Floor Statements

I thank Senators Stevens and Inouye for including a report in Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act, S. 2012, to study council management coordination between the New England Fishery Management Council and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, MAFMC. This report speaks to an issue of great importance to Rhode Island fishermen. I would also like to thank Senator Lautenberg for working with me on developing this language.

In October 2005, I introduced the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act in order to address a serious flaw in our Nation's regional fisheries management system by adding Rhode Island to the MAFMC, which currently consists of representatives from New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. The legislation would create two seats on the MAFMC for Rhode Island: one seat nominated by the Governor of Rhode Island and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, and a second seat filled by Rhode Island's principal state official with marine fishery management responsibility. There is a precedent for this proposed legislation. In 1996, North Carolina's representatives in Congress succeeded in adding that State to the MAFMC through an amendment to the Sustainable Fisheries Act. Like Rhode Island, a significant proportion of North Carolina's landed fish species were managed by the MAFMC, yet the State had no vote on the council.

While I am disappointed that this reauthorization bill did not include my legislation, I believe that the report will provide useful information to the Senate that will support Rhode Island's participation as a voting member on the MAFMC based on the Magnuson- Stevens Act's National Standards and the economic value of MAFMC managed species to Rhode Island. The report will provide an opportunity for the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, in consultation with the New England Fishery Management Council, to: evaluate the role of council liaisons in the development and approval of management plans for fisheries in which Rhode Island has a demonstrated interest and significant landings; evaluate approaches developed by the councils to improve representation of non-member States in decision-making; and analyze characteristics that supported North Carolina's inclusion in the MAFMC and how those characteristics support Rhode Island's position.

The MAFMC manages the following 13 species, all of which are landed in Rhode Island: Illex squid, loligo squid, Atlantic mackerel, black sea bass, bluefish, butterfish, monkfish, scup, spiny dogfish, summer flounder, surfclam, ocean quahog, and tilefish. Rhode Island fishermen target a large proportion of species managed by MAFMC. These species make up a large proportion of landings within Rhode Island every year. Between 1995 and 2004, MAFMC species represented between 42 percent and 56 percent of all finfish landed in Rhode Island annually, for an average of 37 percent of total landings by weight. The economic value of these species to Rhode Island in 2004 totaled $72.8 million. Between 1995 and 2004, squid, Illex and loligo, was the number one marine species, based on economic value, landed in Rhode Island, with a value of $24.7 million in 2004. Because of these fisheries importance to Rhode Island, both in terms of the economic value and overall landings by weight, I believe the State deserves a vote in the management of these species on the MAFMC.

Again, I want to thank Senators Stevens, Inouye, and Lautenberg for their assistance in addressing Rhode Island's interest to become a voting member of the MAFMC. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor the significant accomplishments of Cranston School Superintendent Catherine Ciarlo. Superintendent Ciarlo is retiring on June 30 after 46 years of working tirelessly to educate and raise the academic achievement of Rhode Island's students.

After graduating cum laude from Rhode Island College with a bachelor's degree in elementary education, Catherine entered the classroom as a reading teacher the beginning of her lifelong commitment to developing and improving the literacy skills of Rhode Island's children.

Horace Mann, considered by many historians to be the father of modern American education, once said, ``Teachers teach because they care. Teaching young people is what they do best. It requires long hours, patience, and care.'' Superintendent Ciarlo consistently exhibited all of these qualities, devoting her life to leading the Cranston school system to new scholastic heights and maintaining a steady focus on providing her students with a high-quality, first-class education.

Catherine was appointed superintendent of Cranston Public Schools in 1997. During her tenure, she has helped foster a strong community of learning for all Cranston students. A potent symbol of her successful efforts as Cranston superintendent is the district's most current State report card where it met or exceeded proficiency targets in math and literacy across all grades and racial subgroups, and for both ESL students and those with disabilities. These scores are also an emblem of what is likely to be Catherine's most enduring legacy her passionate dedication for ensuring that students whom traditionally might have gotten lost in the shuffle were given the necessary support to enable them to thrive academically.

Superintendent Ciarlo's contributions have been recognized in the past, most notably in 2005, when she was named Rhode Island's Superintendent of the Year and as a finalist for National Superintendent of the Year. Countless students owe their academic and professional success and achievements to Superintendent Ciarlo's efforts. Educators such as Catherine form the backbone of American society, providing our children with the essential tools to succeed in an ever-expanding global economy and keeping the United States competitive in the world.

I have a special place in my heart for the Cranston School System. For many years my father worked there, ultimately as the supervisor of custodians. He would be very proud of ``his system'' under the expert leadership of Catherine Ciarlo. So am I.

Thank you for your exemplary service, Catherine, and for your important contribution to the education of Rhode Island's students.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business with respect to a tribute to Senator Byrd and then make another statement with respect to the conference report.

Mr. President, as indicated previously, I would like to make a short statement pertaining to the supplemental appropriations conference report before us.

It is interesting, my colleague from Florida spoke about the lessons of Hurricane Katrina. One of those lessons is we have to be prepared. In Rhode Island, we worked with Chairman Cochran, Ranking Member Byrd, and also with Senator Harry Reid to incorporate within the supplemental appropriations bill an appropriation to help prepare our hurricane barrier in Providence, RI. I thank the chairman, Senator Byrd, and Senator Reid for this effort.

Unfortunately, this provision did not survive the conference committee, and we are not able today to tell the people of Rhode Island that we are giving

them much needed help to strengthen the Fox Point hurricane barrier.

The Fox Point hurricane barrier literally is the protection that will preserve Providence, RI, and the surrounding areas from a devastating hurricane. It protects the city. It protects all the key resources there, such as the infrastructure. It is right at the head of Narragansett Bay. That is where Providence sits, and in a hurricane, if it roars up that bay, there is not much to stop it except this barrier.

It was built in the 1960s. It was at that time a modern, state-of- the-art construction, but the years have intervened. It is no longer a state-of-the-art construction. It needs work. It needs the electro- mechanical system control system replaced. It is one of the few major facilities in the country that I think is still operated by its original electrical components. The barrier employs three 35-foot-high gates that are electronically operated. This is not only to keep the water out, but to make sure they can still continue to pump water from the rivers that back up the hurricane barrier.

Now, most people don't think Rhode Island is the prime target of hurricanes, but in 1938 and in 1954 we were dealt devastating blows. In fact, the damage from the hurricane in 1938 in those dollars was $125 million. Today it would be $1 billion. Hurricane Carol in 1954 flooded Providence, leaving the city under 8 feet of water and destroying 4,000 houses.

So we have a need to help the city upgrade these facilities to provide the kind of improved equipment and improved performance that will assure us that if a hurricane comes--and we all know that eventually they will come to Rhode Island and to the rest of the eastern seaboard--we will be prepared.

Again, I thank the chairman and others for their work to put the money in, and I am disappointed that the money was taken out. I hope that in the future we can find another way in which we can protect the people of Providence, RI, and the whole State of Rhode Island.

Mr. President, with that, I once again congratulate Senator Byrd, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on Monday, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia reached an extraordinary milestone: 17,327 days in the United States Senate, almost 48 years. He has cast over 17,000 rollcall votes. His congressional career has spanned the tenure of 10 Presidents, beginning with President Dwight David Eisenhower. In West Virginia, he has run 14 times and never lost.

He has served for over 60 years in both the House and the Senate and other public service. This year he is running for his unprecedented ninth term as a United States Senator from West Virginia. Suffice it to say, he is the longest serving Senator in the history of West Virginia, as he is in the history of the United States. He is the only person in West Virginia to carry every county in the State, all 55. He has run unopposed for the Senate because of the regard, the respect, and, indeed, the affection of the people of West Virginia.

He is 88 years old. He is not slowing down, he has never slowed down, and he will keep it up. As a Member of the Senate, he has been a leader--Democratic whip, majority and minority leader, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and President pro tempore of the Senate on two occasions.

In everything he has done, he has been a champion of the Constitution and the people of West Virginia. He secured billions of dollars in funding for his home State, and he has been a leader on mine safety and other issues that are so closely tied to his constituents.

