Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that two fellows in my office, Tanya Weinberg and Elizabeth Winkelman, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of today's session.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment dealing with the robust nuclear earth penetrator, or RNEP. This issue has been discussed and debated at length many times. In fact, my impression was that we had come at least legislatively to a conclusion. The conclusion was that this was not a weapons system that would materially aid our ability to advance national security purposes of the United States.

In the fiscal year 2003 budget request, the Department of Energy sought $15 million to fund the first year of what was to be a 3-year, $45 million study to determine the feasibility of using one of two existing large nuclear weapons as a robust nuclear earth penetrator.

They couched it in terms of a study. There is some discussion about requirements and studies. My impression is that a requirement is a formal decision made by the Department of Defense through elaborate procedures. With respect to the particular nuclear penetrator to attack deeply buried targets, I do not believe there is a formal requirement. There is a general requirement to hold at risk hard, deeply buried targets, but there are many different variations that could be applied to that, and I do not believe the Department of Defense has yet come to a conclusion, a requirement, that this mission can only be undertaken by a robust nuclear penetrator.

Nevertheless, early on, several years ago the Department of Energy's budget called for studies. Congress authorized and appropriated the $15 million for the first phase of this study by the Department of Energy, but DOE was not to begin this work until it submitted a report setting forth requirements for an RNEP and the target types that RNEP was designed to hold at risk. DOE proposed their response in April of 2003, and the funds were released to begin again this study. Once again, DOE insisted that this was just a study. There was no decision to begin the process of development and production that would lead to a weapon.

The following fiscal year 2004, DOE again sought $15 million for the RNEP, but now Congress had become, I think rightfully, a little skeptical of the technology, of the efficacy of this proposed weapon, to do what it was intended to do, and as a result, only $7.5 million was appropriated. DOE took the reduced funding and said: Still, this is just a study. We just want to look at this concept. We study lots of concepts. We certainly cannot inhibit the intellectual inquiry when it comes to an issue of so much importance to our national security.

Now, in the 2005 budget request, after 2 years of various requests, the true nature of the RNEP proposal is becoming much clearer. It does not appear today to be just a study. DOE sought $27.5 million for RNEP in the 2005 budget request. In addition, DOE included the RNEP in its 5-year budget report demonstrating that the real plan was to continue with the RNEP project through the next 5 years through the development stage and just up to the point at which production would begin.

Now it is no longer just a study. In fact, DOE is talking about almost $500 million over the next several years to get ready to build an RNEP. The cost of the feasibility study has also increased dramatically from the initial $45 million--$15 million a year for 3 years--to now $145 million. If the study is increasing from $45 million to $145 million, if that same progression is applied to development, then right now we are talking about almost a billion dollars to get to the point of development and production for this RNEP.

Finally, though, I think Congress had its fill with the study that turned out to be a stalking horse for a production program, and in the fiscal year 2005 budget cycle denied funding. I applaud particularly our colleagues in the other body who were very much involved in this decision on a bipartisan basis and decided that this program was not worth the investment; that it was not a study; that if it was a true study it could have been concluded and the results could have been provided to decisionmakers for a more thoughtful review of this aspect of national security.

The administration just did not get the message. So in 2006, this budget request, DOE requested $4 million to start the RNEP feasibility study again, and $14 million will be needed in fiscal year 2007 to finish the study.

It should be apparent right now, this is not about a study. This is about developing a weapons system to hold hard and deeply buried targets at risk. The National Academy of Sciences conducted their own study to look at the feasibility of doing this and the usefulness of this type of weapons system, at the request of the Armed Services Committee. Their study sheds a great deal of light on the practical implications of this weapons system.

DOE says the RNEP project is to look at the feasibility of using a bomb with a small nuclear yield to target hard and deeply buried targets with minimal collateral damage on the surface and minimal fallout. That would be a very important development, if it were feasible. But the Academy points out in their study, and makes it clear, that to really hold hard and deeply buried targets at risk the RNEP would have to be very large and would not be contained. This is about physics, I think, more than it is about wishful thinking. The physics of the problem suggests if you really want to destroy that target you can't use a small nuclear charge. You would have to use a rather considerable one.

Therefore, the DOE is considering modifying an existing large-yield nuclear weapon, the B-83, to be a nuclear penetrator. The B-83 nuclear bomb has a 1-megaton yield. That is explosive power equivalent to 1 million tons of TNT, hardly a small, discrete weapon. The full megaton yield of the B-83 would be needed to hold at risk a target buried 900 feet below the surface--because of engineering progress, you effectively can burrow that far down and put facilities or intelligence centers or other critical military installations at that depth. But not only would the fallout not be contained after the detonation of this large a weapon, the resulting radioactive debris that the B-83 would put in the atmosphere would make the fallout worse. You would be sending a charge down into the earth, exploding the earth, blowing it up into the atmosphere and spreading the fallout. There would be substantial casualties if it were used, and the fallout would spread for hundreds of miles.

The National Academy of Sciences study makes it clear that in a populated area, millions of people would be killed and injured.

Let me give sort of a rough comparison of the effects of the B-83 system. It

has yields ranging up to 1 megaton; that is 1 million tons of TNT. The bomb we dropped on Hiroshima was 14 kilotons. It resulted in the death of 140,000 people. The Nagasaki bomb was 21 kilotons; 73,000 people died. The yield of the B-83 bomb is 71 times larger than that used at Hiroshima and 47 times larger than Nagasaki. That would cause incredible damage and casualties.

In a practical sense, if you are striking a critical installation, most likely that installation is close enough to either an urban area or close enough to other key terrain that a military commander would have to think twice about dropping a nuclear bomb on such a target. The reality is we could not operate in that area for years, because of fallout, because of damage. If your goal were to ultimately destroy and occupy an opposing foe, why would you essentially create a situation where you could not even operate in the area?

The other thing about this whole approach to the RNEP is it fails to recognize that we have precision conventional weapons that may not be able to reach down 900 feet, but certainly these weapons can be used to deal devastating blows to the communication networks that serve these facilities and to the entrances. Eventually there has to be someplace where you go into these tunnels. Those facilities, if they can be identified, can be shut off by conventional munitions. The goal is to neutralize the target, and that can be done, I think, more readily by conventional weapons, particularly conventional precision weapons. So the need for this system on a practical basis is not at all compelling to me, and I do not believe it is compelling to the more thoughtful people in the military, those who are thinking about these types of situations.

There is another factor, too. Again, the presumption is that we are going to have a nuclear device that we are going to use to take out a deeply buried target, which could be in a circumstance where we would be contemplating the first use of a nuclear weapon against one of these targets. We have to be very sure that we have the kind of intelligence that will support such extraordinary use of military power. If we reflect back on Operation Iraqi Freedom, we thought there were nuclear weapons--some people did. We thought there were chemical weapons and thought there were biological weapons. Secretary Powell was before the United Nations talking about these mobile biological vans.

The reality is our intelligence was very poor; certainly not sufficient, in my view, to justify the use of a nuclear weapon like this. So there is a further complication about ever using one of these weapons; and that is, would we have the intelligence to support, particularly, the first use of a nuclear weapon to take out a target like this?

