Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment and send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment along with my colleague from Indiana, Senator Evan Bayh, which would provide an additional $65.4 million for the procurement of Predators for our special operations forces. The Predator is an unmanned aerial vehicle-- or UAV, for

short--used for armed reconnaissance, airborne surveillance, and target acquisition. It has become a critical asset in the war on terror. It is a small, remotely piloted aircraft that brings the battlefront to the military.

Through the use of cameras and other sensors, the Predator monitors, in real time, buildings or people. Because it is unmanned, it is ideal for use in areas that are inaccessible to the U.S. military such as areas where the airspace is unsecure, the terrain is unpassable, or the environment is contaminated by chemical or biological weapons. The Predator system's hardware consists of a small monoplane with sensors, a ground control station, and data communications system.

The special operations forces--the front line in our war on terror-- rely on Predator surveillance as part of their work to capture and kill the terrorists targeting our troops and the Governments of Iraq and Afghanistan.

There has been a lot of discussion recently about the war on terror. This is actually one of the systems which has been most decisive in killing the terrorists. That is why I think we have to support additional funding for this antiterrorist system.

Right now, special operations forces depend upon Air Force assets, which are already in high demand, for Predator support. With more Predators, we can be more effective in going after and taking out the terrorists. According to the Defense News article entitled ``Inside the Zarqawi Takedown: Persistent Surveillance Helps End 3-Year Manhunt,'' the capture of the terrorist Abu Mus'Ab al-Zarqawi--the leader of al- Qaida in Iraq, notorious for his despicable conduct--was facilitated decisively by Predator surveillance provided to special operations forces.

The Quadrennial Defense Review recognized that special operators need dedicated UAV support and called for the establishment of a UAV squadron organic to special operations forces.

The QDR reads:

To achieve the future force characteristics for SOF--

special operations forces--and to build on progress to date,

the Department will: . . . establish a SOF unmanned aerial

vehicle squadron to provide organic capabilities to locate

and target enemy capabilities in denied or contested areas.

This special operations squadron would eventually provide coverage 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to assist the forces working to capture and kill terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. The objective, according to GEN Doug Brown, Commander of the Special Operations Command, SOCOM, is to establish an ``unblinking eye,'' which would help special operators targeting terrorists.

The President's budget request for fiscal year 2007 included funding sufficient to begin to build the squadron, including the purchase of eight UAVs.

On April 6, VADM Eric Olson, Deputy Commander of SOCOM, testified to the Armed Services Committee that the command did not have sufficient surveillance platforms. On April 27, Senator Bayh sent a letter to the Armed Services Committee expressing his intent to address this issue via legislation. Subsequently, the Appropriations Committee took action in the fiscal year 2006 supplemental and accelerated funding for this purpose. This funding would have allowed the initial operating capability to be achieved in 2007, rather than 2008, and for the squadron to be fully operational with 24 UAVs in 2010 instead of 2011.

I believe this acceleration would have been significantly contributing to the capability of our Special Operations Command. However, the acceleration was reversed by the Appropriations Committee just a few months later when it cut the funding for the UAV procurement for SOCOM--a cut to the Air Force aircraft procurement line.

According to the Special Operations Command, this cut ``would negate the effect of the FY2006 Supplemental, . . . causing Full Operation Capability to revert back to the original timeline. This delay will adversely affect AFSOC's urgent ongoing requirement to conduct persistent intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting missions.''

The amendment Senator Bayh and I are offering would put the acceleration back on track by adding $65.4 million for six UAVs and associated equipment.

Just 2 weeks ago, during a trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, the Armed Services Committee staff was told by the special operations forces in both countries, who are working hard to track the terrorists targeting our troops and the Governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, that their No. 1 need is for Predator coverage. They need dedicated UAV support.

We have not captured Osama bin Laden yet, and unfortunately there are many more targets for the special operators to conduct reconnaissance, surveillance, and, we hope, preemption. There is no rationale for not accelerating the establishment of the UAV squadron.

SOCOM wants this, and they have stated such. They can execute this in the timeframe they have given the Congress. We need to increase the pressure on al-Qaida operatives in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as other terrorists attacking U.S. and coalition troops. These terrorists are threatening, each day, the success of our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the safety of our personnel.

If we really want to carry the fight to the terrorists, if we really want to individually and collectively go after and take out these terrorists, the Predator, according to our special operations forces, is a key ingredient in this effort. Rather than rhetoric about fighting the war on terrorism, let's give these special operators the tools to effectively fight and destroy terrorists wherever they may be.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator, my preference would be for a recorded vote, if possible. I think this is an important point about providing adequate resources to our special operators. Also, I would like to at least confer with Senator Bayh.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Conrad be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment that is offered by myself and Senator Bayh would add $64.7 million to continue an accelerated acquisition of Predator. These are unmanned aerial vehicles that are critical to our war on terror. They were instrumental in the detection and the ultimate destruction of Zarqawi and other terrorists. They are the chief tool of our special operations forces in terms of going after, seeking, finding, and destroying terrorists and terrorist networks.

There was a plan to accelerate the deployment of these UAVs. That plan was disrupted, if you will, because of decisions previously made. But I think today we can send a uniform and unanimous message that we need to acquire these six additional UAVs to create ultimately a squadron of UAVs for our special operations command. With these weapons systems, we can continue to deal effective and decisive blows against terrorists. I urge unanimous passage of this legislation adding $64.5 million. I commend Senator Bayh because he really was a leader in this effort in terms of drawing the attention of the committee to this shortfall in funding and requesting that it be added with this amendment.

I reserve the balance of any time remaining.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Alabama. The premise advanced by the Senator from Alabama is that we have such a robust relationship with other nuclear powers, such as Russia, that it would be easy to coordinate this; there would be no mistaking a launch of a conventional missile from a Trident submarine. But I think that is contradicted by what the Russians themselves say.

General Cartright went out and met his counterpart, General Baluyevsky, the chief of the Russian general staff, and tried to talk to him about these threats of terrorists needing to strike at long distance. And General Baluyevsky said this could be a costly move which not only won't guarantee his destruction--referring to Bin Laden--but could provide an irreversible response from a nuclear-armed state which can't determine what warhead is fitted on the missile.

That is the strong support, constant communication with Russia that we have today, which could easily discern and disseminate information about a potential launch of a conventional weapon from a Trident platform.

The Trident submarine contains missiles which are all armed with nuclear weapons. They are part of our strategic triad--probably the most secure part of our triad. And the practical problem for anyone in the world is to determine, if we shoot one of these missiles at them, is it a conventional warhead or is it a nuclear warhead?

If anyone believes they have nuclear weapons and are being attacked by a nuclear device, I think there is a strong fear, on my part at least, that they would retaliate before they could ever verify what was going on.

Another aspect of this whole proposal is that it is premised on the fact that we would only have minutes or so to strike a target. But I think you have to ask yourself, reasonably and realistically, if that is the case, how do we know the target is so dangerous? I presume, in terms of developing our intelligence sources, we first have a suspicion, then we have information, we go out and verify it, and in that process I would assume and would hope that our national security officials would begin to move assets into the area which could conduct a strike with precision weapons.

Again, I think the record of the intelligence community, frankly, in terms of determining targets is one that is spotty at best. That is because of the difficulty of doing this type of intelligence work.

Recall now the first blow in the Iraq war was a precision strike to decapitate their leadership by killing, essentially, Saddam Hussein. It turned out he wasn't there.

Think about if that type of intelligence prompted the firing of a Trident missile, and a nuclear power was unsure that it was not a nuclear weapon or a conventional weapon and retaliate. I think we are going down a very dangerous path.

Let me also suggest something else, which is inherent in the argument of Senator Sessions. I guess the question would be, would we wait, if it is so dangerous and so insistent to act so quickly, would we wait to ensure that the other parties understood--the other parties being Russia or China--that this was a nonnuclear launch? How much time would that take? How could we be sure that we have effectively communicated it? None of this has been investigated.

The comments by the Russian chief of general staff suggests that. So I think we have an obligation to look carefully at this issue before we go down this path.

That is essentially what was agreed to in the Defense authorization bill. The Defense authorization bill says no funds can be expended for R&D until 30 days after a report, which is specified in the committee legislation, is given to the relevant committees in the Senate and the House. If they have all these answers right now, and they are compelling and persuasive, I presume it could be delivered within a few days, starting the 30-day period to be told or to expire. I think this is a prudent thing to do. To go ahead and avoid this report not only contradicts the sentiment on the authorizing committee, but also I think it disregards the difficult questions that have to be asked.

Where is this instantaneous assured notification to others that this is a conventional weapon and not a nuclear weapon? I think that question alone requires an evaluation.