In May 2001, Senator Byrd was given the award that everyone recognizes is his due. Gov. Bob Wise and both houses of the West Virginia General Assembly named him ``West Virginian of the 20th Century,'' and he is striving now for the 21st century.

He is an individual who is a self-made man, starting off in war industries in a shipyard, and earning his law degree cum laude from American University while a Member of the United States Congress. He is also someone who recognizes the need for education of others. He created the Robert C. Byrd National Honors Scholarship. This scholarship provides opportunities for young Americans to pursue education as he has pursued his education.

He is a historian--a historian of this Senate and the Roman Senate. In fact, his 3,000-page ``History of the United States Senate'' is the premier history of this August body. He is a defender, a supporter, and, in some cases, the living embodiment of the United States Constitution. He carries it with him everywhere and every time. He is someone who not only talks about the Constitution, but on the floor of this Senate and in this country defends it each day.

He is an individual of great prominence. He is an individual of great humanity.

There is only one fact, I think, that is dimming this very special occasion for the Senator, and that is, it is not being shared by his beloved wife Erma Ora Byrd. But she is looking on this day with the same satisfaction, the same sense of accomplishment.

It is only fitting to close with a quote from Senator Byrd because I can in no way match his oratorical skills. In September 1998, he addressed the history of the Senate and he said:

Clio being my favorite muse, let me begin this evening with

a look backward over the well-traveled roads of history.

History always turns our faces backward, and this is as it

should be, so that we might be better informed and prepare to

exercise wisdom in dealing with future events.

His grasp of the past has given him a wise and insightful view of the future. He has always encouraged us to learn our history and then practice our history to shape the future of this country in this Hall of the Senate.

He has stood tall on so many occasions, but most notably I think was in October 2002. With an iron will and articulate voice, he questioned the policy of this Government as we entered this fight in Iraq.

History, I think, will record his wisdom, his decency, and his contribution to the country. Although I am a day late, I hope I am not a dollar short.

Congratulations to Senator Byrd on his model accomplishment.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern about efforts by the President and some in Congress to repeal or all but eliminate 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 1 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 estate tax is simple: when a very wealthy person dies, 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.

This tax raises significant revenue, it is highly progressive, and it provides an important backstop to the income tax.

Today, only estates worth more than $2 million are subject to the estate tax and an individual will be able to pass along up to $3.5 million tax-free by 2009. A couple can pass along twice that amount. And let's not forget that estate planning often shields even greater sums of wealth from taxation.

The House Committee on Government Reform estimates that the heirs of Lee Raymond, former ExxonMobile CEO, and the current CEOs of the five largest U.S. oil companies would receive a windfall of up to $211 million if the estate tax were permanently repealed. The committee has also calculated that estate tax repeal could save the heirs of President Bush, Vice President Cheney and 11 Cabinet members as much as $344 million.

It would be hard to call this a middle class tax cut without pretending a great deal.

Indeed, the Congressional Research Service reports that in 2004 when the exemption was $1.5 million, 99 percent of estates paid no estate taxes whatsoever. It bears repeating that less than one-half of 1 percent of estates will pay any tax at all as the estate tax exemption climbs to $3.5 million by 2009.

Despite the concerns expressed by some farm and small business groups, the vast majority of taxable estates are those of multimillionaires and billionaires who made their fortunes through their business and investments in securities and real estate or were born into extremely wealthy families.

After the President's tax cuts passed in 2001, he took a victory lap through Iowa where the New York Times quoted the President as saying:

I heard somebody say, ``Well, you know, the death tax

doesn't cause people to sell their farms.''

He added:

I don't know who they're talking to in Iowa.

Perhaps it was Neil Harl, an Iowa State, University economist whose tax advice has made him a household name among farmers throughout the Midwest. He has searched far and wide but has never found a case in which a farm was sold to pay estate taxes. ``It's a myth,'' says Professor Harl, who has only found heirs who wanted to sell the family farm.

Even the American Farm Bureau Federation, one of the leading advocates of estate tax repeal, can not provide a single example of a farm lost due to estate taxes.

The reality is that only a small fraction of taxable estates consists primarily of family-owned farm or small business assets. The Tax Policy Center estimates that in 2004, only 440 taxable estates--2 percent of all taxable estate--were primarily made up of farm or business assets. And the Congressional Budget Office found that the vast majority of family farms and small business estates would have sufficient liquid assets--such as bank accounts, stocks, bonds, and insurance--to pay the tax without having to sell any farm or business assets. CBO also found that with a $3.5 million exemption--$7 million per couple--only 13 or fewer farms would encounter any liquidity constraints.

Moreover, there are already special provisions in place to ease tax burdens for family-owned small businesses and farms, such as allowing additional sums to be bequeathed tax free and permitting estate taxes to be paid in installments over 14 years at favorable interest rates.

So if saving family farms and small businesses is not the real root of the repeal effort, you would think that there would be some sound economic rationale. However, claims by proponents that eliminating the estate tax would encourage saving and investment, reward entrepreneurship, and contribute to economic growth turn out to be myths as well.

Repeal advocates argue that capital assets have already been taxed during the taxpayer's lifetime, so a tax at death is gratuitous. But the reality is that a large share of capital assets has never been taxed. Under current law, we have a provision called the ``step-up'' in basis that allows capital gains from the appreciation of assets--such as a house or stocks--during the decedent's lifetime to escape taxation through 2009. In 2010, the lone year in which full repeal is currently slated to be in effect, we switch to a ``carry-over basis'' in which heirs of large estates would inherit the potential capital gains liability that is realized only when the asset is sold.

In effect, today under the pretax law, the heirs receive the estate but on a stepped-up basis--the current value of the home. So for the home the father purchased for $30,000 and is now worth $1 million, they receive the estate based on the value of a million dollars. No taxes were ever paid on that appreciation other than the estate tax.

The Small Business Council of America opposes the full repeal of the estate tax because they estimate that a great number of small business owners will be worse off due to the loss of step-up

in basis and only an extraordinary few will be better off. Four years from now, the Halls of Congress will be filled with heirs who won't want to pay taxes that they have inherited with repeal of the estate tax.

But any economic rationale for repeal falls apart when you learn that it will reduce national saving and hurt economic growth. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, making estate tax repeal permanent would cost an additional $369 billion over 10 years. This estimate, however, dramatically understates the true cost of repeal. The full cost of repeal would not be felt until the second decade, beyond the time period of the budget estimates. In that decade, the cost of repeal could reach nearly $800 billion, plus debt service costs that would bring the total to nearly $1 trillion.

A compromise plan currently circulating in the Senate would permanently raise the exemption to $5 million and cut the top estate tax rate to 15 percent, which would cost nearly as much as full repeal, and it is not much of a bargain.

Rising federal budget deficits make the cost of repeal or ``repeal- lite'' even more unpalatable. 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.

The President's tax cuts were passed at a time of huge projected surpluses in the Federal budget. The surpluses have been squandered by this administration and with deficits as far as the eye can see, it is simply irresponsible for the President and Republicans in Congress to press for full repeal of this tax.

By financing repeal with debt, we would be replacing the so-called ``death tax'' for a few very wealthy heirs with a ``birth tax'' for all, an action that seems neither wise nor fair. The cost of estate tax repeal will be paid for with borrowed money. Future generations of taxpayers--who will make significantly less than the deceased multimillionaires and billionaires whose estates would no longer owe taxes--will have to repay those funds. Estate tax repeal would raise the per-person debt burden by about $3,000 in just the first 10 years after the tax disappears.

In 2005, the CEO of ExxonMobile earned $9.1 million. Contrast that with the fact that the typical firefighter, police officer, or soldier today makes less than $50,000 a year and the inequity of this repeal is inescapable.

Clearly, estate tax repeal will predominately benefit the heirs of a handful of very wealthy estates. According to the Forbes 2005 ``World's Richest'' list, three members of the Mars family have $10.4 billion each and four members of the Walton family have nearly $20 billion each. These heirs still rank among the world's wealthiest people even after taxes.