We do not need to spend $1 billion to develop to the point of production an RNEP. I think our colleagues in the House, on a bipartisan basis, figured this out last year. We should be equally astute and adroit. We have conventional precision weapons that can deal lethal blows to these types of installations. I think we should not contemplate using nuclear weapons, such weapons as the B-83, which would yield vast areas of a particular country literally uninhabitable for months if not years. Also, by the way--which we found from our adversaries, particularly from our adversaries in Iraq--they are fairly astute about trying to counteract our weapons with their tactics. If you were someone who was afraid that the United States might have such a weapon like an RNEP and use it against you, I think there would be a strong temptation to put that deeply buried target underneath a city, underneath a historic or religious site, so that our choices would be further complicated by the fact that we would be delivering a nuclear device in an area where there could be significant population or significant reasons to avoid the detonation of a nuclear bomb.

I think this funding is not appropriate. I join Senator Kennedy in urging that we move to drop it. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Kennedy amendment, and I yield the floor.

Yes.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman.

Mr. President, let me begin by commending Chairman Warner and Senator Levin for the way they have brought this bill to the floor. It is a collaborative effort, a collegial effort which has brought to the floor a very good bill, which we hope can be improved by the amendment process. But we begin, I think, in a position of great strength and great unified support for our military forces across the globe, these young and women who make us so proud and do so much to protect our country.

I would like to step back for a moment and try to have an assessment in the context of our deliberations today with respect to the Defense authorization bill. It has been 28 months since the war in Iraq began. It has been 26 months since President Bush declared ``mission accomplished'' onboard the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. And it has been almost 13 months since the sovereignty of Iraq was handed over from the Coalition Provisional Authority to the people of Iraq.

It is time, I think, for an assessment. It is time for an assessment in the context of our deliberations today with respect to this very important legislation governing the conduct of our military forces around the globe.

In October 2002, I was one of 23 Members of this body who voted against the congressional authorization to use force against Iraq. Regardless of how we voted that day, on this day we are united in support of our forces in the field. We have to give them what they need to do the job they were called upon to perform.

Back in October 2002, I was not convinced there were weapons of mass destruction that could be used effectively by the Iraqis. I was also concerned that our stay in Iraq would not be tranquil, that we would not be greeted as liberators, but we would literally be sucked into a swirling vortex of ethnic and sectarian rivalries, of ancient feuds, of economic problems, of infrastructure problems, which I think should have provided us a more cautionary view of our preemptive attack.

Again, despite our forebodings then, our mission now is to be sure we provide the resources necessary for our soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen and airwomen to carry the day for us.

What we have seen since that day, in my view, has been a series of mistakes and errors by the administration in carrying out their policies, and also an inability to recognize some of these mistake and to take effective corrective action. I think this inability to recognize what has gone wrong--to admit it and to correct it--still acts to interfere with the successful implementation of our objectives in Iraq.

One of the most glaring and most obvious aspects of our runup to the war in Iraq is the fact that the American people were told one thing and in reality it turned out to be something quite different. The administration argued that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the Nation, which we all know today is simply not true, and some of us then believed was not true.

In his State of the Union to the American people in January 2003, the President talked about Saddam Hussein seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Those assertions proved unsubstantiated. In his address to the U.N. Security Council, Secretary of State Powell claimed Iraq had seven mobile biological agent factories. That, too, proved to be inaccurate.

In a February 2003 statement, President Bush stated:

Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met

at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent

bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al

Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and

biological weapons training.

Again, these assertions have not been substantiated in the intervening days. Many leaders in the administration stated that Iraq attempted to buy high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. These assertions also proved to be without major substantiation.

Based on these statements by our Nation's leaders, the majority of the Congress and the American people supported our operations in Iraq in October 2002. But it was not long until these misstatements became clearer to the American public.

The CIA sent two memos to the White House 3 months before the State of the Union Address expressing doubts about Iraq's attempt to buy yellowcake from Niger.

In 2002, the CIA produced a report that found inconclusive evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaida and was convinced that Saddam Hussein never provided chemical or biological weapons to terrorist networks.

Experts at the Department of Energy long disputed the assertion that the aluminum tubes were suitable for nuclear weapons production.

The administration's use and misuse of prewar intelligence has caused an upheaval in the intelligence community and made Congress, the American people, and the world community skeptical of actions with Iraq and other countries of concern.

I believe this mistake will take years to overcome. What it has done, I think, is provide a sense of skepticism in the American public about the justifications for our operations in Iraq. This skepticism has slowly been eating away, as reflected in the polls, the view of the American public as to the usefulness of our operations in Iraq. Once again, what is heartening is the fact that this skepticism has not translated into anything other than unconditional support for our American soldiers and military personnel. That is critical to what they do and critical to what we should be encouraging here.

We are now engaged in this war. People are skeptical and critical of the premises advanced by the administration. But we must, in fact, stay until the job is done, until a satisfactory outcome is achieved.

The military phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom was brilliantly executed and a great success. It shows the extraordinary preponderance of military power we can wield in a conventional conflict where we are sending task forces of tanks and mechanized infantry against other conventional military forces.

Perhaps, however, the most important part of the operation was not defeating the enemy in the field but winning the peace in Iraq. That larger task has not gone as well as we all had hoped. One reason is because we did not plan for operations after our conventional success. According to an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, when a lieutenant colonel briefed war planners and intelligence officials in March 2003 on the administration's plans for Iraq, the slide for the rebuilding operation, or phase 4-C, as the military denotes it, read ``To Be Provided.'' We went in with a plan to defeat the military force in Iraq but no plan to occupy and reconstruct the country.

What makes this lack of a plan worse is that the experts knew and told the Pentagon what to expect. The same Philadelphia Inquirer article states there was a ``foot high stack of material'' discussing the probability of stiff resistance in Iraq. A former senior intelligence official said:

It was disseminated. And ignored.

There was ample planning done but not used. We have had, as all military forces, contingency plans dating back many years for possible operations in Iraq, including occupation operations. They were ignored. There was a feeling--an erroneous feeling--we would be greeted as liberators, that it would be basically a parade, rather than the struggle we have seen today.

The results are clear as to this lack of planning. The insurgency today is robust, and it continues to inflict damage not only against American military personnel but also against Iraqis who are struggling to develop a democratic country.

In May there were about 700 attacks against American forces using IEDs, the highest number since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The surge in attacks has coincided with the appearance of significant advancement in bomb design. This is not only a robust insurgency, it is a very adaptable insurgency. They are learning as they fight, and that makes them a formidable foe.

Improvised explosive devices now account for about 70 percent of American casualties in Iraq. Recent U.S. intelligence estimates put the insurgents'

strength at somewhere between 12,000 and 20,000. I would note that in May 2003, insurgent strength was estimated to be about 3,000 persons. So this is not the last gasp of the insurgency. This is an insurgency that has momentum, has personnel, and increasingly has technical sophistication.

As of today, July 21, 1,771 American soldiers have been killed, and 13,189 have been wounded. I say American soldiers. I will use that as a shorthand for valiant marines, Navy personnel, Air Force personnel, because every service has suffered in Iraq.

One of the reasons the insurgency may be stronger is because most of the 300-mile border with Syria remains unguarded because of a lack of sufficient troops, allowing insurgents and foreign fighters to freely move back and forth between the countries. This insurgency is also allowed to move freely within the country because there are insufficient troops to break insurgent strongholds.

We have seen operations, very successful operations, such as the tremendously valiant and skillful operations of marines reducing the number of insurgents in Fallujah. But then at the end of the day, or days later, Marine forces withdraw or pull back, and Fallujah again is a source of at least incipient resistance to the central Government of Iraq.