I hope in the disposition of this amendment we would let this report requirement stand, would let the committee do what they have essentially done--roughly the same thing--allowing R&D funding to go forward pending reports of one kind or another. That is the prudent and appropriate thing to do. I hope we would do that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about the cynical efforts to tie a much needed boost in the minimum wage to a massive tax cut for the heirs of the wealthiest Americans.

The economic disparities between minimum wage workers and wealthy people whose large estates are subject to the estate tax are so vast that pairing these two measures together defies logic. I am also hard pressed to find a link between either of these issues and the extension of several expiring tax provisions that have been tacked on as well.

No matter how my colleagues in the majority try to dress it up, this is really just another vote on the estate tax. It was less than two months ago that full repeal of the estate tax failed to pass in the Senate. Instead of addressing the pressing problems ordinary Americans face on a range of economic issues, the leadership is back again trying to pass near-elimination of the estate tax.

The estate tax is an important component of our progressive federal tax system, it is the Federal Government's only tax on wealth, and by 2009 less than one-half of one percent of all estates will be subject to the tax. Far from being a ``death tax,'' the tax falls on heirs who seldom had any real role in earning the wealth built up by the estate holder. The decedent's estate pays a portion of the total assets to the Federal Government and the remainder is then passed on to heirs. Capital gains that have built up in the estate tax free are passed on to the heirs on a ``stepped up'' basis, and the heirs are not liable for any income tax on these gains. No tax is levied if the estate passes to a spouse or is donated to charity. The overwhelming majority of estates pay no federal estate tax.

As a matter of fact, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimates that only about 8,200 estates would owe any estate tax in 2011 if the 2009 exemption level of $3.5 million were made permanent. Those are the people who would benefit from further cuts in the estate tax and their estimated average tax savings is about $1.3 million--a far cry from the $2.10 hourly wage increase that the Majority has put on the table for minimum wage workers.

A minimum wage hike is long overdue. The Federal minimum wage, which today stands at $5.15 per hour, hasn't been raised since 1997. Since then, inflation has not only wiped out that pay increase but brought the real value of the minimum wage to its lowest level in half a century. Over the past 9 years, the minimum wage has lost one-fifth of its purchasing power.

The majority's plan would increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour by the middle of 2009. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that 5.9 million workers would benefit directly from the increase and that the average benefit would be $1,200 per year. Another 7.1 million workers earning somewhat more than $7.25 per hour could benefit indirectly as a ``spillover benefit'' of the minimum wage increase. However, 1.8 million fewer workers would benefit under the Republican proposal because it phases in the increase over a 3-year period rather than the 2-year phase-in under Senator Kennedy's proposal.

Senator Kennedy's minimum wage legislation, which I have cosponsored, also does not contain any poison pills, such as the near-elimination of the estate tax or the egregious roll back of State pay protections for minimum wage workers. Currently, there are seven States that have chosen not to include a tip penalty in their minimum wage laws. Thus, tipped employees in these States earn the full State minimum wage. Under the Republican bill, however, one million tipped employees in these seven States will see a drastic cut in their base pay.

Raising the minimum wage is vital because workers have been left out of the economic growth we have seen so far in this recovery. Strong productivity growth has translated into higher profits for businesses, not more take home pay for workers. The stagnation of earnings in the face of soaring prices for gasoline, home heating, food, health care and college tuition is squeezing workers' paychecks. Just this week, the administration admitted as much. At a speech at Columbia Business School, Treasury Secretary Paulson stated that ``amid this country's strong economic expansion, many Americans simply aren't feeling the benefits. Many aren't seeing significant

increases in their take home pay. Their increases in wages are being eaten up by high energy prices and rising health costs.''

No one who works full time should have to live in poverty, but the current minimum wage isn't enough to bring even a single parent with one child over the poverty line--even if the parent works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. Five million more Americans have fallen into poverty since President Bush took office--37 million Americans are now living in poverty, including 13 million children.

The minimum wage is an important policy tool to lift low-income families out of poverty. Almost two-thirds of those who would benefit are adult workers, and more than a third of these adults are sole breadwinners for their families. This is not pocket change for teenagers, as opponents of the wage floor have argued.

The devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita last September put the national spotlight on the problem of poverty in America. As Senator Grassley, chairman of the Finance Committee, put it last year, ``It's a little unseemly to be talking about eliminating the estate tax at a time when people are suffering.''

While the minimum wage has steadily lost purchasing power over the past 9 years, Federal Reserve data show that over roughly the same period the inflation-adjusted average net worth of the 10 percent families with the greatest wealth increased by almost 40 percent. The wealth of those most likely to have estate tax liability has increased substantially, but the taxes owed on an estate of any given size are lower now than they were in 1997 because of increases in the exclusion and reductions in the tax rate.

The differences in economic circumstances between those at the very top of the income or wealth distribution and those at the bottom are vast and widening. Again, during his address in New York, Treasury Secretary Paulson stressed that ``addressing issues of wage growth and uneven income distribution is a longer-term challenge that we can address.'' And yet, again the rhetoric of this administration does not match its actions. The consideration of this bill before us today is proof that the majority and the administration are not serious about addressing disparities.

Looking at earnings, minimum wage workers make about $206 for a 40- hour week at the current rate of $5.15 per hour. That would put them in the bottom 10 percent of the distribution of usual weekly earnings of full-time workers and these workers have suffered the largest declines over the past 5 years. Those at the upper-income levels are seeing earnings gains but for those at the bottom- and middle-income levels, there is a loss in real earnings since the President took office whereas in the 1990s, when you saw the proverbial picket fence--there were positive gains at every percentile.

Turning to household wealth, an overwhelming majority of households have very little in the way of accumulated wealth and assets and would not be subject to the estate tax. Households in the bottom fifth of the wealth distribution have a median wealth of just $2,000. In contrast, households in the top 10 percent have a median wealth of $1.4 million, which is less than the current estate tax exclusion of $2 million for an individual or $4 million for a married couple. Because half of the households in that wealthiest group have less than the median net worth of the group, most will not owe any estate tax.

The inequity of this proposal is compelling enough, but the budgetary consequences of nearly eliminating the estate tax make it completely unpalatable.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that this estate tax proposal would cost about $600 billion over the 2012-2021 period, or about $750 billion when the associated debt service costs are included. That is about three-quarters of the cost of full repeal, but probably understates the true cost because the latest proposal is not fully effective until 2015.

We are financing near-repeal of the estate tax with debt, because the costs will be paid for with borrowed money. Future generations of taxpayers--minimum wage workers and others who will make significantly less than the heirs of deceased multimillionaires and billionaires-- will have to repay those funds. The drain on the budget would occur at the very time that the baby boom generation enters retirement and rising Social Security and Medicare costs would strain our budget. Secretary Paulson rightfully identified ``reforming entitlement programs, advancing energy security and maintaining and strengthening trade and investment policies that benefit American workers'' as ``longer-term challenges that will face our economy in the years to come.'' However, as we all know these are challenges that we can only meet if we have the resources to do so. Making permanent fiscally irresponsible tax cuts only endanger our abilities to truly address what should be our national priorities.

Raising the minimum wage will increase the likelihood that minimum- wage workers will be paying taxes and drawing on fewer government services. In contrast, virtually eliminating the estate tax will reduce Federal revenues, increase the budget deficit, and put pressure on other government programs that contribute to the economic well-being of lower-income workers, including minimum wage workers.

Today, we are at war and yet there is no sense of the shared sacrifice that has united this country in past conflicts. Ironically, the estate tax was first adopted in the nineteenth century to pay for government shortfalls due to wartime spending. Our military families are making tremendous sacrifices, and too many of them have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country. With $320 billion appropriated or pending for Iraq operations to date and more than 2,500 service men and women killed, the human and financial tolls are both more staggering than imagined.

With mounting war costs, the impending retirement of the baby-boom generation and deficits as far as the eye can see, due to the President's irresponsible tax cuts, it is unconscionable to think that we are going to vote again on gutting one of the most progressive taxes on the books.

Putting a minimum wage hike that is so necessary for working families to make ends meet together with an estate tax bill that benefits a few wealthy heirs reveals a warped set of priorities. The same can be said for holding hostage a package of tax extenders that all support. Our focus should be on strengthening the safety net for American families-- whether it's raising the minimum wage or preserving Social Security, pensions, and health insurance coverage.

I have been a consistent supporter of the minimum wage, but this is a cruel juxtaposition of policies which I can not support.

Mr. President, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 would strengthen private pension plan funding and improve the financial position of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, PBGC. While the bill reflects difficult compromises, it is important that we act now to preserve the financial health of defined benefit pensions.