Jamie Johnson, heir to the Johnson and Johnson fortune, put it this way, ``I was always told that the American Dream is about getting a bigger and better life than your parents have. But that dream was accomplished by my great-grandfather. ``

In their book about the history and politics of the estate tax, Death by a Thousand Cuts, Yale professors Michael J. Graetz and Ian Shapiro provide an eye-opening account of how a few very wealthy individuals and families have been working long and hard behind the scenes on repeal efforts. In the meantime, some of the wealthiest Americans-- including Warren Buffett, William Gates, Sr., George Soros, and Ted Turner--have warned about the corrosive effect of eliminating the estate tax.

When Teddy Roosevelt endorsed the idea of an inheritance tax, he said that its ``primary objectives should be to put a constantly increasing burden on the inheritance of those swollen fortunes, which it is certainly of no benefit to this country to perpetuate.'' Indeed, our Founding Fathers abandoned an economic aristocracy--where large fortunes were handed down generation after generation, concentrating wealth and power--to create a meritocracy based on the ideal of equal opportunity for all. Underlying the estate tax is the notion that because our government provides a stable environment for wealth to be created and flourish--our financial markets, legal system, regulatory system, and strong national defense--society is owed a modest return on those investments.

Television ads last year depicted a World War II veteran supporting the repeal of the estate tax, the underlying message being that the tax is somehow unpatriotic. Ironically, the estate tax was first adopted in the nineteenth century to pay for government shortfalls due to wartime spending.

Today, we are at war and yet there is no sense of the shared sacrifice that has united this country in past conflicts. 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 nearly 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, it is unconscionable to think that we are going to vote on repealing one of the most progressive taxes on the books.

There has been a lot of discussion about the death tax. It is not the death tax. It is the estate tax. But there is a death tax that is paid by Americans to sustain and support this country--and it is terribly unfair because it falls on a few. In Iraq, it has fallen upon 2,480 of our soldiers. In Afghanistan, it has fallen upon 299. It also falls upon the police and fire officers who each day risk their lives and some who give their lives. They truly pay the death tax. They will never be touched by this estate tax.

The average base pay of a specialist in the U.S. Army is $24,000. He won't be worried nor will his family be worried about the estate tax. Firefighters make about $40,000; police officers, $47,000 on average in this country. Yet, sadly, too many of them each year for their country pay the ultimate death tax. It is more debilitating than any check one sends to the IRS.

What do they need? What do their families need? They certainly need a strong, robust economy that will support their families in the future.

For those young Americans who are wounded in action--and right now in Iraq, 17,869--they need a strong Veterans Administration to support them years from now just when this repeal of the estate tax burden would take its toll and take more and more money away from the Federal revenue.

They are the ones who really pay the cost. If we pass this measure, we won't be able to help them when they need the help. We won't be able to support the Veterans' Administration system. We won't be able to provide the kind of support for education, for opportunities for higher education that will be so necessary for their children.

This repeal vote misses the point. The death tax was a slogan thought up by Republican operatives to sell an idea that does not have a compelling economic rationale. But there is a real death tax, and sadly, Americans in uniform must pay it for this country every day. They will receive no benefit from this repeal. Indeed, our ability to help them and their families will be limited in the years ahead.

I don't think this is just bad policy, it is unconscionable.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, a short time ago the Senate approved the nomination of GEN Michael Hayden to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I think it was an appropriate confirmation by this body, but I do think it is also appropriate to comment on the nomination of General Hayden.

Twenty months ago, I came to the Senate floor to oppose the nomination of Porter Goss for the same position, as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. At that time, I stated that the Director of Central Intelligence is a unique position. It should stand above politics. The citizens of the United States have the right to assume that the Director of Central Intelligence is providing objective information and analysis to allow the President to make the best possible decisions.

I didn't believe that a partisan choice was the proper choice then, and it seems in fact that was the case. Mr. Goss is an example of where this administration believed that its political agenda was more important than the security of our country. The CIA was in turmoil then, and it is in turmoil now. The Agency's assessments were distrusted then and are still subject to skepticism now. Many more experienced operatives have resigned. Mr. Goss, a political operative chosen by President Bush to lead the Central Intelligence Agency through a difficult period while engaged in a war, failed in this mission. So the administration is trying again.

This time, the President has chosen an intelligence veteran. General Hayden has served our Nation for the past 37 years as a distinguished intelligence officer in the U.S. Air Force. He has most recently held positions as Director of the National Security Agency and the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence. General Hayden is well versed in intelligence matters, he is well known in the community, and I do not believe he is a partisan political operative. There is evidence that General Hayden has been and can be independent and objective. General Hayden is a better choice, a much better choice, than Mr. Goss. However, I still have some concerns.

First, there has been much discussion about General Hayden's position in the military and his ability to be independent from the Defense Department in his assessments and in his operations. While the law has always allowed a military officer to serve in this position, I believe there is a valid reason for concern. The fiscal year 2007 national Defense authorization bill addresses this issue. It states that flag and general officers assigned to certain positions in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA shall not be subject to the supervision or control of the Secretary of Defense or exercise any supervision or control of military or civilian personnel in the Department of Defense, except as authorized by law. I believe this is an important provision and only one reason the Defense authorization bill should be considered as soon as possible, to get this position on the books of law.

However, I also believe we have to go a step further. I think if a military officer is chosen as the Director of National Intelligence or Director of Central Intelligence, that position should be a terminal assignment. That position should be recognized by the officer and by other members in the Department of Defense and the administration as the final assignment of that particular officer. I believe it best for our national security if an officer who takes one of these top intelligence positions is free from considerations about his future military career--what

assignments he might be given, who he might be angering in the Department of Defense, who he might be pleasing within the Department of Defense, either consciously or subconsciously.

As I said earlier, intelligence should be above politics, and it also should be above the politics within the Pentagon of assignments and of budgets and of other considerations. A law stating that the position as Director of Central Intelligence or National Intelligence is a final military assignment would help clarify this position in detail. It is an issue I will raise again during the consideration of the Defense authorization bill.

General Hayden has agreed, in consultation with Senator Warner and also in consultation with his family, that it is his intent to make this his final military assignment. I have no doubt that he will do that, but I believe it is important to formalize this provision in the law. That is why I will bring this to the attention of our colleagues when the Defense authorization bill comes to the floor.

There is another issue, of course, that is of concern. That issue is the administration's terrorist surveillance program. General Hayden headed the National Security Agency when the program was proposed and implemented. From what we know today, that program conducted electronic surveillance of international telephone calls and collected millions of domestic phone records. Let me be clear. A vote in support of General Hayden should not be construed as an endorsement of this administration's surveillance program. Nor should concerns about the administration's programs be viewed as an unwillingness to adopt aggressive intelligence activities against those who truly threaten this country. I believe we still do not know enough of the facts about these programs. From what I do know, however, I have grave concerns.

A thorough investigation must be conducted and must be conducted in a timely manner, but General Hayden was not the creator of the program, nor was he the one to provide the legal authority for the program. He stated he needed authority to implement such a surveillance program and the administration provided him with the authority he felt was sufficient. On this issue, at this time I will give General Hayden the benefit of the doubt.

I did support the nomination of General Hayden. I am certain he knows he is taking a very difficult job at a very difficult moment.

Many other honorable men and women have joined this administration. They have come to this administration with years of experience and expertise, and they have found themselves in very difficult dilemmas, where their experience and their expertise was challenged by this administration. Their objectivity, their sense of duty--not to a particular President but to the country overall--has been seriously challenged. In certain cases, the only remedy for these individuals is to resign rather than continue to support policies that they feel in their hearts and in their minds are not serving the best interests of this country. General Hayden might come to such a decision point, and I hope, given his skill, his experience, and his dedication to duty, that he would take the harder right than the easier wrong.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to one of Rhode Island's most highly decorated soldiers, Commander Richard L. Cevoli of East Greenwich.

Commander Cevoli served our nation bravely in both World War II and the Korean War. In honor of his sacrifices and service to his nation, I am introducing a bill, along with Senator Chafee, to name the post office located at 5775 Post Road in East Greenwich, RI, the ``Richard L. Cevoli Post Office.''

Commander Cevoli was born in East Greenwich, Rhode Island, on October 24, 1919, and died in a tragic plane crash in Florida on January 18, 1955. He went to Rhode Island State College, which is now the University of Rhode Island, and earned a degree in civil engineering. In 1941, after graduation, he moved to New York and began working for the engineering firm of Merritt, Chapman & Scott.