In addition, these insurgents continue to have ample ammunition because it is estimated that even today approximately 25 percent of the hundreds of munitions dumps have not yet been fully secured. I was amazed, in my first trip to Iraq--one of five I have taken--to be up in the area of operations of the 4th Infantry Division with General Odierno, and also at the time with General Petraeus, then the commander of the 101st, when they pointed out there were hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of ammunition dumps unsecured by any military personnel, international, American, or Iraqi.

If you want to know where all this ammunition and explosives are coming from, well, it was there. It was stolen. It was diverted. It was hidden away. And now it is being used against our soldiers.

To me, that is a glaring example of why we should have had more troops on the ground at the beginning and, indeed, more troops on the ground today. But that was not done.

Perhaps the most well-known consequence of undermanning is the abuses at Abu Ghraib. It was a prison out of control, and one primary reason was the lack of U.S. military personnel. In 3 weeks, the population of this prison rose from 700 prisoners to 7,000. Yet the number of Army personnel guarding these prisoners remained at 90 personnel.

As former CPA Administrator Paul Bremer stated in October 5, 2004:

The single most important change, the one thing that would

have improved the situation, would have been having more

troops in Iraq at the beginning of the war and throughout.

Subsequently, he might have modified or somehow explained this comment, but I think that is an accurate assessment. On October 5, 2004, that was his assessment. Today, months after President Bush declared the end of major combat operations and predicted that troop levels would be at 105,000, over 138,000 troops are still stationed in Iraq and are likely to be there for some time. I would argue that that, in fact, is not sufficient force. When we cannot secure the borders, when we cannot secure ammunition dumps, when we cannot do many things that are central to stability in Iraq, then we need more forces on the ground.

One of the more frustrating aspects of the administration's unwillingness to adjust troop levels was that Congress was ready and willing to help. You can't have additional forces on the ground in Iraq unless you have additional forces in the Army and the Marine Corps, our land forces. Senator Hagel and I first raised concerns about this issue in October 2003. We offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2004 emergency supplemental to raise the end strength of the Active-duty Army by 10,000. The amendment was passed by this body, but it was dropped in conference, primarily because of the opposition of the administration. Then again in 2004, Senator Hagel and I offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Defense authorization bill which was passed by concerned Senators by a vote of 94 to 3. This amendment raised Army end strength by 20,000 personnel and the Marines' end strength by 3,000.

However, the President's budget request this year did not acknowledge these end-strength increases. We will therefore try again. The bill which we are presently considering authorizes an end strength of 522,400 personnel for the active Army, 40,000 more than the President requested, and 178,000 active personnel for the Marines, 3,000 more than requested. I hope, in fact, we might be able to augment even these end-strength numbers.

In addition, I hope we can finally pay for these increased regular soldiers not through supplemental appropriations but in the regular budget itself. We are deluding ourselves to think that we can live for the 5 or 10 years we will have a significant engagement in Iraq--and that is roughly along the lines of even admissions by the Department of Defense--unless we are prepared to have not a temporary fix to the end strength but a permanent fix, paid for through the budget and not through supplementals.

One other aspect, in addition to the notion of end strength and the number of personnel on active duty, is how do we recruit and retain these soldiers to maintain overall end strength. This issue is of acute concern because unless we are able to attract new soldiers and Marines and unless we are able to retain the seasoned veterans, we will no longer have the kind of force we need.

When Senator Hagel and I first offered our amendment in October 2003 to increase end strength, there was a headline which said quite a bit. Its words were, ``Another Banner Military Recruiting and Retention Year.'' Back in 2003, we could attract soldiers, Marines to the service, much more so than today. That was the time period to act. Not only was the need obvious, but the means to obtain objective, willing recruits were also much more evident.

Since the administration has refused to raise the numbers of troops overall--and the number of troops in particular in Iraq--the Army has been worn down by repeated deployments and a persistent insurgency. Now, ironically, even if we raise end-strength numbers, it is going to be very difficult for the Army to recruit these new soldiers. The Army missed its February through March 2005 recruiting goals. In June, the Army recruited 6,157 soldiers, 507 over their goal. However, the June 2005 goal was 1,000 fewer soldiers than the preceding year. One might think that the goalposts were moved.

As of June 30, the Army recruited 47,121 new soldiers in the year 2005, but that is just 86 percent of its goal. General Schoomaker, Chief of Staff, said the Army will be hard pressed to reach its goal of 80,000 Active-Duty recruits by the end of the fiscal year in September.

Despite the improvement in June, the Army has only 3 months left to recruit soldiers; that is, it will have to recruit on an average of 11,000 soldiers a month, which is a target way beyond the expectation of anyone. The June numbers were also not anywhere near the 8,086 recruits the Army brought in during January. This recruiting problem is persistent, and it is causing extreme difficulty.

These are Active-Duty recruits. The Army National Guard also has its challenges in recruiting. The Army National Guard is the cornerstone of U.S. forces in Iraq. I am extraordinarily proud of my Rhode Island Guard men and women. They have served with great distinction. During the first days of the war, the 115th and the 119th military police companies and the 118th military police battalion were in the thick of the fight in Fallujah and Baghdad. Since that time, we have had our field artillery unit, the 103rd field artillery unit, deployed. We have had a reconnaissance unit, the 173rd, deployed. The 126th aviation battalion, the Blackhawk battalion, has been deployed. They have done a magnificent job. The Army National Guard, however, is also seeing the effects of this operation and the strains are showing.

The Guard missed its recruiting goal for at least the ninth straight month in June. They are nearly 19,000 soldiers below authorized strength. The Army Guard was seeking 5,032 new soldiers in June, but signed up roughly 4,300. It is more than 10,000 soldiers behind its

year-to-date goal of almost 45,000 recruits, and it has missed its recruiting target during at least 17 of the last 18 months. Lieutenant General Blum, Chief of the National Guard Bureau, said it is unlikely that the Guard will achieve its recruiting goal for fiscal year 2005, which ends September 30.

Today our Army is one Army. It is not an active force with reservists in the background. A significant percentage of the forces today in Iraq are National Guard men and women. We cannot continue to operate our Army, not only to respond to Iraq but to other contingencies, if we do not have a fully staffed National Guard and Reserves.

Looking at the Army Reserve, the story is the same. So far this year, the Army Reserve has only been able to recruit 11,891 soldiers. Their target is roughly 16,000. At this point, they are about 26 percent short of their goal.

One Army recruiting official noted that since March, the Army has canceled 15 basic training classes for the infantry at Fort Benning because it did not have the soldiers, 220 to 230 of them for each those classes. Now they will begin processing smaller classes of about 180 to 190.

Complementing the recruiting effort, of course, is the retention effort. Retention is a ``good news'' story. Retention rates are high. But they won't address certain key personnel vacancies which are being discovered within the military.

From October 1 to June 30, the Army reenlisted about 53,000 soldiers, 6 percent ahead of its goal. At that pace, the Army would finish this fiscal year with 3,800 troops ahead of the targeted 64,000. However, that still is a 12,000-troop shortfall when you look at the recruiting and retention numbers together.

One method the Army is using to maintain retention levels is the so- called stop-loss procedure, where someone who might be able to leave the service at the end of enlistment, if their unit is notified to go to Iraq, they cannot leave during that notification period and during that deployment period. That adds to retention a bit, but it is not something that, over time, year in and year out, can be sustained.

So we have a situation now where our Army is deeply stressed, and this stress is demonstrated very clearly in recruitment, very clearly in making end-strength numbers which we are trying to increase.