This legislation is an important step toward protecting the pensions of working Americans. Today's workers will live longer and work longer but also spend more time in retirement than ever before, so it is vital that the pension benefits promised to workers will actually be there when they retire.

The crisis in private pensions is just part of the growing problem of economic insecurity for many Americans. Although the economy has been growing, job growth has been modest, wages are not keeping pace with inflation, income inequality is growing, employer-provided health insurance coverage is falling, and private pensions are increasingly in jeopardy. Soaring prices for gasoline, home heating, health care, and college tuition is squeezing the take home pay of most workers. Many workers have little left over for retirement savings after making ends meet for basic living expenses.

Meanwhile, many employers shift the risk and responsibility of adequate retirement funds onto workers, as retirement prospects are more uncertain than ever. Twenty years ago, most workers with a pension plan could expect to receive a defined benefit based on years of service and salary. Today, defined contribution plans--which shift most of the investment risk and responsibility onto workers--have become the dominant form of pension coverage.

Despite the shift away from traditional pensions, defined benefit plans remain a critical source of retirement support, with 44 million workers and retirees relying on such plans as a source of stable retirement income. However, as we have seen with recent pension terminations in the airline industry, the real risk of defined benefit plan defaults further exacerbates workers' uncertainty and concern about their retirement prospects.

This bill tackles the growing problem of employers not setting aside enough money to cover their pension obligations. The Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, PBGC, estimates that total underfunding in PBGC- insured pension plans is about $450 billion, more than $100 billion of which is in plans sponsored by financially weak companies that are at reasonable risk of default.

However, the PBGC, which is the backstop to the defined benefit pension system, has funding issues of its own due to increased defaults by employers. At the end of 2005, the PBGC reported a cumulative deficit of $22.8 billion in its single-employer program. While the PBGC has sufficient assets to pay benefit obligations for a number of years, without changes in funding, the agency will eventually run out of money. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that PBGC's cumulative deficit will increase to $87 billion over the next 10 years, and suggests that there is a significant likelihood that all of PBGC's assets will be exhausted within the next 20 years.

The Pension Protection Act would tighten the funding rule for defined benefit plans by requiring that plans fund 100 percent of their liabilities, up from 90 percent under current law. Companies with underfunded plans would have seven years to make up any funding shortfall. Financially troubled airlines with underfunded plans would have 17 years to become fully funded.

The legislation would limit the use of credit balances to prevent companies with unfunded plans from avoiding plan contributions, prohibit companies with underfunded plans from increasing future benefits, and require an accurate accounting of each plan's true financial condition. Plans would also be required to provide more information about their current funding status to plan participants and beneficiaries.

In addition, the bill contains important, long overdue disclosure rules to protect the pension of workers, to avoid a situation like that of the Enron workers who lost their entire life savings. Under this bill, companies would be required to give workers quarterly benefit statements that show the value of their assets, and explain their right to and the importance to diversify their investments. The companies would also be required to give their employees a range of options for investing their 401(k) plans rather than just the in company stock and allow workers to sell the stock after three years.

A few of the other notable features of this bill are provisions that encourage low- and moderate-income workers to save for retirement by extending the ``saver's credit,'' and requiring automatic enrollment in defined contribution pensions such as 401(k) plans.

The saver's credit provides a permanent non-refundable tax credit to taxpayers with incomes below certain limits if they make contributions to an IRA or an employer-sponsored plan. Early evidence indicates that the saver's credit has increased participation rates in retirement plans. The effects of the credit are limited, however, by its nonrefundability, the sharp phase-down of the credit rate for moderate- income taxpayers, and the lack of indexing of the income limits. This bill would address one of the current problems with the credit by indexing the income thresholds starting in 2007.

The Pension Protection Act would encourage companies to use automatic enrollment. Under automatic enrollment, companies can enroll employees in contributory pension plans and defer a specified percentage of their earnings into an account. Employees are free to opt out of the plan if they do not wish to participate. Under current rules, employees must make an active decision to participate in contributory plans.

Studies show that automatic enrollment dramatically increases participation rates. The increase is particularly likely to benefit younger workers and low-income workers, who tend to have the lowest participation rates.

One concern I have is that this legislation extends the higher contribution limits on 401(k) and IRA contributions enacted in 2001, which would do little to encourage retirement saving while adding over $36 billion to the budget deficit over the next 10 years. While tax- advantaged retirement saving by low- and moderate-income individuals is likely to represent new saving, high-income individuals are more likely to use expanded savings opportunities to shift existing savings from taxable accounts to tax-advantaged accounts. In its analysis of a similar proposal in the President's FY 2004 budget, CBO concluded that expanding tax-free savings accounts would have little effect on personal saving.

Nonetheless, the Pension Protection Act makes progress toward ensuring that workers will receive the retirement benefits they have earned. We must continue work to improve our pensions system to ensure that Americans who work hard their entire lives

have the financial security they deserve. Part of this work will be to revisit some of the elements of this bill as well as to encourage employers to continue to offer retirement plans to hardworking Americans. The dilemma is that it took the majority 8 months to bring this bill forward and without it, more plans and workers are jeopardized. Congress must continue concerted efforts to address the real needs of American workers.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rhode Island Federal Worker Fairness Act of 2006. This bill will merge the Narragansett Bay wage area with the Boston, MA, wage area to provide Rhode Island Federal blue-collar workers with pay equity in the region. These workers include janitors, mechanics, machine tool operators, munitions and explosive operators, electricians, and engineers.

Federal employees within the Narragansett Bay wage area are paid under one of the lowest Federal wage system, FWS, pay scales while residing in an area with one of the highest costs of living. Significant disparities between Narragansett Bay wages and those in proximate wage areas raise serious questions about the fairness and equity of the Federal wage pay scales. The average wage grade worker in Rhode Island earns $18.01 per hour compared to the same worker in Boston who earns $20.25 per hour or an employee in Hartford who earns $20.05 per hour. As a result, Rhode Island may be losing experienced Federal employees to the same jobs, at the same grade levels, just miles away because of better pay. Enacting this legislation would help the approximately 500 wage rate workers in Rhode Island better provide for their families, and it will ensure that Rhode Island keeps qualified and trained Federal workers.

Roughly 80 percent of all FWS employees in the United States work either in the Department of Defense or the Department of Veteran Affairs. Indeed, Naval Station Newport employs the most FWS workers in the Narragansett Bay area. These employees perform work that is important to our national security, and competitive compensation is the best way to ensure that these workers are qualified and effective. Merging these two wage areas would reduce the disparity between the salaries of these Federal workers and keep Federal workers in Rhode Island from abandoning their Government jobs for higher paying positions in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague, Senator Isakson, to introduce the Tanning Accountability and Notification--TAN--Act of 2006. A House counterpart measure was introduced by Representatives Maloney and Brown-Waite in February.

Close to a million people will be diagnosed with skin cancer this year. Approximately 1 in 5 Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetime, and these numbers are on the rise.

There are many factors that contribute to these startling figures. In recent years efforts have been undertaken by various organizations to better inform the public about the risk of sun exposure and ways to decrease the chance of developing skin cancer. One area, however, where better information is sorely needed is on the use of indoor tanning salons.

Every day approximately 1 million people visit a tanning salon. It is a practice particularly popular among teens, the group that seems most at risk from the effects of indoor tanning. The American Academy of Dermatology, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, the National Institutes of

Health, NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, and the World Health Organization, WHO, all discourage the use of indoor tanning equipment.

This message and the current information about the risks of indoor tanning I fear are not being adequately passed on to consumers. The FDA has not updated its warnings on tanning beds since 1979. Regular users of indoor tanning beds deserve to be fully informed.

The TAN Act calls upon the FDA to revisit the current label on indoor tanning beds and determine through a process of public hearings and consumer testing what kind of labeling requirements would convey important information on the risks of indoor tanning.

This legislation is not about introducing new regulations but ensuring that the current FDA regulations remain effective in communicating accurate, current, and clear information to consumers of indoor tanning salons.

I look forward to working with my colleagues towards passage of this important, bipartisan legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rhode Island Federal Worker Fairness Act of 2006. This bill will merge the Narragansett Bay wage area with the Boston, MA, wage area to provide Rhode Island Federal blue-collar workers with pay equity in the region. These workers include janitors, mechanics, machine tool operators, munitions and explosive operators, electricians, and engineers.