The month after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Richard Cevoli returned to Rhode Island and entered the Navy. He was sent to flight training in Dallas, Sanford, and Pensacola before being assigned to Squadron VF-18, based on the USS Intrepid in the Pacific.

It was during his service with the VF-18 that Commander Cevoli was awarded the second-highest medal awarded in the Navy--the Navy Cross. This honor was given to Commander Cevoli during the Battle of Leyte Gulf off the Philippines coast in October of 1944. Along with other fighters, Commander Cevoli strafed the largest Japanese ship, silencing many of its guns. The following day, he severely damaged a Japanese aircraft carrier with a 500-pound bomb. On a subsequent attack on the Japanese forces, as is recorded in his medal citation, ``Cevoli disregarded the terrific antiaircraft opposition and scored a near miss on a Kongo class battleship with a 500-pound bomb. Then, pulling out he made a second run to strafe a destroyer, silencing its antiaircraft weapons and thereby contributing to our successful bombing and torpedo attacks which followed. His outstanding courage and determination were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.''

Following his service during the war, he returned to Rhode Island and continued his Navy career at Naval Air Station, Quonset Point. However, the peace was short-lived. North Korea invaded South Korea, and another major conflict quickly began.

From 1949 until 1951, Commander Cevoli served as the Executive Officer in Squadron VF-18 on board the USS Leyte, seeing action in Korea. In addition to the Navy Cross, Commander Cevoli earned two Distinguished Flying Crosses and eight Air Medals during his active flying career.

Once the conflict in Korea had ended, Commander Cevoli was able to spend more time at home. He took classes at the Naval War College in Newport and in July, 1954 he was placed in command of Squadron VF-73. Tragically, he died serving his country when his plane crashed during a training mission.

Commander Cevoli left behind a wife, Grace, and three children, Steven, Carol, and Elizabeth. A life-long resident of East Greenwich, Commander Cevoli's legacy is memorialized in the Rhode Island Aviation Hall of Fame.

This legislation will pay tribute to this hero of Rhode Island and the United States, and I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Commander Cevoli by supporting this bill.

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

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to one of Rhode Island's most highly decorated soldiers, Commander Richard L. Cevoli of East Greenwich.

Commander Cevoli served our nation bravely in both World War II and the Korean War. In honor of his sacrifices and service to his nation, I am introducing a bill, along with Senator Chafee, to name the post office located at 5775 Post Road in East Greenwich, RI, the ``Richard L. Cevoli Post Office.''

Commander Cevoli was born in East Greenwich, Rhode Island, on October 24, 1919, and died in a tragic plane crash in Florida on January 18, 1955. He went to Rhode Island State College, which is now the University of Rhode Island, and earned a degree in civil engineering. In 1941, after graduation, he moved to New York and began working for the engineering firm of Merritt, Chapman & Scott.

The month after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Richard Cevoli returned to Rhode Island and entered the Navy. He was sent to flight training in Dallas, Sanford, and Pensacola before being assigned to Squadron VF-18, based on the USS Intrepid in the Pacific.

It was during his service with the VF-18 that Commander Cevoli was awarded the second-highest medal awarded in the Navy--the Navy Cross. This honor was given to Commander Cevoli during the Battle of Leyte Gulf off the Philippines coast in October of 1944. Along with other fighters, Commander Cevoli strafed the largest Japanese ship, silencing many of its guns. The following day, he severely damaged a Japanese aircraft carrier with a 500-pound bomb. On a subsequent attack on the Japanese forces, as is recorded in his medal citation, ``Cevoli disregarded the terrific antiaircraft opposition and scored a near miss on a Kongo class battleship with a 500-pound bomb. Then, pulling out he made a second run to strafe a destroyer, silencing its antiaircraft weapons and thereby contributing to our successful bombing and torpedo attacks which followed. His outstanding courage and determination were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.''

Following his service during the war, he returned to Rhode Island and continued his Navy career at Naval Air Station, Quonset Point. However, the peace was short-lived. North Korea invaded South Korea, and another major conflict quickly began.

From 1949 until 1951, Commander Cevoli served as the Executive Officer in Squadron VF-18 on board the USS Leyte, seeing action in Korea. In addition to the Navy Cross, Commander Cevoli earned two Distinguished Flying Crosses and eight Air Medals during his active flying career.

Once the conflict in Korea had ended, Commander Cevoli was able to spend more time at home. He took classes at the Naval War College in Newport and in July, 1954 he was placed in command of Squadron VF-73. Tragically, he died serving his country when his plane crashed during a training mission.

Commander Cevoli left behind a wife, Grace, and three children, Steven, Carol, and Elizabeth. A life-long resident of East Greenwich, Commander Cevoli's legacy is memorialized in the Rhode Island Aviation Hall of Fame.

This legislation will pay tribute to this hero of Rhode Island and the United States, and I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Commander Cevoli by supporting this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise to discuss S. 2611, the immigration bill we are debating this week. It has been a difficult debate with several difficult votes, but I believe this is one of the most important pieces of legislation we will address this year.

The status of immigrants in this country, including legal aliens, guest workers, and illegal aliens, has a profound impact on our economy, our labor force, and the quality of life of all of the Nation's residents. Clearly, our immigration system in terms of both its punitive measures and its benefits offered is in need of overhaul. The bill before us is not perfect, but it is a realistic approach to dealing with an issue that is important to so many Americans.

Rather than measures that sound good but are ineffective, this legislation is truly comprehensive immigration reform. It includes tough enforcement provisions directed at those who seek to come here illegally in the future and those who would hire illegal aliens. It contains provisions for guest workers that balance the needs of employers and the average American worker, and it offers a path to legalization to those who entered this country illegally but who have since been working hard and obeying the rules.

One of the most important sections of this bill relates to enforcement. Clearly, the continuous flow of illegal immigrants across our southern border in particular in search of higher paying jobs in the United States strains our Nation's labor market and resources such as hospitals and schools and law enforcement.

I note that while illegal immigration has been a significant problem since the 1980s, the problems have only worsened in the past 6 years. The 9/11 Commission gave the Bush administration a grade of C-minus on border security. The administration has simply lost control of the border. In the past decade, between 700,000 and 800,000 illegal immigrants have arrived in this country annually. Over 70 percent of these individuals are from Mexico or South America or from Central America. During the same period from 1995 to 2005, the number of Border Patrol agents increased from 4,876 to 11,106.

However, while the number of border agents increased dramatically during the Bush administration, the number of apprehensions at the border declined 31 percent from the last 4 years of the Clinton administration. In addition, approximately one-half of the 11 million illegal aliens in this country live in the 46 nonborder States, yet the average apprehension rate during the

Bush administration is 25,901 individuals per year in interior States away from the border.

But apprehending individuals illegally crossing the border only partially solves the problem. The reason so many try to enter this country is the search for jobs. We must work to cut off the supply of jobs by making it too costly for employers to hire illegals. Again, this administration has performed poorly in this area. In fiscal year 2004, the last year in which data is available, the Justice Department only obtained 46 convictions for employer violations of illegal immigrant employment laws. Audits of employers suspected of utilizing labor have dropped from a peak of 8,000 per year under President Clinton to less than 2,200 in fiscal year 2003 under President Bush. The number of cases resulting in fines has declined from a peak of 900 under President Clinton to a total of 124 in fiscal year 2003. I would therefore say that the first step to improve enforcement would be to actually enforce the laws that are already on the books.

In addition, I believe the bill adds many useful enforcement measures. I would like to highlight a few that I feel are most significant.

I am particularly pleased with the focus on technology. This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to create a virtual fence along the borders using unmanned aerial vehicles, cameras, sensors, tethered aerostat radars, and other surveillance equipment. This bill also requires the Department of Homeland Security to work with other agencies such as the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration to develop plans for sharing assets and implementing surveillance strategies.

In addition, this bill includes provisions which replace and extend existing fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border. While I realize that building additional fences may be an attractive option, ultimately I believe this approach would be expensive and ineffective. History has proven that fences simply drive the illegal immigration flow to cross by land through more inhospitable terrain, increasing the number of deaths, or to enter by boat through our largely unprotected ports and shores.