The Army is also trying to deal with this issue of recruitment and retention by looking at their standards. One of the dangers--and it hasn't become manifest yet but it certainly has been in previous conflicts--is that there is a huge effort or tension, if you will, to reduce standards in order to get people to come in. I don't think that has happened yet, but that is looming over the horizon. I think we have to be conscious in this body to look carefully at the numbers, not just in terms of how many soldiers enlisted but also that we are continuing to maintain adequate quality within the forces. I think we are, but I am afraid that continued pressure on the forces will force military personnel to begin to look at ways they can attract forces by weakening the criteria.

We are in a situation where we have to be very conscious of the stress that is on the Army, and we also have to do more to support the Army, particularly in recruiting and retaining. The Congressional Research Service has determined that approximately 50 new incentives have been signed into law since the United States invaded Iraq. These are positive tools to enhance recruitment and retention. But while these incentives are needed, we must acknowledge the cost the Government is paying is a significant sum. We must pay that sum, but we must recognize that this is an expensive proposition of recruiting volunteers in a time of war.

The other aspect that we should be concerned about is the fact that we have seen a situation in Iraq where now we are discovering shortages of key personnel, complaints that the soldiers in the field, the units in the field, were not fully resourced, had inadequate training, again, most demonstrably the Abu Ghraib situation where the lack of resources and training were singled out. What we have found though is that, going back, no one seemed to be complaining--at least to us--about these lack of resources.

One fear I have is that there essentially has been a chilling effect by Secretary Rumsfeld with respect to advice flowing from the field into the Pentagon and to him. The most notorious example of this might be the treatment of General Shinseki, as we all recall. He was asked-- he did not volunteer--about the size of the force needed in Iraq. And he said something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers. He was immediately castigated by the Secretary, who said his estimate was far from the mark. Secretary Wolfowitz called the estimate outlandish, and then, in his few remaining days in the Army, General Shinseki felt shunned by the civilian leadership of the Pentagon. In fact, General Shinseki's observation was more accurate than any of the plans being advanced by the Secretary of Defense.

This aspect of criticizing professional officers who come forward publicly at our request and give their professional opinion does not create the kind of environment that is conducive to bringing forward advice and to recognizing problems and to providing the kind of leadership which is necessary.

It wasn't just limited to General Shinseki. The former Secretary of the Army, Secretary Thomas White, defended the Army on several occasions, disagreed with the Secretary. He was, for all intents and purposes, cashiered. That sends a bad signal, and it has a chilling effect. We are living with that chilling effect today, unfortunately.

Then again, as I mentioned, as we look at Abu Ghraib, that is one of most serious issues we face here, this lack of resources, the lack of training. All of that was not apparently diagnosed and reported in adequate ways so it could be corrected in a timely way. We have seen how this incident has caused tremendous implications in the Islamic world. It has questioned our conduct. It has set us up for criticism, and it has been--in terms I used with Secretary Rumsfeld when he appeared before us--a disaster for us. Still, I don't think we have fully accounted for what happened. I don't think we adequately understand how techniques that were developed for use at Guantanamo, which was deemed by the President to be not under the legal control of the Geneva Convention, how those techniques might relate to Iraq which, according to the President, was fully subject to the Geneva Conventions. How did those techniques move from one area to another area? It wasn't simply five or six individual soldiers; it was something more than that. We have had several snapshots. We have had 12 reports, but they have looked at various pieces. I don't think we have a comprehensive view of what happened.

More importantly, I think we have yet to be able to step back and determine, in a careful and thoughtful way, what the rule should be. As I talk to senior officers, one of their demands is: Give us clear rules. Give us the policy. And that policy has to be produced not in the secretive corridors of the Pentagon but here--and perhaps not here, directly in the Congress, but through a commission that we can adopt that will look at what happened, put all the pieces together and then recommend what changes we must make so that we can conduct this war on terror without sacrificing our principle dedication to international laws and also without putting our troops in danger. Because unfortunately what we do, even if it is the aberrant acts of a few soldiers, could easily be emulated by others when our soldiers fall into their hands. That would be terrible.

Now, there is another aspect of the problem. We can win a military victory in Iraq, but unless we restore the country economically and help them develop a viable political process, we will not succeed. The reconstruction activities to date have been sadly lacking and lagging. We have approximately $18.1 billion committed to the effort, but these dollars have not been spent well or wisely. Most of the money is going to what they call ``security premiums'' because of the instability in Iraq.

My colleagues, including Senator Lautenberg, were talking about some of the aspects of what appears to be excessive billing by our contractors. And, of course, more and more attention is being paid to the issue of corruption and bribery within the context of the Iraqi economy. All of this suggests that we have a long way to go before we can demonstrate to the Iraqi people those palpable benefits which I believe

can help them and force their allegiance to their government more quickly.

One of the areas of concern is oil production. There were those in Washington, before the invasion, who said that within a few months we will be pumping oil and it will be a profit center, it will pay for the whole war, and we don't have to worry about anything. We are not nearly paying for this war with the proceeds of Iraqi oil production.

The goal was to export a certain number, and we are falling short of that number of barrels per day. Iraqi oil revenue will be $5 billion to $6 billion short this year. That revenue pays for many things-- subsidies for petroleum in Iraq, food, civil service, and it pays for infrastructure. Who is going to make up that shortfall? If we leave in a situation when the Iraqis cannot generate enough money to pay their own budget, what is going to happen to that country?

So we have huge economic problems. Another manifestation of the economic problems of the Iraqi Government is electricity. It is the key to stability. There are places in Baghdad today that are enjoying fewer hours of electricity than they did under Saddam Hussein. As a result, there are brownouts and blackouts. It is a direct reminder to the people that things are not going so well. We need to get that situation in order.

Now, as General Abizaid pointed out:

Military forces, at the end of the day, only provide the

shield behind which politics takes place.

Providing politics that are open, transparent, and

legitimate, we have been trying to do that.

There has been established a process to draft a constitution. We hope by August 15, 2005, a draft is presented to the nation and can be voted on by October 15. If the constitution is approved, a permanent government can be elected by December 15 and take office by December 31, the end of this year. But it is a very difficult process. If you look at the headlines today, Sunni members of the parliamentary commission are at least temporarily boycotting it because of fears for their safety. There are suggestions that some provisions of the constitution would be difficult for us to support--they are heavily allied with Islamic law, or they don't provide for a robust secular sector in Iraq.

For all these reasons, we still have a long way to go in the political process and the economic process that will provide us the final means to leave the country, to take out significant military forces.

There is one other aspect of the political process and of the economic process, and that is the role not of our military forces but of our State Department personnel. One of the things that struck me when I was in Iraq last Easter was the comment by soldiers in the field that they needed more State Department support, not in Baghdad but in the field--Fallujah, Mosul, and those towns--to carry out the reconstruction, provide political advice, and be the confidants and advisers of Iraqi civilian officials. The sad story is that we don't have enough State Department personnel outside of Baghdad to do these jobs.

In Baghdad, the State Department authorized 899 positions but has only filled 665. The State Department has then authorized 169 for the rest of the country--in fact, I suggested that the level should be higher--but only 105 of those have been filled. Iraq is short about 298 needed State Department personnel. These are the people who are doing what is so critical at this juncture--providing political mentoring, providing technical assistance, providing those resources that complement military operations. Without them, military operations would not ultimately be successful.

There are several reasons for this situation with the State Department. First, the tour for State Department personnel in Iraq is not 3 years, but 6 months or a year, so State is running through people at a very rapid rate.