Federal employees within the Narragansett Bay wage area are paid under one of the lowest Federal wage system, FWS, pay scales while residing in an area with one of the highest costs of living. Significant disparities between Narragansett Bay wages and those in proximate wage areas raise serious questions about the fairness and equity of the Federal wage pay scales. The average wage grade worker in Rhode Island earns $18.01 per hour compared to the same worker in Boston who earns $20.25 per hour or an employee in Hartford who earns $20.05 per hour. As a result, Rhode Island may be losing experienced Federal employees to the same jobs, at the same grade levels, just miles away because of better pay. Enacting this legislation would help the approximately 500 wage rate workers in Rhode Island better provide for their families, and it will ensure that Rhode Island keeps qualified and trained Federal workers.

Roughly 80 percent of all FWS employees in the United States work either in the Department of Defense or the Department of Veteran Affairs. Indeed, Naval Station Newport employs the most FWS workers in the Narragansett Bay area. These employees perform work that is important to our national security, and competitive compensation is the best way to ensure that these workers are qualified and effective. Merging these two wage areas would reduce the disparity between the salaries of these Federal workers and keep Federal workers in Rhode Island from abandoning their Government jobs for higher paying positions in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague, Senator Isakson, to introduce the Tanning Accountability and Notification--TAN--Act of 2006. A House counterpart measure was introduced by Representatives Maloney and Brown-Waite in February.

Close to a million people will be diagnosed with skin cancer this year. Approximately 1 in 5 Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetime, and these numbers are on the rise.

There are many factors that contribute to these startling figures. In recent years efforts have been undertaken by various organizations to better inform the public about the risk of sun exposure and ways to decrease the chance of developing skin cancer. One area, however, where better information is sorely needed is on the use of indoor tanning salons.

Every day approximately 1 million people visit a tanning salon. It is a practice particularly popular among teens, the group that seems most at risk from the effects of indoor tanning. The American Academy of Dermatology, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, the National Institutes of

Health, NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, and the World Health Organization, WHO, all discourage the use of indoor tanning equipment.

This message and the current information about the risks of indoor tanning I fear are not being adequately passed on to consumers. The FDA has not updated its warnings on tanning beds since 1979. Regular users of indoor tanning beds deserve to be fully informed.

The TAN Act calls upon the FDA to revisit the current label on indoor tanning beds and determine through a process of public hearings and consumer testing what kind of labeling requirements would convey important information on the risks of indoor tanning.

This legislation is not about introducing new regulations but ensuring that the current FDA regulations remain effective in communicating accurate, current, and clear information to consumers of indoor tanning salons.

I look forward to working with my colleagues towards passage of this important, bipartisan legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, while I certainly appreciate the efforts last evening of Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye to add roughly $13 billion to this appropriations bill for the readiness of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps, it is emergency spending, but it should come as no surprise that it is necessary.

What I find surprising is that apparently the requests by the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, and also the OMB were turned down until it became obvious--and publicly obvious--that the readiness condition of the Army and the Marine Corps is the worst it has been in several decades. The principle is the lack of repaired, rehabilitated, and in certain cases replaced equipment. We are in a difficult situation with threats across the globe, with an Army that is heavily committed and a Marine Corps that is heavily committed to both Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are in a situation now in which our readiness is the worst it has been in three decades. This is a situation which requires not only the remedy of money, but it requires accountability.

How did the Department of Defense and this administration allow our military forces to become so degraded? In the judgment of many people, including former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry, myself, and others, two-thirds of the Army's operating force, Active and Reserve is now reporting in as unready. There is not a single non-deployed Army brigade combat team in the United States that is ready to deploy. Our Army currently has no ready strategic reserve. Not since the Vietnam era and its aftermath has the Army's readiness been so degraded.

How did that happen? It is not a surprise. Months ago, in February, I came to this Chamber and proposed an amendment to the tax reconciliation bill which would provide a fund of $50 billion to provide for the reset recapitalization of Army and Marine equipment. I was offsetting that, as I think it is appropriate to do, with the upper income tax breaks that were being voted on in that bill. My measure didn't survive conference, but the tax cuts did. I believe that is an unfortunate paradigm of what is happening here too often.

We are sending soldiers and marines in harm's way, and we are not repairing their equipment. We don't have time to wait until it is too late--until the emergency is upon us. But we have plenty of time to debate tax cuts and estate tax reform.

I can tell you that I served, as so many others did, and in fact, we are privileged to have the chairman and ranking member of this committee as distinguished veterans of the Army Air Corps and U.S. Army. I don't know many soldiers who qualify for the estate tax, but every soldier needs adequate, decent equipment to do their job. Their lives depend upon it.

Yesterday Lieutenant General Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, stated:

I am further behind or in more dire situation than the

Active Army.

This is the Reserve National Guard forces. The National Guard is charged not only with assisting in operations such as Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, they are the first line of protection at home. They are the first responders in a hurricane situation. They are in worse shape than our active forces.

At the end of June--again, several weeks ago--at a hearing before the House of Representatives, Congressman Ike Skelton asked the Chief of Staff of the Army:

Are you comfortable with the readiness level for the non-

deployed units that are in the continental United States?

General Schoomaker replied: No. The Chief of Staff of the United States Army says in a public hearing he is not comfortable with the readiness condition of our forces in the United States. That is a stunning admission.

Senator Dodd and I were ready to propose an amendment to this Defense bill, along with Senators Lautenberg, Mikulski, Lieberman, and many others, to try to rectify this. We would offer $10.2 billion in emergency spending. I not only support but commend the leadership of this committee, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, proposing $13.1 billion. The money is necessary. I concur in their judgment and their action.

This is not a situation where suddenly yesterday someone jumped up and said, we need some money. This is a situation that has been recognized for months. Not only was nothing done, but the budget sent here by the White House was inadequate and they knew it At a time of war when soldiers are committed, at a time of contest and conflict around the globe when we have to respond to threats, they lowballed money for the Army and the Marine Corps. We can give them all the money we want, but we need a little accountability, also. We didn't reach this position overnight. This was not a midnight discovery. This is years in the making.

The Army told those who would listen that for every year of intense operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, they need $12 billion for reset. Last year we only provided a fraction of that, so this year the bill was $17 billion. Some of those funds cannot be used in this year so it will be pushed forward a bit, but basically we know what is happening. It will continue to happen every year. Twelve billion baseline for reset. If we do not make that number, it is rolled over to next year. This is not going to be a one-time affair. It is an emergency, but it is a chronic emergency. We have to understand the Army will need another $12 billion and the Marine Corps will need another $12 billion next year and the next year, as long as we are committed. It is the real course of

Iraq, the course that seldom is found in speeches about ``staying the course,'' or ``when they stand up, we will stand down.'' We have to pay those costs.

Last October, GAO released a report on military readiness. It assessed the state of 30 pieces of equipment, predominantly tanks, vehicles, helicopters, and aircraft. They made several disturbing operation observations last October:

GAO's analysis showed reported readiness rates declined

between fiscal years 1999 and 2004 for most of these items.

The decline in readiness, which occurred more markedly in

fiscal years 2003 and 2004, generally resulted from, 1, the

continued high use of equipment to support current operations

and 2, maintenance issues caused by the advancing ages and

complexity of the systems. Key equipment items--such as Army

and Marine Corps trucks, combat vehicles, and rotary wing

aircraft--have been used well beyond normal peacetime use

during deployments in support of operations in Iraq and

Afghanistan.

Let me relate a story. I was in Fallujah about 3 weeks ago with the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. They are doing a superb job, as all our forces are. We asked questions about the state of the helicopters. They told us their helicopters are flying 200 percent more than in peacetime. They told us this before we got on the helicopters. We got on anyway because the helicopters are being maintained. But it costs money to maintain those helicopters. It costs money to repair those helicopters. If you fly any helicopter, fixed-wing aircraft, or you drive any military vehicle 200 percent more than its normal allocation, they wear out very quickly. That is what is happening.

A report of the GAO went on to say:

Until the DOD ensures that condition issues for key

equipment are addressed, DOD risks a continued decline in

readiness trends, which could threaten its ability to

continue meeting mission requirements. The military services

have not fully identified near and long-term program

strategies and funding plans to ensure that all the 30

selected equipment items can meet defense requirements.

Another GAO report released last October assessed the readiness of the Army National Guard. It found:

To meet the demand for certain types of equipment for

continuing operations, the Army has required the Army

National Guard units to leave behind many items for use by

follow-on forces. The Army Guard estimates that since 2003 it

has left more than 64,000 items, valued at more than $1.2

billion, overseas to support operations. Without a completed

and implemented plan to replace all Guard equipment left

overseas, Army Guard units will likely face growing equipment

shortages and challenges in regaining readiness for future

missions.