For example, once a triple fence was built in the San Diego area, apprehensions dropped dramatically, but they increased 342 percent during the same period in Tuscon, away from the fence. In addition, during that period, it is estimated that 1,954 people died attempting to cross the Sonoran Desert to reach Tucson.

I also believe that wall is a symbol of distrust which can only weaken our relations, particularly with Mexico. It is a country we need to cooperate with to reduce the flow of illegal aliens.

For these reasons, last week I voted against the Sessions amendment to add 370 more miles of triple-layer fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers along our southern border. I believe the funding could be spent in more effective ways using new technologies.

This bill also improves enforcement of employers who might unlawfully hire illegal aliens. First, it reduces the number of documents that can be used to prove legal status. It also increases verification and recordkeeping requirements. Most importantly, it establishes an electronic employment verification system.

Under this program, employers must electronically verify new hires' employment authorization within 3 days through the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security databases. All employers will have to participate in the system within the next 5 years. The bill also provides for punitive measures for employers who do not participate. Such a system will help standardize enforcement, making it more certain that employers hiring illegals will be found out and therefore providing a deterrent effect.

I believe the measure I have discussed, along with others in the bill, will help control the stream of illegal aliens entering this country.

As we all are aware, one of the most controversial aspects of this bill is that it provides a path to legalization for approximately 11 million illegal immigrants living in this country. I believe that while this is a difficult decision, it is a necessary one.

Logic and history dictate that these individuals will certainly not return to their native countries voluntarily. In addition, it is not possible to apprehend and return all of them involuntarily. If apprehensions continue at the present rate and new illegal immigration ceases, it would still take 228 years for this country to be free of illegal immigrants.

In the meantime, a significant segment of our population is living in the shadows and in constant fear of being caught working for low wages, often in terrible conditions, without health care, without a way to redress any crimes against them. So many being forced to live this way lowers the standard of living for all of us--by decreasing job opportunities, lowering wages and the standards of working conditions for the American workforce, and burdening our hospitals and law enforcement agencies. It is not just a problem for the illegal population, it is a problem for all of us. And it is time we address it. This bill does address it, and I believe in a fair way. It is not what opponents have called amnesty. These people are not illegal one day and enjoying the rights and benefits of legal residency the next without any sacrifice or work on their part. I would like to take a moment to put these provisions I am about to discuss in a historical context.

For the vast majority of our Nation's history, there were few, if any, requirements for immigrants entering this country. The first restrictive immigration laws, other than those racially based, were not passed until the late 1880s and did not substantially change for several decades, including during the height of European immigration in the early 1900s. These laws excluded convicts, polygamists, prostitutes, persons suffering from loathsome or contagious diseases, and persons liable to become public charges. The 1917 literacy requirement required individuals to be able to write out 40 words in some language, not necessarily English.

These requirements, I would say, were not particularly strenuous. The INS, once established in 1891, actually ran its own schools and supplied textbooks to help immigrants learn English and civics. There was no requirement to work or have marketable skills. For the most part, if you arrived and were relatively healthy, you were admitted. So by these standards, the requirements for earned adjustment are much more significant.

First, in order to receive the most benefits from this bill, an individual must prove he or she has already lived in this country for 5 years--time to become a part of the community and, it should be noted, the residency requirement since 1802. These individuals will also have to prove they worked 3 of the past 5 years and then must work continuously for the next 6 years. They must pay all unpaid back income taxes. They must demonstrate an understanding of the English language and an understanding of the history and government of this country. They must submit to fingerprinting and background checks and meet the health and security requirements of every other alien entering the country. Also, they are placed at the ``back of the line'' of applications for adjustment, and, as we all know, that wait is several years. They also have to pay a $2,000 fine as well as other processing fees.

Those who have been in this country since January 7, 2004, and have been employed since that time may apply for status called deferred mandatory departure which would allow them to remain in this country for an additional 3 years.

During that time, these individuals can apply for immigrant or nonimmigrant status, but ultimately they must leave the country in order to be admitted under that legal status. These hurdles are high and a far cry from amnesty. They strike the proper balance in punishing those who came here illegally and addressing the problems of some illegal aliens in the country.

One of the original provisions of S. 2611 about which I had significant reservations was the originally proposed H-2C guest worker program. It would create a new visa category--providing visas for hundreds of thousands of low-skilled workers each year. I understand the argument that this new program is a way to regulate and hopefully slow the flow of illegal aliens who will continue to cross our borders, but I was

concerned about immediately implementing the program as it was originally drafted.

I believe, however, that it has been vastly improved by the amendment process here on the floor. Senators Dorgan and Stabenow were the first to note the flaws in this program during debate on their amendment to eliminate the program, an amendment which was tabled. Further amendments, however, fix many of these flaws.

I wish to commend Senator Bingaman for his amendment, which passed, that reduces the number of H-2C visas allotted annually to 200,000 and eliminates the provision that would allow this number to automatically increase in future years. This amendment provides some needed limitation on the H-2C program until we see how all the provisions of S. 2611 are working.

I also wish to commend Senator Obama for offering his amendment, which was accepted and which provides adequate requirements for the wages offered to H-2C visa workers. One of the greatest challenges of allowing low-skilled workers in this country is balancing their needs with the needs of the American labor force. Over the past 32 months, real average hourly earnings have fallen by 1.2 percent. Without adequate protections, an influx of workers who will accept lower wages risks bringing down the wages and working conditions of everyone. I also worry that companies will use this visa program as a recruiting device for cheap labor rather than truly offering opportunities to individuals who want a better life in the United States. Senator Obama's amendment will work against those dangers, and I am pleased it was included.

I must state that I continue to have one concern about this program-- the bilateral agreement. For our immigration system to truly work, it is critical that the United States have cooperation regarding enforcement with countries and citizens flocking to this country. I was, therefore, pleased to find that S. 2611 requires the United States to enter into bilateral agreements on numerous issues, including taking back aliens removed from the United States, document forgery, smuggling, human trafficking, and gang membership. However, this bill does not state that these bilateral agreements must be completed before the H-2C program is established. I believe a delay in concluding bilateral agreements may undercut the purpose of the H-2C program.

I will continue to monitor the situation, and I believe it is an issue Congress may have to address again in the near future.

Let me conclude very briefly by pointing out that there is a category of residents here, the Liberian community, who have been here legally since the late 1980s. For years, I have been endeavoring to provide relief so that these individuals, who are important and decent members of communities all across this country, could reach permanent status in United States and aspire to citizenship. I am pleased to note that in this bill, there is a means to do that. They can avail themselves of the mechanism others will use for their pathway to citizenship. It is long overdue.

I am disappointed that we could not specifically rectify this problem years ago and recognize their contributions as legal residents here under temporary protective status. But I am pleased that this legislation will go a long way to give the Liberian community a pathway to citizenship.

I am pleased to support this legislation. I commend the sponsors and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and Senator Kennedy for their work.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise today to recognize the Army Aviation Association's top National Guard aviation unit for 2005. Since 1969, the Army Aviation Association has presented this award to the best Army National Guard aviation unit. Indeed, it is a great honor to represent the State of this year's winner, the 1st Battalion, 126th Aviation Regiment of the Rhode Island Army National Guard.

The 1st of the 126th has a long and distinguished history. Tracing its roots back to 1930 and the 68th Field Artillery Brigade, the 1st of the 126th was founded as a field artillery unit and later transitioned to medical care specialists. But in the 1960s, the unit was reorganized into an aviation unit. Since that time, it has performed with extraordinary professionalism and skill in its role as an aviation unit.

Deployed to Iraq from January to December of 2005, the 1st of the 126th served as the core of Task Force Dragonwing during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Task Force Dragonwing, based out of Balad Airbase north of Baghdad, was the lead force responsible for conducting combat support aviation operations through the entire Iraqi theater. They accumulated over 16,000 hours of combat mission flight hours during nearly 2,000 missions while transporting 66,000 passengers and 5,000 tons of cargo. During their tour, they flew 46 missions in direct action against known or suspected anti-Iraqi forces, and 22 missions were subjected to known surface-to-air fire, with 7 aircraft receiving battle damage. Throughout the professional performance of their duties, no members of the unit were killed or seriously injured.