There is a general shortage of mid-level officers for the State Department worldwide, and those are the officers who would be placed outside Baghdad. They have the experience and expertise to operate independently. The problem is opening up too many new posts. We have situations in which new nations evolved. They have to be supported by State Department personnel.

Secretary Powell did a great job in engaging new personnel to come to the State Department, but these are entry level personnel, and the midlevel, key midlevel personnel are inadequate in terms of numbers, not in terms of skills or talents--certainly not that--but in terms of numbers.

There is another obvious reason. It is very dangerous to be outside the green zone in Iraq. All of these State Department personnel need to be protected, and that is slowing down their ability to deploy into the field.

I understand also there are incentives being considered by the State Department to get more people there. However, unless we have a robust complement of AID officials, State Department experts to help support our military efforts, we will not be able to obtain a satisfactory resolution in Iraq. I hope we can do more to do that.

This is a very perilous time in Iraq. Just this week, a Shi'a leader stated that Iraq was slipping into civil war. If it does, then we will have a terrible burden with our forces deployed in the midst of a civil war. Some others have said there has been an incipient civil war for months now and one of a more major characteristic ready to break out. We do need to respond to these issues.

There is another policy impact with respect to Iraq, and that is the impact on its other worldwide missions, like our ability to maintain our successes in Afghanistan and keep open all options with regards to North Korea and Iran.

The war in Iraq also has tremendous impact on our economy. We are a great power, and that is a function of several components. One is military power, but also economic power. If we are not able to support and afford these efforts over the 5 years, 10 years, or more this global war on terror is going to take place--and all observers see this as a generational struggle, not an episodic one--then we are not going to have the economic staying power.

Frankly, our economy is performing in a fitful fashion. We have a huge fiscal deficit that is draining our ability to fund needed programs--not just military programs but domestic programs also. We have a huge current accounts deficit which, again, will come home one day when those foreigners who are lending us money will ask for the money back with interest. These economic forces will, I think, not support indefinitely the kind of expenditures we need to protect ourselves.

So along with reforming and strengthening our military, we have to reform and strengthen our fiscal policies in the United States. We cannot continue to spend in supplementals billions of dollars a year. We have to recognize that and we have to take steps, and we have to ultimately pay for this war.

It seems to me in this context illogical, if not absurd, to advancing huge additional tax cuts at a time when we are struggling to conduct a war. If that had been our attitude in World War II, we never would have succeeded. We would have been bankrupt before 1945. At that time, we responded, as we have in every major conflict. We asked all Americans to share the sacrifice, not just those in uniform, but those on the homefront, those who can help pay for the war, as well as those who are fighting the war.

Yet today we are advancing two, in my mind, almost contradictory proposals. We are going to stay the course in Iraq, we are going to take a generation, if necessary, to defeat global terror, we are going to do it not only with military resources, but we are going to have to mobilize resources of the world to change the social and political dynamics of countries across the globe, particularly Islamic countries--all that very expensive--but, of course, we are going to cut taxes dramatically. We have to decide in a very significant way whether we can afford this dramatic contradiction. I don't think we can.

We have a great deal to do in the next few days with respect to this legislation. I think it is important to get on with it. I hope not only do we stay the course in Iraq, but we stay the course on this legislation. The majority leader has suggested he is prepared to leave this bill in midcourse to turn to legislation with respect to gun liability immunity. That would, in my

view, be moving from the national interest to one very special self- interest, the self-interest of the gun lobby.

We have soldiers in the field. We have sailors, marines, air men and women who are risking their lives. I think they would like us to finish our job before moving on to something else. I hope we don't move off this bill. Stay the course on this legislation. We will have amendments, debate them, hopefully we will adopt those to improve the bill, and then we will send, I hope, to conference a good piece of legislation of which we can be proud and, more importantly, that can assist our soldiers, sailors, marines, and air men and women in the field.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if I may respond, I appreciate not only the leadership of the chairman, but also his incredible commitment to our military forces. My point is very simple. I think we should finish this bill. We have waited weeks to go on it. But I also point out that if other matters come before the Senate, as Senators we have the full right to use all of the procedures, we have the right to debate. I would hate to be in a situation--and I hope that is not the case--where if we attempt, let's say, next week to engage in extensive and productive debate about a particular issue, we are not reminded that we are holding up the Defense authorization bill; that no one will suggest our ability to debate an issue which, frankly, is on the agenda not through our desires but others', would somehow be interpreted as slowing down our ability to respond to the needs of our soldiers, sailors, marines, air men and women.

I am on record saying I would like to see us finishing this bill without interruption, but if there is an interruption, then this Senate and our colleagues have to have the right to fully debate any measure that comes before the floor, and I don't think we should be--and maybe I am anticipating something that will not evolve--be put in the position of being hurried off the floor because the Defense bill has to come back.

We have the bill before us now. I think we should stick to the bill.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, let me thank Senator Lugar for his commendable amendment and thank Senator Cornyn for allowing me to proceed. I would like to speak to the possible procedural posture we will be in next week.

We are now on the Defense authorization bill, which is critical to providing resources to our service men and women who are engaged today, as we speak, in a global war on terror. But tomorrow the majority leader intends to file a cloture petition on the motion to proceed to the gun industry immunity bill. That means on Tuesday morning we will have a cloture vote, and the vote will present a stark choice for all Senators. We can stay on the Defense bill and finish our work on behalf of our soldiers, sailors, air men and women, or we can leave the Defense bill for an undetermined period of time and move to a special interest bill to give legal immunity to the gun industry.

If the Senate invokes cloture on the motion to proceed to the gun industry bill next Tuesday, we will be on that motion for the next 30 hours. On Wednesday, when that time runs out, the majority leader would then file another cloture petition on the bill itself. The Senate would then spend the next 2 days on the immunity bill, and we would have another cloture vote Friday. If the Senate invoked cloture on the bill next Friday, we could face another 30 hours on the gun immunity bill, pushing final passage until at least next Saturday and potentially delaying passage of the Defense authorization bill until after the August recess.

We face a situation where the majority is asking Senators to delay consideration of a bill to support our troops, possibly for up to a month, so that we can take up a bill to give a special interest gift to the gun industry.

Senator Frist said this morning that lawsuits against gun manufacturers like Beretta are the reason to take up this measure because they provide small arms to the U.S. Army and the Department of Defense. First, Beretta is a privately held corporation owned by an Italian parent. There is no obligation for them to disclose their finances. But their competitors, Sturm Ruger and Smith & Wesson, continue to assure their shareholders in SEC filings that this litigation is not having an adverse material effect on their financial position. So I don't know how much credence we can give to that.

I believe we should stay on this bill, finish our obligation to our service men and women, and then at some other time, take up this bill because such a bill about immunity requires extensive debate. That is a requirement that many Senators will not forgo.

I urge the majority leader to reconsider his proposal. I thank the Senator from Texas and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I commend Senator Dodd for his leadership on this issue, not just today but for many days, along with Senator DeWine and others, and to say how precisely, accurately, and eloquently he has characterized the terrible situation in Haiti. It is one that requires a plan, requires purpose, and requires commitment by the United States. I hope we can carry this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I note the majority leader indicated we will move to the Defense authorization bill. I think that is an appropriate legislative initiative to take up. We are in war. We have troops who are being threatened every day. We have the need to move to this bill. We concluded the committee deliberations weeks ago, and we are ready to move to the bill.