Again, this is the Army National Guard. These are the people we expect in the next few weeks to respond to a hurricane if it strikes the gulf coast, the Atlantic coast. These are the folks we expect to respond to earthquakes and to other problems any place in this country. They have left a great deal of their equipment overseas. They need help, also.

In April of this year, still 3 months before the markup of this Defense appropriations bill, the Lexington Institute and the Center for American Progress jointly released the report called ``Army Equipment After Iraq.'' This report clearly stated:

High utilization rates and harsh conditions have greatly

accelerated the aging of equipment. A significant amount of

equipment is being destroyed due to both combat losses and

the wear associated with constant use. Equipment readiness in

deployed units has shown a gradual erosion as the service

struggles to keep up with maintenance and replacement needs.

Readiness in nondeployed units has plummeted as equipment is

transferred to deploying units or left behind when troops

depart Iraq.

Again, warning bells were sounded, but the administration was deaf. The Army knew the situation was growing increasingly difficult--indeed, perilous. They always knew that there would be a reset bill. Last November, as I suggested, they said it would cost $12 billion a year for each year of ongoing operations until 2 years after that. The Marines estimated at that time that they needed $11.7 billion over a 5- year-period for reset. These figures were confirmed by our March GAO report, entitled ``Preliminary Observations on Equipment Reset Challenges and Issues for the Army and the Marine Corps.'' Again, these pleas for help were ignored.

However, when the Army and Marine Corps submitted their reset needs to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Office of the Management and Budget, these requirements, the requirements of the commanders in the field, were slashed. The Army's request was reportedly cut by $4.9 billion and the commanders in the field were not able to submit a rebuttal argument as they have in othe administrations. Our military leaders were told what they would get by the budget experts and that was the end of the discussion until it became so painfully obvious and publicly obvious that we are not ready to deploy significant forces that are here in the United States.

In February, the President's budget request was submitted to Congress. The shortfall for reset was obvious. Again, I recognized this, as others did. That is why in February I submitted my amendment to the reconciliation bill to provide a fund of $50 billion over the next several years so we could deal with this readiness problem, not through emergency spending but through an offset where we would use proposed tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans to buy equipment for our soldiers and marines in the field. This amendment was rejected and the tax cuts went through. The equipment remained unrepaired.

As early as 2005, information on the state of Army and Marine Corps readiness was readily available for all who were willing to pay attention. Billions of dollars would be needed to solve this problem. Now here we are in August of 2006. We are debating the fiscal year 2007 Defense appropriations bill and until last night there was only $2.5 billion in this bill for the Army for their reset needs.

Again, we all must commend and thank the chairman and ranking member for taking the action they did last night. But we have to ask serious questions about an administration that would allow this situation to develop, that would tell commanders that they were not going to get the money they needed to provide for the equipment and troops in the field.

This administration has tried to run a serious war on the cheap. They have tried gimmicks. They have hidden costs. They have failed to admit staggering costs that are involved already. It goes not only to the equipment, but having just returned from Iraq, having observed reconstruction that has produced very little after $30 billion, having listened to Prime Minister Maliki in his speech ask for further reconstruction aid, if we are ever going to make a difference there, we would have to complement our military effort with renewed reconstruction. That is a multibillion dollar proposition. Where are we going to get the money?

I am pleased the Army and Marine Corps will receive this $13.1 billion, but that is just an installment payment. As long as we are committed, we will continue to see this type of expenditure go on and on and on. We have to provide for it, not on an emergency basis, not suddenly with the expression of surprise. We have to understand this will happen again and again and again. Anyone who goes to Iraq or Afghanistan, anyone who has the privilege of being with soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen, knows the extraordinary sacrifices they make. Anyone who has ever been around a military unit knows one of the quickest ways to undermine morale, undermine the spirit of these troops, is to give them lousy equipment and not repair their equipment. They know their life depends upon the equipment. They also know that it is not the speeches, not the parades, not the flag pins in the lapel that say what you mean about troops; you have to give them what they need to fight. Last evening, we did that.

This administration has to be accountable. I don't understand how we can have both an administration and a Secretary of Defense who would see the readiness numbers that are presented today and deny money, forcing Congress to put it in. There is a gross lack of accountability bordering on dereliction.

I yield.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. He has been extraordinarily active in ensuring us the resources are available for our military forces. I would be happy to explore with him the possibility of additional funding if it is necessary.

Again, let me thank Senator Dodd. We traveled together in October of last year to Iraq and saw the great service that is being rendered by our soldiers and the need for the equipment, the honest need. But I will, at this juncture, Mr. President, yield the floor.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote on final passage of S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. I will be voting against passage because I believe this bill is poor energy policy, irresponsible fiscal policy, and faulty environmental policy.

The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act is a misnomer. The bill will not offer energy security to the United States. The United States consumes 25 percent of the world's energy and yet we have less than 3 percent of the world's oil supplies. While I agree that we must increase the domestic supply of oil and natural gas, this cannot be our Nation's only approach. Yet it is the only approach offered in S. 3711, and it is the only approach that the administration and Republican leadership continue to propose as our Nation's energy solution. Our Nation's energy security depends on reducing our dependency on fossil fuels through increased energy efficiency, greater investment in renewable energy, and development of alternative fuels to replace oil. But this bill does nothing to increase fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, create a national renewable energy standard for electricity, or promote energy efficiency or renewable energy. In fact, Federal investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy continues to decline. It is imperative for our Nation's energy and economic security that an energy policy that increases supply must be married to meaningful investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy. This is the energy policy that our Nation deserves, but it is not the one before us today.

S. 3711 is also not sound fiscal policy. This legislation would mandate that almost 38 percent of revenue from Federal resources generated by new leases in the Gulf of Mexico be given to four States-- Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. These are revenues that currently would be provided to the U.S. Treasury for the benefit of the Nation as a whole. Reducing revenue to the Treasury means that we, as a nation, will have fewer resources available in the future to respond to a call for help should there be another devastating natural disaster or terrorism attack. Our Nation faces a deficit of $8.4 trillion due to this administration's poor fiscal management and irresponsible tax policies. Large Federal budget deficits going forward are bad for the economy. They reduce national saving, which depresses future standards of living. Reducing Federal receipts and increasing the budget deficit at the same time as the baby boom generation retires will put increased strains on the Federal budget and makes no sense. This bill, if passed, will cost the Federal Treasury billions of dollars. I am not alone in my opposition to this legislation; taxpayer advocates share my concerns over its fiscal impact.

In the early 1950s, Congress considered the allocation of revenues between the Federal Government and States resulting from drilling in our Nation's waters. During the debate last week on S. 3711, I quoted from a speech that Senator Truman gave at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic Action on May 17, 1952. President Truman stated in this speech, ``The minerals that lie under the sea off the coasts of this country belong to the Federal Government''----that is, to all the people of this country. The ownership has been affirmed and reaffirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States. Those rights may be worth as much as somewhere between $40 billion and $100 billion.

If we back down on our determination to hold these rights for all the people, we will act to rob them of this great national asset. That is just what the oil lobby wants. They want us to

turn the vast treasure over to a handful of States, where the powerful private oil interests hope to exploit it to suit themselves.

Twice President Truman vetoed quitclaim legislation passed by Congress to turn these resources over to the coastal States. In his May 29, 1952, veto statement, President Truman said ``[T]he Congress should provide for the disposition of the revenues obtained from oil and gas leases on the undersea lands. S.J. Res. 20, as introduced by Senators O'Mahoney and Anderson, would have granted the adjacent coastal States 37\1/2\ percent of the revenues from submerged lands of the marginal sea. I would have not object to such a provision, which is similar to existing provisions under which the State receive 37\1/2\ percent of the revenues from the Federal Government's oil-producing public lands within their borders.'' In his veto statement, it is clear that President Truman did not support giving coastal States revenue from the Outer Continental Shelf.

In the end, the coastal States received much more generous compensation than the provision offered by Senators O'Mahoney and Anderson and President Truman. When President Eisenhower signed the Submerged Lands Act, the coastal States were given title to and ownership of the lands beneath the territorial seas and the right to manage the natural resources within the States' boundaries. This law gave the States 100 percent of the revenue from coastal drilling in State waters. Importantly, the law affirmed the Federal Government's ownership in lands seaward of the State boundaries. Revenues from Outer Continental Shelf drilling belong to the American people in all 50 States. The legislation that the Senate is considering today violates this pact with the American people, and denies the Federal Treasury and American people of essential revenue to address the needs of our Nation it violates. It also is contrary to our national motto, E pluribus unum, from many one. Revenues from Federal resources should, and must, benefit all Americans.