The 1st of the 126th is comprised of 457 soldiers who man and maintain 24 UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters and 12 CH-47 Chinook helicopters. Their mission is to perform air assault and movement operations and to provide command, control, supervision, staff planning, and logistical support to all units affiliated with the battalion.

During one of my visits to Iraq, I had the great honor and opportunity to fly with them, to observe their unit firsthand. In fact, I was honored to be accompanied by GEN John Abizaid, whose comments about their skill and professionalism brought great pride to me and all Rhode Islanders. This unit was ably commanded by COL Chris Callahan and was led by soldiers, pilots, and crew members with great skill and courage and professionalism.

I was, indeed, honored and thrilled to be with them in Iraq, to see their operation, to see the contribution they made to our effort in Iraq. The 1st of the 126th has proven itself an exceptional unit and deserves to be selected by the Army Aviation Association as the top aviation unit for 2005. They have served their country with honor. We are all proud of their service, in the State of Rhode Island and throughout the Nation. Indeed, it is heartwarming to see them being recognized nationally for their great success, their great service to the Nation, and their great professionalism. I commend Colonel Callahan and all the officers and personnel of that unit for their service, for their sacrifice, for their dedication to our country.

Madam President, I rise in opposition to this tax reconciliation conference report. At a time when we are all already shouldering a large budget deficit and fighting a war, this is an irresponsible fiscal policy. At a time when economic growth is mainly showing up in the bottom lines of companies, ordinary Americans are struggling with stagnating real wages and incomes. This is not the approach to take. Yet, we are debating a tax cut whose benefits go overwhelmingly to those who are so well off that they don't have to worry, as ordinary people do, about what they will have to give up to pay for the next tank of gas or to heat their homes.

Supporters of the tax cut in this reconciliation package, including the President, argue that those tax cuts have produced a robust economic recovery and extending them is necessary to keep the economy growing. Some of them even claim that the tax revenues bring in enough revenue to pay for themselves. These arguments are self-contradictory, where they are not downright wrong.

At the time the tax cuts in this package were originally passed, the economy was mired in an economic slump and they were sold as a means to jump-start the economy. If the administration is right that the economy is now growing strongly, extending them is unnecessary. If those of us who believe there are still problems with this economic recovery are right, we would be throwing good money after bad to extend tax cuts that have been ineffective.

Responsible economists, at the time of these original tax cuts, pointed out that these particular tax cuts were very poorly designed to produce the job-creating stimulus the economy needed in the short run, and that they would be harmful in the long run by adding to the budget deficit. They were right.

Economic growth, job creation, and investment have been weak by the standards of past recoveries. At this point in the recovery from the 1990-1991 recession, the economy had created 4.8 million more jobs than have been created in this recovery.

Make no mistake, this tax cut will be paid for by borrowing and adding to the long-run structural budget deficit, and it will depress the growth in the American standard of living.

If the tax cuts pay for themselves, where are the revenues? Federal tax revenues as a share of the economy declined in each of the first 4 years of this administration, reaching a 45-year low in 2004. As the economy recovered, it was natural for revenues to rise. But despite that growth, Federal revenues were still below their historical average level last year.

Some have pointed to the higher than expected capital gains realization as evidence that the tax cuts pay for themselves. Yet, in a recent letter to Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, the CBO concluded: ``After examining the historical record, including that for 2004, we cannot conclude that the unexplained increase (in capital gains realizations) is attributable to the change in the capital gains tax rates. Volatility in gains can stem from other factors, such as changes in asset values, investor decisions, or broader economic trends.''

Past history suggests that the timing of capital gains realization does respond to tax rates. We saw this in 1986 when realizations doubled from the previous year as investors took advantage of lower tax rates. Today, many investors are choosing to realize gains now while tax rates are low. This increases revenues today, but this is just tax revenue borrowed from the future. In recent testimony before the Joint Economic Committee, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke noted:

There are a lot of factors affecting both the increase in

the stock market and realizations. And one of the issues here

is the question as to whether or not some realizations are

taking place today which otherwise might have taken place in

the future. And so, in that sense, the increase in tax

revenue is reflecting a one-time gain, as opposed to a

permanent gain.

It is clear that over the long term tax cuts do not pay for themselves. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan said in testimony before the House Budget Committee:

It is very rare and few economists believe that you can cut

taxes and you will get the same amount of revenue. . . . When

you cut taxes, you gain some revenue back. We don't know

exactly what this is, but it's not small, but it's also not

70 percent or anything like that.

Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Gregory Mankiw, wrote in his macroeconomic textbook that there is ``no credible evidence'' that tax cuts pay for themselves, and that an economist who makes such a claim is a ``snake oil salesman who is trying to sell a miracle cure.''

I believe he was an adviser to the Republican President. The reconciliation bill is full of one-time gimmicks that take money from the future and leave major issues unaddressed. The one-year AMT fix costs $33 billion, but we will be back here next year to pass another fix that could cost an additional $40 billion for another 1-year solution. The AMT is a trillion dollar problem that the administration refuses to permanently correct.

The IRA provision is another gimmick that raises revenues now at the cost of greater revenue losses in the future. Why provide another tax- favored saving opportunity to the well off who are already able to save on their own? With all the gimmicks and front loading of future revenues, we should rename this bill ``the future tax increase for working Americans reconciliation act,'' because that is what we will need to happen to pay for these tax cuts for the wealthy.

Reconciliation was designed to enforce fiscal responsibility. It was designed to force us to make tough choices that emphasize our national priorities. Instead, what we now have is an unprecedented bifurcation of the reconciliation process that is full of gimmicks to pay for unwise tax cuts for those who need it the least, and poor decisions that ignore our needs to invest more in hard-working families.

The bill before us today has made an utter mockery out of the budget process and has turned it on its head. Once again, the legislation before us is about choices and missed opportunities. We have real crises and issues that we must confront as a nation, and we are again missing the opportunity of addressing them by squandering millions of dollars on cuts that are unnecessary. It is critical that we deal with energy, and it should be at the top of our agenda.

The fiscal strains caused by record high gas prices hurt workers and the economy. The average household will spend 75 percent more in gasoline costs this year than in 2001 and yet this tax reconciliation bill continues to give more tax breaks to large oil companies that have reported record profits in the past year, at the expense of Americans everywhere.

In March of this year, Lee Raymond, CEO of Exxon, testified before the Judiciary Committee that they didn't need the recent tax cuts provided in the Energy Policy Act of the 2005. When the most profitable companies in the world tell you they don't need tax cuts and you have more than a dozen tax cuts that have expired for millions of teachers, working families, and students, I believe the right decision is to help those who are in need and not these huge companies.

Last November, the Senate passed a tax reconciliation bill which scaled

back some of the tax incentives for the major oil and gas companies. Many in the industry noted that these provisions would have little, if any, impact on supply and demand. In essence, the bill took back some revenue from unnecessary tax cuts for the most profitable companies. However, these reasonable proposals were eliminated from the conference report before us today.

Why was that done? Because, of all the provisions in this bill, President Bush threatened to veto this entire bill if it included the LIFO revenue raiser, which is a provision that would have eliminated for one year a favorable method of accounting for the big oil companies. When it comes to making the most profitable companies pay their fair share, the administration threatens to veto the legislation.

These specific oil and gas provisions which were included in the Senate-passed tax reconciliation would have raised $5 billion. This money could have been invested in fully funding energy efficiency and renewable energy programs in the Energy Policy Act. The money could have also been better invested in programs such as LIHEAP and the Weatherization Assistance Program to help reduce the energy burden of working families who are disproportionately impacted by these rising prices. These are the first steps in reducing our demand for fossil fuels and are currently our Nation's best means of addressing a secure energy future.

Ultimately, this bill will be a drain on national savings, and our children and grandchildren will pay the price. These tax cuts have not contributed to raising national savings. The personal savings rate which these tax cuts were presumably designed to stimulate has been going down and is now negative. On average, people are spending more than their current income. To be sure, soaring corporate profits and retained earnings have boosted the business part of private savings, but this is offset by budget deficits which these tax cuts will only increase.

We no longer have the fiscal discipline we had in the 1990s which allowed for a monetary policy that encouraged investment and long-term growth. The President's large and persistent budget deficits have led to an ever-widening trade deficit that forces us to borrow vast amounts from abroad and puts us at risk of a major financial collapse if foreign lenders suddenly stop accepting our IOUs.