But I am concerned because there has been a suggestion that in the middle of that process, we might take up a bill to grant liability protections to the gun industry. Stopping the Defense authorization bill to take up a special interest bill would be inappropriate. Moving from the national interest to a very special interest is the wrong thing to do.

If we do proceed to a bill to give liability protection to the gun industry, it would require full and intensive debate within the confines of the rules of the Senate. I would hope that we could offer amendments, which we didn't last time, because there are important issues that touch upon the issue of guns in this society that should be debated also. I would hope, once we get on to the Defense authorization bill, we would be able to pursue that until we conclude it. We owe it to the troops in the field who are defending us today. We owe them much more than the special interest lobbies in this country.

Amendment No. 1304

I am informed we have to go back and forth. I ask to modify the request that when Senator Cornyn concludes, I would be recognized.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment proposed by Senator Shelby, Senator Sarbanes, myself, and Senator Schumer to increase the allocation for transit security to $1.1 billion. Let me put that in perspective.

That is roughly 1 week's operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. I believe the American people would look at us and say: If we cannot invest that fraction of money to protect Americans here, how can we so consistently invest that money overseas? I think it is essential, obviously, to protect our forces and our troops and to make those commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I think it is also essential that we protect Americans here at home. That is the essence of our amendment.

We have 6,000 transit systems in the United States. They have 14 million riders every workday. All these transit systems need assistance from the Federal Government to provide increased security, to protect Americans here at home. That is the purpose of our amendment and the purpose of our debate today. The purpose of this bill before the Senate is to provide resources to protect Americans here at home.

Like my colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, I was dismayed to hear of the comments by Secretary Chertoff today essentially saying there is no Federal support for transit, that it has to be done by the States. Not only do I object to the conclusion, I question the logic. According to the press report I heard, Secretary Chertoff said the U.S. Government, the Federal Government, has to support airlines because they are almost exclusively a Federal responsibility, but, by contrast, U.S. mass transit systems are largely owned and operated by State and local governments.

Well, I do not know where the Secretary flies in and out of, but in Rhode Island, TF Green Airport, the major airport in the State, is owned by a State corporation. The airlines that fly in and out are private airlines, not Federal airlines. Yet we have provided significant resources--and properly so--to enhance the security of the airline sector in the United States because of several obvious and compelling reasons. The threat is there. After 9/11, we would have been derelict if we did not recognize that. These are key parts of our economy.

Oh, by the way, for most of the airline systems, the terminals are owned by State and local governments, and the operators are private entities, much like transit facilities. Similarly, with transit facilities, the threat is there. After London, we would be derelict if we did not recognize the potential for an attack on our transit systems in the United States and to respond before an attack, not after an attack. That is why we are here today--to respond before any attack could evolve here in the United States, to respond effectively at home.

Indeed, Federal support of transit has been historically a fact of life over the last several decades. Since 1992, we have invested in the order of $68 billion in Federal money to construct and improve our transit systems. There has been Federal money going to local transit systems for construction and improvements. And then to argue--either Mr. Chertoff or others on the floor--it is inconsistent for us to support these systems with security money is illogical and unsustainable.

The threat is there. The need is there. I believe the responsibility should be here to provide some assistance. Again, we could not possibly do all that we must do. There must be cooperation by State and local governments. There has to be. They have responsibilities to their citizens and the passengers on these systems also. But there is a real Federal responsibility, one we will recognize today, I hope, by supporting the Shelby-Sarbanes-Reed amendment.

This is not just a regional issue of one part of the country. Most cities in the United States today have some transit system. Our largest cities have rather elaborate transit systems. Miami has light-rail and bus. Las Vegas is constructing a monorail with private funds to supplement their transit system. All of these are very attractive targets to terrorists.

There is one other disconcerting factor that is emerging after London. We have to be terribly concerned about those al-Qaida operatives, who have been training for years, who have been plotting for years to enter this country, or they may already be here, to conduct some type of terrorist attack. But, unfortunately, after London, we have to be concerned about another category, and that would be the homicidal and suicidal amateur, young men who are influenced by someone else to go ahead and sacrifice themselves. For these relative amateurs, what is a more attractive target today? An airport with a pronounced police presence?

As I drive off to TF Green Airport in Rhode Island, there are always two or three police cars parked outside. It is a modest, medium-sized airport with police officers on patrol. When you go into a lobby, it is full of TSA personnel with screening devices, and you have to take your shoes off, your coat off, to get through the screening to get on an airplane. Also, by the way, since we monitor passenger lists, every airline has an algorithm to determine whether you are subject to special searching. It happens occasionally to me. Is that their target of choice? Or just simply getting on the local bus or going into the local subway today, which is virtually without protection?

So we really have significant responsibilities in this regard. To suggest otherwise is inappropriate. It is wrong. I believe we have to support this amendment. We recognize that over the last several years transit has become one of the most significant targets for these terrorist groups.

After 9/11, in the Banking Committee, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, I convened a hearing and we had witnesses. They came forth. They indicated, first, the lack of preparedness of our transit system for potential attacks by terrorists. Industry experts estimate we would need roughly $6 billion to bring our transit systems up to a level of security that we would be comfortable with. That is one factor.

The other factor is the fact that those resources are not easily obtained by local communities. We understand the pressures for local transit agencies. It is difficult to raise fares. It is difficult to get increased subsidies in State legislatures or local communities. All of that really compromises the ability to move dramatically and aggressively with transit security.

We also asked the General Accounting Office to do an evaluation. Their conclusions were interesting. First, they estimated that a third of the terrorist attacks in the last several years have been directed at mass transit. Again, it is a target of opportunity for these terrorists. And their conclusion speaks volumes. In their words:

[I]nsufficient funding is the most significant obstacle

agencies face in trying to make their systems more safe and

secure.

Now, in light of that, Senator Sarbanes and myself have repeatedly urged this body to adopt more robust funding for transportation security. We have proposed amendments with respect to supplemental appropriations bills. We have proposed amendments on other bills appropriating funds for the Department of Homeland Security. And we have offered amendments with respect to the National Intelligence Reform Act.

Indeed, the Senate recognized this need quite dramatically just last Congress, where, working with the chairman of the committee, Chairman Shelby, who is, again, leading this great effort, we were able to pass authorizing legislation that would authorize approximately $3.5 billion over several years to begin to deal with this issue of transit security. The authorization recognized our Federal responsibilities. And as my colleague, Senator Sarbanes, pointed out previously, this appropriations bill would be consistent with that authorization, which passed this body unanimously on a bipartisan basis.

So today we are here simply to do what should be obvious to all of us, particularly after the dreadful, horrific events in London. People who think it cannot happen here should think again. People who think this is not our responsibility should think again. We have an obligation, a responsibility. We have already spoken as a Senate last Congress with respect to the authorization. Now it is our obligation to put the resources there to the task. The task is improving the security and the safety of passengers on our transit systems throughout this country.

I urge all of my colleagues to support the Shelby amendment.

Also, Mr. President, I am supporting Senator Byrd's amendment because he, too, recognizes the need for additional security, not only for transit systems but also for intercity train systems. I also recognize that significant need. So I would hope we could come together and vote enthusiastically and appropriately.

The irony here, of course, is we all recognize--and we all pray this will never happen--but if there was a terrorist transit incident, we would be on this floor within hours voting for much more than $1.1 billion. If we act today, promptly and appropriately, we may be able to avert that situation. I hope we can.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. President, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. President, I would be happy to yield the 30 seconds to the Senator, if that is appropriate.