Lastly, I believe this bill is not responsible environmental policy. The bill threatens our coastal ecosystems with the risk of pollution and oilspills which will harm the economies and families that rely on these resources. Unfortunately, the Senate is likely to pass this bill. This will pave the way for the Senate bill to be conferenced with H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act. This legislation would lift the moratorium on offshore drilling for all of our coastlines the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, and Alaska--and, it would allow drilling for oil and gas in coastal national parks and marine sanctuaries. This would put our coastal communities at risk to oilspills, onshore damage of sensitive coastal habitat, and air and water pollution.

Oil is extremely toxic and our current cleanup methods are incapable of removing more than a small fraction of the oil spilled into our marine waters. Offshore drilling platforms and pipelines spilled 1.8 million gallons of oil in U.S. waters from 1990 to 1999, for an average of 500 gallons a day, which causes irreversible harm.

Narragansett Bay and our coast support vital commercial fisheries, tourism important to our economy, and an abundance of wildlife. Our economy and environment are vulnerable to oilspills. My State remembers the devastating effects that the North Cape oil-spill had in southern Rhode Island. Oil spread throughout a large area of Block Island Sound, including Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge, resulting in the closure of a 250-square mile area of the sound for fishing. There were hundreds of oiled birds in the weeks following the spill and large numbers of dead lobsters, surf clams, and sea stars were found on area beaches. There was also the World Prodigy oilspill off Newport, RI, which spread over 123 square miles, killing marine life and closing beaches and fishing grounds throughout Narragansett Bay. The spill hit during a peak spawning period. Eggs and larvae of fish and shellfish lobsters, quahogs, tautog, and others--were exposed to the oil as they floated at the surface.

Before opening new lands to development and denying the American people of a great asset and Federal revenues, we need to take meaningful action to reduce our consumption and increase renewable energy supplies. The only way to achieve greater energy independence is to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels overall. This is the energy policy that our Nation deserves, and this is the policy I will continue to fight for. I urge the Senate to reject S. 3711, and instead, pursue the vehicles and rule choices and the clean EDGE legislation that will set America on a true road to energy independence.

Mr. President, today I recognize the accomplishments of BG James J. D'Agostino, U.S. Air Force, assistant adjutant general for air and deputy commanding general, of the Rhode Island National Guard. General D'Agostino is retiring on August 5, 2006, with over 38 years of active military service in war and peace. I have been pleased to know General D'Agostino for many years.

Brigadier General D'Agostino has served in a variety of field and staff assignments. His military career began in 1967 when he enlisted in the U.S. Army. After completing infantry training, he served with distinction during the Vietnam war in four separate military campaigns. After serving in Vietnam, he was transferred to the Army Reserve and was honorably discharged as a sergeant in 1973.

In 1974, Brigadier General D'Agostino joined the 143rd Civil Engineering Flight of the Rhode Island Air National Guard. Three years later, he graduated from the Air National Guard Academy of Military Science and was commissioned a first lieutenant. Shortly thereafter, he assumed the duties of base civil engineer for the 281st Combat Communications Group in Coventry, RI. Twenty-one years later, in 1999, he was transferred to the U.S. Property and Fiscal Office for Rhode Island as the supervisory logistics management specialist. Within 2 years, Brigadier General D'Agostino was selected to be the fiscal officer for Rhode Island, where he served through September 2005. In October 2005, he transitioned to his current position as the assistant adjutant general for air and deputy commanding general of the Rhode Island National Guard.

You have to cast a very large net to truly capture everything Brigadier General D'Agostino has done to improve the Rhode Island National Guard. I would like to highlight some of his greatest accomplishments. During his 21-year tenure as the only ``one person'' base civil engineering officer in the Air National Guard, he completely rebuilt both the Coventry and North Smithfield Air National Guard stations. He planned and effected a comprehensive program of military construction which has since cut operating and maintenance costs by nearly 50 percent. Additionally, he more than tripled the size of the North Smithfield Air National Guard, station, which provided, for the first time, a realistic environment for unit-wide, in-garrison field training. For his outstanding performance he was recognized as Rhode Island's Federal Professional Employee of the Year in 1997.

In 1998, Brigadier General D'Agostino prepared the critical project book for what was at that time the single largest military construction project in the Rhode Island National Guard, the $16 million C-130J aircraft hanger. Rhode Island's 143rd Airlift Wing was subsequently the first Air Force unit to receive the C-130J and appropriately, they performed superbly as they deployed the first C-130Js during the global war on terrorism in Iraq. Today, that hanger supports the Rhode Island Air National Guard's five C-130J aircraft.

And finally, Brigadier General D'Agostino's has been a critical supporter of energy conservation. While rebuilding Rhode Island's bases, he strictly adhered to using energy efficient air conditioning units, lighting fixtures, and appliances. Additionally, he has implemented various energy conservation programs that further enhance energy efficiency. Between these and other cost saving measures, an estimated reduction of over 50 percent has been achieved in operating and maintenance costs.

While carrying the full load of his professional career, Brigadier General D'Agostino has been affiliated with at least 30 professional and military organizations. He has and continues to serve in many prominent positions, where his work has paralleled his military successes.

Brigadier General D'Agostino, currently serves as the chairman of the board at the Society for Human Advancement through Rehabilitation Engineering Foundation, with which he has been actively involved for over 20 years. The society has enabled hundreds of individuals with disabilities to communicate via custom-made computer systems utilizing voice synthesizers and other specialized equipment.

As a past president of the National Guard Association of Rhode Island, Brigadier General D'Agostino created and still chairs its scholarship awards program, which has awarded almost $40,000 in scholarships. Additionally, he also served for several years as a trustee for the Rhode Island Air National Guard's McGown-Roberts Scholarship Fund, the primary educational fundraising vehicle for Air National Guard personnel. In 2002, the National Guard Association of the United States

awarded him its coveted Meritorious Service Award for his contributions to his State and Nation.

Brigadier General D'Agostino is surrounded by a wonderful family. Together with his wife of almost 30 years, Frances, he has raised two children, Christopher and Alisa, of which they are very proud. He and Frances have been a remarkable example of husband and wife in service to the Air Force, to the Rhode Island National Guard, and to the Nation. Anyone who has enjoyed their friendship, treasures their company and their kindness.

Through Brigadier General D'Agostino's considerable efforts, the men and women of the Rhode Island National Guard have truly world-class facilities in which to accomplish their critical work. His consistent exceptional performance and exemplary character have secured his reputation as one of Rhode Island's most respected military officers.

The Rhode Island National Guard has never been stronger and more connected to the Army and Air Force. Brigadier General D'Agostino has set the groundwork for current and future Rhode Island National Guard facilities. His dedication to excellence and his unsurpassed devotion to duty, honor, and country have marked his distinguished service over 38 years.

Mr. President. I am joined by Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Kerry in introducing important legislation regarding

the Survey of Income and Program Participation, SIPP. This legislation is also being introduced in the other body by Mrs. Maloney.

The SIPP is the only large-scale longitudinal survey that provides data for evaluating the effectiveness of programs like Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF. There is no other survey that provides the richness and detail of the data that the SIPP collects. The survey provides essential information on the extent to which programs meet families' basic needs and promote upward mobility.

Unfortunately, the President, in his fiscal year 2007 budget, proposed the elimination of the SIPP, followed by a redesign that would not be ready until 2009 at the earliest. In the meantime, there would be an irretrievable loss of data.

By eliminating the SIPP, we not only abandon significant research investments by government and private researchers but we would also lose the ability to examine family outcomes over time. Without access to the SIPP's consistent time-series data, we will have to wait years, if not decades, to understand the implications of current policy decisions. Researchers and policymakers would no longer have an accurate dynamic picture of living standards in America.

It is important that we create a process to ensure that we do not lose valuable resources for assessing program effectiveness and economic well-being. As such, our legislation would create a SIPP Commission whose members would be required to review any proposals to change or eliminate the SIPP. This would allow for necessary input from users of the SIPP. The bill would also prevent the administration from unilaterally discontinuing or changing the survey.

Mr. President, this survey helps Congress to make good policy choices and to be good stewards of American tax dollars. Proposals to cut or eliminate this survey need to be taken seriously and considered carefully.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield myself 20 minutes.

Mr. President, the Senate today is considering the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. I believe this legislation is not appropriate energy legislation and also not responsible fiscal policy for the United States, as we face a Federal deficit of $8.4 trillion and looming cuts to many vital programs that the Federal Government must support. Next week we will begin to take up the Defense appropriations bill for this year. As we consider that bill, we will discover huge unmet needs to finance the current operations of our military. If we diminish the Federal Treasury, our ability to respond to that issue and a host of other issues will be contemporaneously diminished.