Even assuming we can avoid an international financial crisis, continued budget and trade deficits will be a drag on the growth of our standard of living and leave us ill-prepared to deal with the effects of the retirement of the baby boom generation. Strong investment, financed by our own national savings, not foreign borrowing, is the foundation for strong and sustained economic growth and rising living standards.

We desperately need to bring our fiscal house in order, and today's bill only takes us further away from meeting that goal.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to comment on the legislation the majority has brought forward during what it has dubbed Health Week and on health care more broadly.

While I do not support this legislation as drafted, I commend Senator Enzi for attempting to address the important issue of health insurance for small businesses.

As of 2004, over 45 million Americans were uninsured. Unfortunately, these numbers continue to rise with each passing year as more and more employers cease offering coverage to their employees. In Rhode Island, the percentage of companies offering health insurance coverage declined from 80 percent in 1999 to 68 percent in 2005. In my State, a small business is more likely to drop coverage because of the prohibitive cost.

While some employers have stopped offering coverage altogether, others have struggled to keep up with escalating costs. Since 2000, premiums for family coverage have increased by 73 percent compared to an inflation growth of 14 percent and a wage growth of 15 percent over the same period.

Health insurance affordability not only affects employee satisfaction, it also has a direct impact on a company's competitiveness.

We need to address these issues, but S. 1955 is not the answer. It decreases cost by changing rating structures, allowing cherry-picking of healthy individuals, and offering plans with very few benefits.

S. 1955 would amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to allow for the creation of small business health plans, SBHPs, sponsored by business or trade associations that would, like self-insured plans, be exempt from State laws. As was the case with legislation proposing the creation of association health plans, AHPs, a considerable number of health care experts have expressed concerns that this legislation would exempt SBHPs from important State regulations that protect consumers, guarantee access to coverage and treatment, and ensure financial solvency. Millions of Americans could lose coverage for such important care as screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer; well-child care and immunizations; emergency services; mental health; and diabetes supplies and education.

I have serious concerns that this legislation could weaken the already fragile insurance market we currently have in the United States. States have worked diligently to craft insurance regulations that reflect their individual needs. They have developed rating systems and mandated benefits to best protect their citizens.

This bill will affect not only health insurance for small businesses but also health insurance for all markets. In a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions HELP Committee, the Rhode Island health insurance commissioner expressed his strong concerns about how S. 1955 would affect the State's health insurance regulatory system, its ability to hold health plans accountable, and develop solutions particular to our Sate. I will ask that the text of this letter be printed in the Record.

I have serious concerns about the health insurance that would be offered under this legislation. If insurance does not offer adequate coverage, it is insurance in name only. It is of little use if you can't afford it or access it when you need it.

A recent program on PBS' NOW focused on what it termed ``junk insurance plans'' and profiled two particular cases where the insurance was really no insurance at all, leaving couples who had faithfully paid premiums with astronomical medical bills. In one case, the insurance plan sold was marketed through an association for the self-employed.

It is important to try to address the problem of the uninsured, but we need to be sure that it is being done in a sensible and thoughtful manner.

While Senator Enzi has taken a great deal of time to meet with a variety of stakeholders in drafting this legislation, there have been no hearings on the bill, even though my colleagues and I on the HELP Committee requested such hearings. Moreover, 41 attorneys general have signed a letter in opposition to S. 1955; 19 State insurance commissioners and State departments responsible for insurance regulation have written letters opposing this legislation.

There are better options. The Lincoln-Durbin proposal would be more effective in curbing health care costs and expanding coverage, as well as help small businesses and their employees. It would create the Small Employers Health Benefits Program SEHBP and provide tax breaks for employers that offer financial assistance for insurance premiums to low-income employees. SEHBP is based on the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program and would extend the purchasing power of the Federal Government to small businesses that choose to participate. In addition, SEHBP enrollees in local plans would enjoy an array of coverage options, while at the same time benefiting from State consumer protections.

I filed three straightforward, commonsense amendments to guarantee more comprehensive coverage, to preserve State authority, and to make sure SBHPs actually reduce costs. I first proposed these amendments during the HELP Committee consideration of this bill. The first amendment would create a commission to establish a Federal floor of benefit mandates in accordance with the laws adopted in a plurality of the States, which would preserve some of the critical benefits currently mandated by Rhode Island and other States. The second amendment would limit the preemption of State laws by clarifying that unless specifically provided for, nothing in S. 1955 would override any State or local law related to health insurance. The third amendment requires the Government Accountability Office GAO to evaluate the program 24 months after its implementation, and if there is no evidence of a decrease in cost or increase in access to health care, the program would be terminated.

I am disappointed that the majority is not allowing us to engage in a full and fair debate on these and other amendments in the absence of a broad agreement on the bill.

Earlier this year, we saw the implementation of another program that was not well thought out and was fraught with problems as a result. Many of the problems with the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit could have been averted. This crisis was anticipated for some time by independent researchers and advocates for Medicare beneficiaries, yet the Republican-controlled Congress repeatedly blocked remedies and continues to do so. Working to improve the Medicare drug plan is not even on the agenda for Health Week.

I did not support the Medicare Modernization Act because I felt the benefit was insufficient and the emphasis on a privately administered program made it excessively complex for beneficiaries. This plan imposes penalties for those enrolled to change plans but allows the plans to change the prescriptions they cover at will. Millions of retirees faced with choosing among a large number of private drug plans struggled with different rules, lists of covered drugs, and premiums. Many who are eligible to sign up have avoided doing so all together.

The problems have been so widespread that more than 20 States, including Rhode Island, had to step in to pay drug claims that should have been paid by the Federal Medicare Program. At least two dozen States have taken emergency action to help low-income individuals who could not get their medications under the program, and States spent many millions of dollars on this assistance.

Since its launch on January 1, doctors and pharmacists have complained that many drugs theoretically covered by the new Medicare drug benefit are not readily available due to the insurers' restrictions and requirements. Many pharmacists can't keep track of

the plans' myriad policies and procedures and doctors say the diverse requirements are onerous and can delay or deny access to needed medications.

The May 15 deadline for enrollment in Part D is looming. We should be taking action to extend the deadline and improve Part D during this sole week the majority has dedicated to so-called health care reform. Let's put America's Medicare beneficiaries first.

Another issue that is imperative for us to address is stem cell research. Last May, the House passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, H.R. 810, by a wide margin. We heard Senator Frist last summer announce that he agrees with lifting the stem cell ban, but we have not seen any movement on this issue.

President Bush's policy limits Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research in practice to 22 stem cell lines that have been in existence since 2001, and these lines are unsuitable for research. In recent years, we have seen amazing medical breakthroughs thanks to a dedication to research. HIV disease, which was a virtual death sentence just over a decade ago, has become for many a chronic disease. The 5- year survival rate for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia is approximately 85 percent, a dramatic increase because of new lifesaving treatments.

I hope to be able to stand on this Senate floor a few years from now asking for support for new research and highlighting the advancements that have been made in the treatment of spinal cord victims, children with diabetes, and those with Parkinson's because of embryonic stem cell research. The Senate should be marking the 1-year anniversary of the House passage of H.R. 810 by having a vote on the bill. We have an obligation not only to those stricken with these devastating conditions but to the family and friends who care for them. H.R. 810 opens the door to medical research that could unlock the mystery behind many of these devastating diseases while ensuring strong ethical and scientific oversight.

I share Senator Enzi's desire to stem the rising costs of health insurance, which pose a challenge to many, including our Nation's small businesses and self-employed individuals. While Congress should certainly do more to address this matter and expand coverage to those who currently lack it, S. 1955 would have little impact on these crucial needs.

There are other equally critical health issues facing millions of Americans. In addition to Medicare and stem cell research, we should be considering legislation to expand health insurance coverage to every child in this country, legislation to strengthen our public health system, and legislation to ensure an adequate number of nurses and other health professionals to care for our aging Nation. While the majority is stunting this week's debate, it is my hope that the Senate will actually take the time and find a way to work together to have a serious debate on important health care issues this year.

