the fact that many individuals are already suffering foreclosure because of the exotic mortgages. It is also rippling over into our larger financial institutions in terms of a liquidity crisis. These are huge problems the economy is facing and facing them with great difficulty over the last several weeks. But what is happening and what will happen over the next several weeks is the fact that many additional subprime mortgages will reset their interest, and everyone is projecting and looking forward to additional pressure on home loans. One of the important aspects of the legislation before us is that this legislation includes $150 million for housing counseling assistance that will help address some of these subprime foreclosure problems by allowing not-for-profit groups to reach out to people facing foreclosure and give them help and assistance and act as an intermediary between the financial institution and the borrower. This is very important, very timely, and I hope we move aggressively to pass this legislation as a result. The bill also provides $16.6 billion for the Section 8 accounts. We all understand that Section 8 is a vital component of our housing for our elderly and housing for low-income Americans. Without this, we are literally going to force people out of safe, secure, affordable housing they have today because the bulk of this money goes to maintain those individuals who are in subsidized housing today. So many of them are seniors, low-income seniors. This is the least we can do. I am particularly proud to support the $75 million Senator Murray has included for the Veterans Affairs Supported Housing Program. This is a new incremental voucher program that would be jointly funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and HUD to provide Section 8 vouchers for homeless veterans. There is nothing more deplorable, if you want to talk about deplorable then leaving veterans homeless. What about the thousands of veterans, combat veterans in this country who are living on the streets? We had a hearing, and a gentleman from Durham, NC, talked about the veterans program he is running. We have veterans of the Armed Forces of the United States who are living behind the bicycle rack at the local Kinkos because they can't get housing. So if you want to talk about a shame and an insult to America's men and women in uniform, look closely at how we are treating some of these homeless veterans. This bill at least attempts to try to reverse that. I am pleased we are providing $1.6 billion for overall homeless assistance grants because we have a large population of homeless Americans who deserve help and assistance. There is an additional grant for a pilot program of $25 million to give the Secretary of HUD the ability to put a program together that will provide for rapid rehousing of homeless families. Homelessness at one point was perceived as a problem of principally men on the street; perhaps stretches back to our--not nostalgic but our recollection of the hoboes of the Great Depression moving around without homes. Today, homelessness is a family problem in this country, and this program can provide hope--limited resources but a matrix, if you will, to help these families move forward. This legislation also provides additional funding for the Public Housing Capital Fund and the Public Housing Operating Fund. We have to help our cities and municipalities that are running public housing to maintain the facilities and to operate these facilities. There is also another issue that is important and that is lead abatement. Senator Bond has been a particular champion, along with Senator Mikulski, on lead abatement problems throughout this country. This legislation reflects his interest, his concern, and his commitment to helping communities deal with lead abatement. It also deals I think very effectively with the Community Development Block Grant funding which is so necessary to all our local leaders. This bill represents wise policy and robust funding beyond the President's request. I hope very sincerely the President will not carry out his threats to veto this bill. This bill addresses infrastructure problems and housing problems. It goes to what makes this country work: the economic infrastructure of highways and bridges and the human infrastructure of homes and housing and community development. This is legislation that I, again, commend Senators Murray and Bond for developing, and I thank them and their staffs for their great work. I hope we can, this evening or tomorrow, go to final passage and send this bill forward for enactment. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007. This important legislation, which I helped craft as a member of the Senate Education Committee and as a conferee, will make a substantial Federal investment in need-based grant aid for low-income students, and will significantly help middle-class students and families pay down and manage their loan debt. Under this bill, the maximum Pell grant for eligible students will be increased by $500 next year and to $5,400 by 2012. This means that Rhode Island students will receive $7.8 million in additional grant aid next year and nearly $85 million over the next 5 years, increasing the average Pell grant in Rhode Island by $360 in 2008 to $2,880. H.R. 2669 also includes provisions to stem the increasing numbers of middle-class families falling further into debt to finance a college education. As such, this bill phases in a lower interest rate on new subsidized Stafford loans to undergraduate students, reducing the rate in half over 4 years on such loans from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent; helps students manage their debt by capping monthly Federal student loan payments at 15 percent of a borrower's discretionary income; and provides loan forgiveness for borrowers who continue in public service careers for 10 years, including nurses, teachers, and librarians. I am especially pleased that this legislation includes provisions from my FAFSA Act--S. 939--to increase the income level at which a student is automatically eligible for the maximum Pell grant, ensuring that all students from families with incomes of $30,000 or less receive the maximum Pell grant. This automatic-eligibility level would also be tied to the Consumer Price Index to ensure that the benefit keeps pace with inflation and does not become diluted. The College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 also includes provisions I authored to double the income protection allowance for dependent students from $3,000 to $6,000 over 4 years and increase the income protection allowance for independent students, including adult learners and veterans, by 50 percent over 4 years. These increases will protect students who have to work during college so they can earn more without having it count against their financial aid. This is significant legislation for families in Rhode Island and across the Nation, and I strongly urge its passage. I want to thank Senators Kennedy and Enzi, and their staffs, for their work on this bill. I also look forward to building on this legislation by working with my colleagues in the House to craft a final Higher Education Act reauthorization bill in the coming weeks that would, among other key components, include provisions I authored in the Senate version of the reauthorization bill to improve the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership or LEAP program; simplify the financial aid process and forms; and strengthen college teacher preparation programs. These two bills combined will tackle the twin goals of access and affordability for students and families and help ensure that our Nation remains competitive in today's global economy.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 6, 2007, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Carried Interest Part III: Pension Issues.''