Mr. President, I would like to spend a few moments talking about an issue of great concern, and that is transit security. I know my colleagues are working as we speak. I will be working with them--the Senator from New Hampshire; the Senator from West Virginia; my colleague, Senator Shelby from Alabama--to raise the amount of resources devoted to transit security. The sticking point at the moment is how much we can raise these funds. I have urged a significant increase because of the significant threat.

We were all shocked last Thursday when we became aware of the news that 52 innocent transit riders in London were killed and over 700 injured in a series of cowardly attacks in the heart of London on their transit system, both on their underground system and their aboveground bus system. This horrific attack was reminiscent of other attacks in Madrid, Moscow, Israel, and elsewhere. All these attacks are specifically targeted to public transportation. We know this is a target for terrorists. We also understand that our system in the United States is still vulnerable to those types of attacks.

Every workday, 14 million Americans take a train or a bus. To put that in perspective, that is roughly 28 times the population of the State of Wyoming. Each and every day these 14 million Americans get on a bus or take a metro subway to work and to other necessary obligations and appointments. We know, quite clearly, that these transit systems are the prime target of terrorists. Subways, light rail, buses, and ferries are designed for easy access and to move large numbers of people efficiently. As a result, they do not have all the panoplies today of protection that you see at airline terminals, for example.

The facts are clear. There have already been numerous attacks on transit. We have 6,000 transit systems in the United States, with 14 million riders every workday. I do not think anyone could disagree with those facts or disagree with the fact that we have to do more to harden and protect our transit systems.

Yet the Federal Government's response to these facts has been underwhelming at best. In contrast to aviation, where we have invested $9 in security improvements per passenger, to date we have invested roughly $0.006 per passenger, a little over half a cent, to protect transit passengers throughout the country.

Now, I think we have to do much better. Perhaps we can never reach the level of protection for airlines because of the nature of that process--we can put screening devices in terminals; we can have elaborate followthrough in terms of passenger lists and identifying who is getting on which aircraft--but we have to do more in public transit. That is a consensus, a conclusion, I hope we all reach. Again, I think the debate today and tomorrow will be about how much we can do.

Now, I will make the case we have to do much more. I am working with my colleagues. I hope we can achieve a sufficient level of investment in transit security that is commensurate with the threat that has materialized just a few days ago, and, unfortunately, is likely to materialize again here or across the globe.

Now, after September 11, when I was serving as chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, I held a hearing on the topic of transit security. At that time it was clear that we needed to do more than simply rely on the Federal Transit Administration, whose expertise is building systems, not essentially making them secure. Their efforts were commendable but very limited. They were reviewing security procedures. They were trying to disseminate information. But they were not able to because of their expertise as well as because of the resources needed to go in and start making significant capital improvements, supporting operational changes, doing all those things that are absolutely key to protecting our security systems, our transit systems.

After the hearing, Senator Sarbanes and I asked the General Accounting Office to do a study on transit security. That report was completed in 2002. They found that one-third of all terrorist attacks throughout the world were directed against transit. Yet we have nowhere committed the resources commensurate with that level of activity. And even more telling was the GAO's conclusion that, in their words, ``insufficient funding is the most significant obstacle agencies face in trying to make their systems more safe and secure.''

Typically, in the United States, transit systems are local systems. They depend upon riders' fares, local and State subsidies, and all of these sources are highly constrained in terms of coming up with the extra dollars to ensure protection of the system. Because of these conclusions from the GAO report, from our hearings, Senator Sarbanes and I have come to the floor on several occasions to argue for additional funding. We have done this with respect to supplemental appropriations bills. We have done it with respect to other Department of Homeland Security appropriations bills. And indeed, we also tried to suggest increased funding during the National Intelligence Reform Act debate.

I have been pleased to work with many colleagues, particularly Senator Shelby, chairman of the Banking Committee. Last year we were able to pass authorizing legislation in the Senate that would have created a threat-based transit security policy, along with authorizing $3.5 billion to help transit systems deter, detect, and respond to terrorist attacks. While the Senate did its part in passing the legislation, regrettably it was not passed by the House, nor was it supported with the kind of energy and enthusiasm by the administration which is so critical to achieving the objective of improved transit security. We are here again today on this legislation, in the wake of London, arguing for additional resources so that we can meet this threat to our transit systems.

There are some who might oppose these efforts. They might say it is too much money. Frankly, when you look at what has to be done--6,000 transit systems--when you look at the amount of training, the amount of capital equipment--just in terms of communications, for example--that is a huge number. And when you measure that with the threat--a third of all terrorist attacks over the last several decades have been directed at transit, and we have seen it in Madrid, in London, in Moscow, in Tokyo, where a Japanese fanatical group attempted to disperse a chemical agent in the tunnels--the threat is there; the resources are not.

Since 1992, the Federal Government actually has invested $68 billion to construct transit systems, but we haven't yet been able to commit ourselves to protecting those systems adequately. It has been estimated that roughly $6 million is necessary to provide the kind of protection that at least provides a minimal level of protection. These investments range from fencing to high-tech explosive detection systems, to communication upgrades. All of these things could be put in place, enhancing significantly the security of our systems.

In the wake of London, in the wake of Madrid, in the wake of the transit attacks in Russia, I don't think it is too much to ask to spend 12 cents per transit passenger, as some amendments have proposed, to protect them.

I have also heard that we should direct all of our efforts to threat- based approaches--don't single out transit, don't single out aviation, any particular mode of transportation or infrastructure. But frankly, the attractiveness--and I say this with regret--of transit to terrorists as a target is so compelling that this argument also does not hold water.

I also hope that we can continue to support these efforts, understanding that the primary responsibility is local. These systems are local or regional. The States and the localities have an obligation. But the reality is--and I don't think I have to spend too much time saying this--most transit systems are already just scraping by in terms of keeping their ridership up, making sure fares are affordable, making sure that they can make improvements in their basic rolling stock and facilities. These additional resources for security properly could be supported by the Federal Government.

We also authorized and created a few years ago the Department of Homeland Security. It is the appropriations for that Department we are discussing today. With respect to that Department, there was an acknowledgment that the Federal Government was stepping up to the issue of protecting all of our vital infrastructure, including transit, that we do have an obligation. We have assumed that obligation with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and other steps to protect all of our vital infrastructure. Indeed, our situation with respect to transit is one that cries out for additional resources.

The President just ordered, in the wake of London, our transit systems to go to alert level orange. The threat is

there. I hope our efforts over today and tomorrow will not only recognize this threat but match it with commensurate resources so that we can begin to seriously protect our transit systems and our riders.

One other point, too. Our transit systems--buses, subways--are integral parts of our economy. That is one reason why they are so attractive to terrorists. The attack in London was planned so that the bombs would go off right in the midst of the financial district, not only with the intent to cause the loss of life, the symbolic and psychological horror of such a dastardly act, but also to cripple the economy. If a successful attack is conducted against a transit system in a major city, it will not be measured just in terms of casualties but also in potentially huge economic losses. Our efforts today are not only sensible because of the threat, sensible because of the need to protect Americans in areas where they are vulnerable, but to avoid the kind of economic chaos that could result from a successful attack against transit.

I hope in the next few hours we can come together with support for these efforts. I know Senators Byrd and Gregg, Shelby and Sarbanes, and others, are working toward that end so we can come up with sufficient resources to meet this great threat.