I ask unanimous consent that the before-mentioned letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, two important lessons we learned from Hurricane Katrina are that our Nation's infrastructure to protect Americans from flooding and hurricanes is inadequate and upfront investment in this infrastructure can save lives and is a sound investment of taxpayers' money in order to prevent costly reconstruction.

The Fox Point Hurricane Barrier in Providence, RI protects the city and adjoining communities from the catastrophic effects of hurricane storm surge in Narragansett Bay and torrential rains with the Providence River basin. Built in the 1960s, as a joint

flood control project by the city and the Army Corps of Engineers, the barrier employs three 35-foot high gates, an electrically driven pumping station, and dikes to protect tens of thousands of people and approximately $5 billion worth of property. The hurricane barrier is a one-half mile long structure that extends from Allens Avenue to India Point Park. It was the first structure of its type in the United States to be approved for construction.

The Hurricane of 1938 and Hurricane Carol in 1954 devastated communities in Rhode Island. The Hurricane of 1938 generated a storm surge of 16 feet that traveled up Narragansett Bay and flooded downtown Providence under 10 feet of water. Two hundred and seven Rhode Islanders were killed, and damage totaled $125 million--more than $1 billion in today's dollars. Hurricane Carol in 1954 flooded Providence, leaving the city under 8 feet of water and destroying 4,000 houses.

The Corps and city built the Fox Point Hurricane Barrier to keep a storm surge from flowing into downtown Providence. Since its construction, sea levels have risen 9 to 10 inches. In addition, Rhode Island has lost wetlands and tidal flats that could help mitigate a storm surge. According to Jon Boothroyd, a geologist at the University of Rhode Island, the filled land will force water into a narrower area, causing a higher storm surge. The loss of marshes and fields behind the barrier will further exacerbate the problem as water could also move faster downstream to the barrier. For these reasons, it is imperative that the barrier and pumps work if and when they are needed.

In recent years, the Army Corps of Engineers and the city of Providence have evaluated the barrier and determined that the electromechanical control system for the barrier's pumps must be replaced. The Corps has reported that during several inspections, the pump motors have occasionally failed to start because of faulty relays or other related electrical problems. In a letter dated December 7, 2003, Richard C. Carlson with the New England Director of the Army Corps of Engineers stated that ``During the past several inspections the pump motors have occasionally failed to start because of faulty relays or other electrically related problems. This is symptomatic of the age and condition of the electrical components, most of which are original.'' The electromechanical control system has been in service for 40 years, and due to its age repair parts are nearly impossible to obtain.

We have been lucky as New England has not had a strong hurricane in 50 years, but that could mean that our luck is running out. The city and I are concerned that failure of the system during an actual storm could result in the flooding of Providence's downtown business district and thousands of residences. The Fox Point Hurricane Barrier is a project authorized by the Water Resources Development Act, and the Federal Government should fulfill its obligation to provide a safe, structural sound barrier that operates when necessary. For this reason, I filed an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 4939, to provide $1,055,000 to complete upgrades to the Fox Point Hurricane Barrier. I am pleased that the Senate accepted my amendment for this funding. Senator Chafee and I also sponsored an amendment to the bill to turn over responsibility for the annual operations and maintenance of the hurricane barrier to the Army Corps of Engineers. I am glad that the Senate also decided to accept this amendment. I will work with my colleagues to maintain these amendments as this bill moves through conference.

Amendment No. 3592, as Modified

Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Transportation, Treasury, Judiciary, and HUD Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations.

As my colleagues know, rising home energy costs and high prices at the pump are draining dollars out of our communities and the pocketbooks of American families. This is money that could be spent on school supplies, food and medicine, and retirement savings. The burden of high energy prices is disproportionately felt by low-income and working class consumers, who do not have the disposal income to meet these expenses. The unanticipated increases in energy costs due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita at the beginning of the 2005/2006 heating season have had a significant impact on the ability of local housing agencies to effectively manage their public and section 8 housing inventories.

Nationwide, approximately 3 million families receive public housing or section 8 housing voucher assistance, which helps families pay for housing costs, including utilities. In Rhode Island, public housing provides homes for 16,000 households, 7,000 of whom are elderly or disabled and 9,000 family members. The section 8 voucher program serves an additional 16,000 residents, 3,300 who are elderly or disabled, and 12,173 family members. Public housing and the section 8 voucher programs are important assets to communities and residents in Rhode Island, making affordable housing available to many elderly, disabled, and working families. In 2004, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in the State was $1,121. The average income needed for this rent is $45,000 per year, or $16.25 per hour. Teachers and librarians earn only an average of $40,685 per year in Rhode Island. Half of all Rhode Island residents cannot afford the rent on the average two- bedroom apartment. The average hourly wage needed to afford a one- bedroom apartment in the State is $14.05. A minimum-wage employee, working full time, would be able to afford $351 in rent.

Public housing agencies pay utility bills, and vouchers include an allowance for tenant-paid utilities. The Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) budget for fiscal year 2006 for both public housing and section 8 vouchers did not contemplate the growth in energy costs that we have seen since the gulf coast hurricanes of 2005. The 1.5-percent increase budgeted for utility payments is woefully inadequate this year.

For approximately 80 percent of public housing units, the local housing agency pays directly for utilities. The local agency cannot pay increased utility bills by raising rents. In the remaining 20 percent of public housing units, local agencies assist families, elderly, and disabled persons to pay utility bills where these bills would tip housing costs over 30 percent of income. HUD's public housing operating fund budget, which pays for utilities, for fiscal year 2006 incorporated only a 1.5-percent increase for rising energy costs, a level not close to the utility rate hikes experienced by local agencies. In 2005, public housing agencies received just 89 percent of the amount necessary to cover basic maintenance and operations, and in fiscal year 2006, these agencies are expected to receive about 91 percent of necessary funding. Public housing agencies cannot absorb these increases within their budgets or reserves. Without supplemental funding, many agencies will be forced to again cut back on basic maintenance and vital services to the elderly, disabled, and working families they serve.

The section 8 voucher program is experiencing similar problems. About 20 percent of assisted families have utilities included within their rental charges. For the remaining 80 percent, housing agencies provide the family with a standard utility allowance based on energy consumption for the housing unit where they live. HUD calculates the annual increases in voucher funding and the amount that agencies are permitted to pay on behalf of families for tenant-paid utilities based on area housing cost estimates. Again, these calculations were developed before' the recent increase in utilities. Housing agencies are required to recalculate and increase utility allowances for families whenever utility costs increase by 10 percent or more. However, under the current ``budget-based'' method of funding vouchers, no additional funding will be provided midyear to accommodate these increased costs. The failure to provide additional funding to local agencies for utility increases will create either greater rent burdens for low-income families or force agencies to reduce the number of families they assist within their limited budgets.

An example from my home State of Rhode Island is illustrative of what public housing agencies are facing across the country. The Woonsocket Public Housing Authority serves 1,300 families in public housing, including 650 senior citizens. While the agency is authorized to serve 669 families with vouchers, the funding provided to the agency under the budget-based voucher formula limits them to serving only 639 families. Woonsocket has previously undertaken many energy-saving activities; however, utility costs for electricity increased 100 percent in November/December 2005 over the same months in 2004. Natural gas increased 37 percent for the last 3 months of 2005. Utilities costs, which were 30 percent of the operating costs, now have begun to approach 40 percent and could go to 50 percent.

For this reason, I filed an amendment to H.R. 4939, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill, to provide $493 million to public housing agencies to address rising energy costs for the section 8 voucher program and public housing units. Unfortunately, the amendment is not germane postcloture and will not receive consideration. Local housing agencies are not able to absorb these costs and meet their mission to ensure safe, decent, and affordable housing. I am particularly worried that the problem will only be exacerbated as HUD's fiscal year 2007 budget projects a 1.8-percent decrease in utility costs. Rising energy costs will remain a pressing issue for American families and our local communities, and they need our assistance. I recognize the difficult budget constraints that the chairman and ranking member face this year as they begin the fiscal year 2007 appropriations process. I hope the chairman and ranking member can work with me to address the growing problem of rising energy costs on local housing agencies as they begin work on the fiscal year 2007 Transportation, Treasury, Judiciary, and HUD appropriations bill.