This legislation would mandate that almost 38 percent of revenue from Federal resources generated by new leases in new areas of production made available by this bill will be given to four Gulf Coast States. Revenues that currently would be provided to the Treasury for the benefit of the Nation as a whole will be diverted to four States. This bill, if passed, will cost the Federal Treasury billions of dollars over time. I am not alone in my opposition to this legislation. Taxpayer advocates and environmentalists share my concerns. I ask unanimous consent that the text of several letters be printed in the Record expressing these concerns.

In 1952, President Truman, speaking about proposals to give coastal States Federal offshore oil and gas revenue said:

If we back down on our determination to hold these rights

for all the people, we will act to rob them of this great

national asset. That is just what the oil lobby wants. They

want us to turn the vast treasure over to a handful of States

where the powerful private oil interests hope to exploit it

to suit themselves.

Those sentiments are not far off from today. In 1953,

Congress enacted the Submerged Land Act. This law provided

that each coastal State would have a seaward boundary of at

least 3 miles and that the Federal Government would

relinquish to the States the interests of the United States

in lands beneath the navigable waters within the State

boundaries. Importantly, the law affirmed the Federal

Government's ownership in lands seaward of the State

boundary. Revenues from Outer Continental Shelf drilling

belong to the American people in all 50 States. The

legislation the Senate is considering today violates this

pact with the American people, and it denies the Federal

Treasury and the American people essential revenue to address

the needs of our Nation.

Again, to quote President Truman, since his comments still ring true today:

I can see how Members of Congress from [affected areas]

might like to have all the offshore oil for their States. But

I certainly can't understand how Members of Congress from the

other 45 States can vote to give away the interest the people

of their own States have in this tremendous asset. It is just

over my head and beyond me how any interior Senator or

Congressman could vote to give that asset away. I am still

puzzled about it. As far as I am concerned, I intend to stand

up and fight to protect the people's interest in this matter.

Proponents of this bill argue that their coastal States deserve to share in the Federal revenues because they have tremendous costs and environmental challenges arising from energy development and production that benefits the whole Nation. They argue, with some validity, that they bear costs, although the benefits are shared by the entire Nation. I acknowledge that. I fully acknowledge that energy development is harming our coastal zones, leading to habitat loss and erosion. For this reason, in 2001 Congress authorized a coastal impact assistance program that provided Federal funding to States and local communities for mitigating the impacts of OCS oil and gas development and production. It is also the reason why I supported an amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that mandated $1 billion over 4 years in direct Federal spending to gulf coast States and other producing States for the purposes of remediating environmental problems caused by the extraction and production of energy. That is the right approach, to appropriate Federal resources, directed to help States address a problem that is caused in large part by production activity.

What I object to is a permanent entitlement that does not state specific eligible uses to mitigate the environmental harm of OCS production. For example, the bill before us today would allow the States to decide to fund a category described as ``mitigation of the impacts of Outer Continental Shelf activities through the funding of onshore infrastructure projects.'' This could cover any appropriate bricks and mortar project in any State along the gulf coast, from schools to highways to community centers, all of which I think could and would be legitimately argued by a State official as somehow mitigating the impacts of outer Continental Shelf activities.

So in a sense what we have opened up here is a general revenue sharing, not a targeted approach to mitigating the specific harms caused by the extraction and production of petroleum and natural gas products.

Nothing in this bill requires the States and communities to report back to taxpayers and the Federal Government how the funds are being used. I don't think there is any appropriate mechanism of routine reporting. I suppose that if you objected to a particular project, you might sue in Federal Court saying they violated the act, but that is hardly an appropriate and routine and rational way to ensure that the spending is appropriate.

Again, reading the very general language in the bill, I would think that you could make a case that a school, community center, and a range of other projects would be infrastructure that would mitigate in some way the broad effects of production of energy in these States. An argument may be made that a vote against the bill is a vote against the communities and people harmed by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I don't think that is true. This debate has to be about responsible national energy and responsible fiscal policy.

We in this body have voted to provide $123 billion to help the gulf coast recover. That money, because of our difficult financial situation, is literally being borrowed. The interest on that debt and the principal of that debt will be paid by all Americans. It is an example of why we need Federal resources in difficult times, because there will be other occasions where other Americans will see the same kind of suffering, the same kind of destruction that was visited upon the gulf coast, and we as a Congress have to be able to stand up, not just with words but resources, to help these people. As

we diminish the Federal resources by a very narrow revenue-sharing plan for four States, we diminish our capacity to respond.

We have also directed and voted recently for a $2 billion authorization for Louisiana's coastal restoration program as part of the Water Resources Development Act. If more money is necessary to restore the gulf coast, then more money should be provided, and that is not the sentiment of just the people who live there, that is the sentiment of the American people because, frankly, if any part of our country was similarly devastated, we would all be here asking our friends and colleagues to help us, and I think they would respond. What they may not be able to do, if we pass this bill, is respond with the same kind of financial clout because we will have already given Federal resources for the benefit of only four states.

There are other aspects of funding that inure to the benefit of these coastal communities. Section 8(g) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act provides coastal States with a share of the revenues received by the Federal Government from leases on Federal tracts that are adjacent to and within 3 miles of a State's seaward boundary. That is a specialized source of revenue which goes to coastal States. Between 1986 and 2003, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas received nearly $2 billion in revenues from the Federal Government under section 8(g). This funding is precisely the type of funding that could be used to mitigate the impacts of OCS production.

Further, the Coastal Zone Management Act's ``Federal consistency'' provision ensures that Federal actions, such as OCS leases for energy production, that are likely to affect any land or water use or natural resources of the coastal zone must be consistent with a coastal State's approved coastal zone management programs. That means that if Gulf Coast States put into place strong coastal zone management plans to protect against erosion and the loss of wetlands and environmental complications, the law would require a Federal OCS lease to be consistent with these plans and make these States less vulnerable to storms. So not only is this an issue of funding, it is an issue of States taking action to ensure that they have strong environmental protections, and these plans, in turn, according to the law, will be imposed upon the OCS leases.

Now, we understand that energy production is a burden to the States, but it is also, in many situations, an economic benefit to these very same States.

The oil and gas industry is central to Louisiana's economy, with an estimated $93 billion impact in 2001. Over $1.3 billion worth of oil and gas is produced annually in Alabama. The State receives direct benefits of approximately $285 million annually in the form of lease bonuses, royalties, trust fund investments, and severance taxes. In 2005, Texas petroleum and coal were valued at $8.89 billion. All of these revenues provide a strong and powerful force of economic progress for all of these communities. I daresay that, as much as a burden is imposed, there would be great reluctance for any of these States to try to curtail this economic production because it benefits the community.

Now, what is also troubling about the legislation is not only the fiscal implications, but also it is proposing a permanent entitlement that is unnecessary to generate new domestic natural gas and oil supplies. There are over 40 million acres of Federal Outer Continental Shelf under lease, but the oil and gas industry is sitting on over 33 million acres of undeveloped leases. They have less than 7 million acres in production, and there is 328 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas in the nonmoratoria areas.

The United States consumes 25 percent of the world's energy, and yet we have less than 3 percent of the world's oil supplies. We cannot drill our way to energy security; yet this bill essentially provides only one way forward--to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. We deserve an energy bill that will reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and strengthen our economy.

On July 20, I joined 40 of my colleagues in sending a letter to the majority leader asking that we consider energy legislation that sets national goals to reduce our overall national dependence on petroleum by increasing fuel efficiency and alternative vehicle technologies, that protects Americans from price-gouging and market manipulation, and that levels the playing field for new renewable and energy efficiency technology and, more specifically to this debate we are having, ensures that new energy proposals that affect spending or revenues must be fiscally responsible and take into account the true long-term impact of these proposals. That is not the bill we are considering today.

I am left wondering why, as the Senate finally takes up energy legislation, we are not debating and voting on a bill to increase fuel efficiency in cars and trucks. Why are we not voting on oil savings provisions? Where are the provisions in our energy legislation to protect consumers from price-gouging or restore lost royalties to the Federal Treasury from oil and natural gas companies making record profits? Where is the mandated Federal funding dedicated to fully funding energy efficiency and renewable energy?

I hope the Senate will get to vote on an increase in fuel efficiency standards. Gasoline consumption in the transportation sector represents about 44 percent of total oil consumption in the United States each year. Including diesel fuel, the number jumps to 57 percent. To bring about any serious reduction in our dependence on foreign oil, we must increase the fuel efficiency of our cars and light trucks, as well as promote the use of hybrids and vehicles that use alternative fuels.

I also hope we will have a chance to amend this bill. I hope we have a chance to have a debate on an energy bill that will include not only supply-side considerations but also demand-side considerations. All of this legislation is important to consider, but I fear we will be constrained to this bill.

Finally, I am concerned that whatever we do in the Senate would open up a conference with the other body. Their legislation, H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act, would lift the moratorium on offshore drilling for all of our coastlines, not just the gulf coast. I believe this would be a serious step, putting in jeopardy fisheries and marine sanctuaries, further depleting the Treasury, further eroding States' current positions with respect to drilling, and undermining environmental mitigation for energy development and production. My Rhode Island coastline, like the coastline of every State, is something we want to preserve and protect, and there is a fear that if the House version prevails, these coastlines will be jeopardized.

We are in a situation where we have a burgeoning energy crisis. We just have to go to the gasoline pump to figure that one out. This burgeoning energy crisis impacts our foreign relations. We have scores of troops across the globe today because of our dependency on oil. But this should not be the occasion to entertain legislation that is unwise in terms of energy policy and potentially very damaging to the fiscal integrity of the United States.

Before we open new lands to development, we need to ensure that the oil and gas industries are putting undeveloped leases into production, and we need to take meaningful action to reduce our consumption and increase renewable energy supplies. We need to be more independent with respect to energy, reduce our consumption of fossil fuels overall. This is an energy policy which we should pursue, and as a fiscal policy, we have to maintain Federal resources for Federal responsibilities.

I yield the floor.

I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Coleman, Senator Kohl, Senator Martinez, Congressman Ramstad, and Congresswoman Eshoo, today to introduce the Consortium on the Impact of Technology in Health Services Act.

We face a challenging and exciting time in the evolution of America's health care system. Today, roughly 40 million men and women are over age 65. A full doubling of the elderly population is predicted to occur by the year 2030--with the first of the baby boom generation turning 65 in the year 2011--only 5 years from now.

Nowhere is the aging of the population more apparent than in my home State of Rhode Island. We exceed the national average in terms of citizens over the age of 65 as well as those over the age of 85. In a State of slightly more than a million people, almost 15 percent of the population is over the age of 65 today. According to Census Bureau estimates, the number of elderly is expected to increase to 18.8 percent of Rhode Island's population by 2025. Rhode Island also has one of the highest concentrations of persons age 85 and over in the country.

Dramatic increases in life expectancy over the last century can be attributed to tremendous advances in public health and medical research. These demographic changes also pose new challenges to our health care system that require creative and innovative solutions.

In addition to Americans living longer, keeping up with advancements in medical science poses unique burdens and challenges for our health care system. We are facing shortages in a number of critical health care fields--nurses, primary care physicians, and geriatricians--to name a few. These workforce issues further hinder our ability to keep up with the health care needs of aging Americans.

Greater use of technology has the potential to enhance the quality of care to our aging population and enable seniors to remain healthy and live independently longer.

The application of technology in the aging health care services field would also help mitigate the burden on providers by allowing physicians, home health care workers, and family members to keep in regular contact with patients and loved ones. Better monitoring of elderly patients would also serve to identify changes in their health condition before a serious problem arises.

Smarter applications of technology in caring for the aged could also address some of the growing concerns with skyrocketing budget deficits. As we grapple with Medicare and Medicaid taking up a growing proportion of overall Federal spending, we need to carefully balance health care expenditures while also improving the quality of care. We need to be thoughtful and wiser with our health care dollars as well as creative in the provision of services to the elderly.

The Consortium on the Impact of Technology in Health Services Act will bring together experts from the medical, aging, and technology fields to build a vision and a framework for the development and implementation of a 21st century health care system able to meet the needs of our burgeoning aging population.

We need to change the way we think about health care for our Nation's seniors. We need a model that is oriented toward health promotion and disease prevention. This legislation gives us a jumpstart on developing and implementing the tools and strategies needed to serve the senior population of America more effectively and with greater cost savings.

I am pleased to join with my colleagues in introducing this important initiative and hope the Senate will give it careful consideration.

I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Coleman, Senator Kohl, Senator Martinez, Congressman Ramstad, and Congresswoman Eshoo, today to introduce the Consortium on the Impact of Technology in Health Services Act.

We face a challenging and exciting time in the evolution of America's health care system. Today, roughly 40 million men and women are over age 65. A full doubling of the elderly population is predicted to occur by the year 2030--with the first of the baby boom generation turning 65 in the year 2011--only 5 years from now.

Nowhere is the aging of the population more apparent than in my home State of Rhode Island. We exceed the national average in terms of citizens over the age of 65 as well as those over the age of 85. In a State of slightly more than a million people, almost 15 percent of the population is over the age of 65 today. According to Census Bureau estimates, the number of elderly is expected to increase to 18.8 percent of Rhode Island's population by 2025. Rhode Island also has one of the highest concentrations of persons age 85 and over in the country.

Dramatic increases in life expectancy over the last century can be attributed to tremendous advances in public health and medical research. These demographic changes also pose new challenges to our health care system that require creative and innovative solutions.

In addition to Americans living longer, keeping up with advancements in medical science poses unique burdens and challenges for our health care system. We are facing shortages in a number of critical health care fields--nurses, primary care physicians, and geriatricians--to name a few. These workforce issues further hinder our ability to keep up with the health care needs of aging Americans.

Greater use of technology has the potential to enhance the quality of care to our aging population and enable seniors to remain healthy and live independently longer.

The application of technology in the aging health care services field would also help mitigate the burden on providers by allowing physicians, home health care workers, and family members to keep in regular contact with patients and loved ones. Better monitoring of elderly patients would also serve to identify changes in their health condition before a serious problem arises.

Smarter applications of technology in caring for the aged could also address some of the growing concerns with skyrocketing budget deficits. As we grapple with Medicare and Medicaid taking up a growing proportion of overall Federal spending, we need to carefully balance health care expenditures while also improving the quality of care. We need to be thoughtful and wiser with our health care dollars as well as creative in the provision of services to the elderly.

The Consortium on the Impact of Technology in Health Services Act will bring together experts from the medical, aging, and technology fields to build a vision and a framework for the development and implementation of a 21st century health care system able to meet the needs of our burgeoning aging population.

We need to change the way we think about health care for our Nation's seniors. We need a model that is oriented toward health promotion and disease prevention. This legislation gives us a jumpstart on developing and implementing the tools and strategies needed to serve the senior population of America more effectively and with greater cost savings.

I am pleased to join with my colleagues in introducing this important initiative and hope the Senate will give it careful consideration.

Mr. President, I support final passage of S. 250, the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006.

This important legislation, which reauthorizes the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of

1998, will help strengthen both the workforce in my home State of Rhode Island and across the Nation and ensure that our students have the necessary skills and tools to access high-quality, high-wage employment and compete in an ever-expanding global economy.

I am pleased that Congress will reaffirm its overwhelming bipartisan and bicameral support for this program, especially in light of the President's efforts in his last two budget proposals to eliminate funding for Perkins. For the 2006-2007 school year, our State, which is home to 10 Career and Technical Centers and 54 high schools and colleges offering career and technical education programs, would stand to lose an estimated $6.3 million in Perkins basic state and tech prep funding under the President's proposed budget. These cuts are unjustifiable, especially at a time when it is ever more critical that we provide a robust link between students and a highly skilled workforce American business depends on to thrive.

As a cosponsor of the Senate version of this bill, I am pleased that many of its comprehensive provisions on the recruitment, preparation, support, and professional development of career and technical education teachers, which I authored, have been included in the final version of the bill before us today. I believe having a well-trained, qualified, and effective teacher in every classroom is the key for ensuring that students participating in career and technical education programs will achieve their fullest academic and career goals and aspirations.

The bill also contains a number of provisions that address the concerns raised by educators in Rhode Island. First, S. 250 does not combine the tech prep program with the basic State grant program at the Federal level as the House bill proposed. Second, the bill authorizes use of State administration funding at up to 5 percent, funding which supports such essential activities as developing a State plan, monitoring career and technical education program efficiency, and providing technical assistance to districts. Third, S. 250 adds a new State leadership incentive grant I authored for school districts and postsecondary institutions that elect to pool their funds for innovative initiatives, including improving the professional development of career and technical educators and establishing and enhancing systems for accountability data collection.

I thank my colleagues, Senators Kennedy and Enzi, and their staffs, for their work on this legislation and moving it toward final passage.

I am pleased to support this legislation. A highly skilled workforce not only grows our economy, but maintains our Nation's competitive edge in the world. I look forward to the President quickly signing this bill into law--which will hopefully signal a turnaround in his support for Perkins career and technical education programs--to help ensure that our students remain competitive and have the academic and technical tools to succeed.