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

Mr. President, I rise to commend Chairman Shelby for his leadership on this issue and Senator Sarbanes for his leadership. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment along with Chairman Shelby and Senator Sarbanes. They have said it very well. We understand that transit systems are threatened by terrorists. That understanding was developed after 9/11, but certainly it was sharpened last week with the attack in London that left 52 dead and over 700 injured.

We recognize that we have to protect these vulnerable transit systems, and the purpose of this amendment is to provide the resources to do that. There are 6,000 transit systems in the United States, so this money, although it seems significant, will barely keep up with the demands for security improvements to transit systems across the United States.

Each day, 14 million riders use transit to get to work, to get to appointments, to get to hospitals, to do what they must do. Let me disabuse the notion that this is just the province of the very biggest metropolises like New York City. In Dallas, for example, on a yearly basis, 55 million trips a year on transit; Houston, 96 million trips a year; Atlanta, 137 million trips per year; Portland, 95 million; Charlotte, NC, 16 million trips per year; Philadelphia, PA, 297 million trips per year; and Minneapolis, 56.9 million trips per year.

Millions of Americans each day get on a subway or a bus and use the transit system. They are today not as well protected as they should be. The point of this amendment is to begin to get the resources together to start those sensible investments in capital equipment, in operational techniques and training and in consequence management that are so important for transit security.

As Senator Sarbanes pointed out, the GAO has found that one-third of the terrorist attacks in the last several years have been directed against transit systems. We know it is a target.

After 9/11, as I was acting as chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, I held a hearing--in fact several hearings--about the need for improvement of transit security. Today, that evidence is even more compelling based upon what has happened in London, Moscow, and Spain. All of these things should compel us to support this amendment enthusiastically.

One final point: Not only is transit important, not only is it a target for terrorists, but in terror attacks transit is an important aspect in consequence management. People were evacuated from the Pentagon because of the subway systems and the Metro systems in Washington. Transit trains moved underneath the World Trade Center. In fact, cool action by some of the transit police and transit dispatchers was able to minimize casualties. That will not happen if they do not have the communication equipment, the training, and the ability to respond and react to a possible terrorist attack.

So not only is transit a likely target, but it is an essential means of managing the consequences of an attack in any urban area anywhere in the United States.

So I again urge my colleagues to join Senator Shelby, Senator Sarbanes, and our other colleagues who support this amendment. It is important. It is more than timely; it is, frankly, after last week, overdue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to engage in colloquy with the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations. I commend them for putting together a bill that provides critical support to our Nation's waterways while promoting energy conservation and protecting our environment.

One of the important programs funded by this legislation is the Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program, WAP, which promotes energy conservation and reduces utility bills for low-income Americans by supporting home weatherization. I want to share with the chairman and ranking member my concern with language on page 122 of the committee report that calls for the consolidation of six DOE regional offices that are used by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to reach out to State and local weatherization programs.

State energy officials, as well as nonprofit organizations, involved in weatherization across the country have expressed concern that the proposed consolidation would reduce the effectiveness of the WAP and the State Energy

Program. DOE Regional Office Weatherization Project Managers currently review and approve State plans and determine whether all requirements of WAP have been met. They provide day-to-day oversight of grants, including monitoring performance by the States against their plans, and they provide technical assistance to DOE Headquarters and the States with regard to special projects, regional training and technical assistance, and resolution of issues among States and local service providers.

I share the concerns of weatherization program managers and state energy officers across the country that it would be unwise to remove this valuable network of DOE personnel that has served the regions so well. At the same time, I recognize the subcommittee leadership's desire to develop a cost effective outreach plan that will maintain the level of service we enjoy today and have a minimal impact on DOE's dedicated public servants. I hope the Chairman and ranking member can work with me as the Energy and Water Appropriations bill moves to conference to preserve the important role of regional DOE staff in a variety of programs, including the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program.

Mr. President, I join several of my colleagues in introducing the Better Healthcare Through Information Technology Act. This bill represents a strong step forward in modernizing our health care system and paving the way to greater efficiency and quality in the delivery of care.

Health care costs are becoming an enormous drain on employers, employees, and the Nation as a whole. More Americans are uninsured, and premiums for health insurance are increasing at an unsustainable rate of 20, 30, and even 40 percent per year. Health care reform is needed to address the huge concerns of the American people and our Nation's businesses. Indeed, the fact that companies like GM are losing competitiveness and laying off 25,000 workers, in part due to health costs, is a strong sign that our current health care system is flawed.

Solving these challenges will require new, bold policy initiatives to make health care coverage more affordable for employers, employees, and all Americans. Comprehensive efforts at change must be considered in our approach to health care reform. As a start, there are numerous improvements that can--and should--be made to fully pull the industry into the information age with the widespread adoption of information technology. It is unfortunate, but not surprising, that many of our Nation's other systems, such as our banking systems, are decades ahead in providing a seamless national network facilitating nearly instantaneous and universal access to information. It is high time for this body to act to modernize our health system as well, for its adoption of IT systems has the promise to improve quality while simultaneously reducing cost.

There are significant barriers to the adoption of IT by health care providers, including often-prohibitive costs of capital expenditures needed for hardware and software and a lack of uniform standards for the electronic exchange of information. Systems are prohibitively expensive for many physician practices and there is no guarantee of interoperability with the system used at a local hospital, lab, or pharmacy.

The Better Healthcare Through Information Technology Act addresses many of these barriers. It codifies existing efforts by the government to spur the use of health IT. It creates a public-private collaborative to build consensus on a single set of standards. To ensure that these standards will then be embraced, our bill requires Federal procurement of information technology, and data collection by Federal agencies to comply with them.

A similar collaborative on a local scale already exists in Rhode Island. The Rhode Island Quality Institute links providers, hospitals, insurers, government, businesses, and the academic community in the pursuit of improving health care quality. I commend the Rhode Island Quality Institute for its statewide efforts to make Rhode Island a true health care improvement ``learning lab,'' and I believe that the bill we are introducing today will support these and similar efforts around the country.

To do this, our legislation recognizes and aims to address the financing challenges faced by providers. The bill establishes a number of competitive grants and facilitates State loan programs that are designed to get qualified health IT systems in the hands of doctors, hospitals, and clinics. Other provisions, including modifications to Federal anti-kickback and Stark laws and the establishment of a toll- free telephone number or Web site to assist physicians, will accelerate the implementation and integration of health IT.

The combination of uniform standards, help for physicians to purchase health IT systems, and improved exchange of electronic information through a national system will ultimately move us toward a conversion to Electronic Medical Records. Records will seamlessly follow the patient and improve evidence-based medicine by allowing aggregate data to be used in the determination of best treatment practices. Decision support systems will provide doctors with the most up-to-date evidence- based recommendations available.

Perhaps most importantly, though, the use of IT offers the hope of reducing the thousands of medical errors each year that add to both unnecessary pain and suffering and the cost of health care. Computerized Physician Order Entry, or CPOE, could alone bring enormous savings to the health care system by reducing medication errors in hospitals and clinics.

Systemic errors such as these account for many of the medical errors identified by the Institute of Medicine in their seminal study on this topic that estimated up to 98,000 avoidable deaths from medical errors each year. It will take government action and investment to bring about the technological sophistication and interoperability necessary to substantially reduce the incidence of these errors.

I want to thank Senators Enzi, Kennedy, Dodd, and others for their efforts on this bill. I look forward to continuing to work with each of them and the rest of my colleagues to bring our Nation's health system into the 21st century.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Preparing, Recruiting, and Retaining Education Professionals, PRREP, Act to improve education and student achievement through high-quality preparation, induction, and professional development for teachers, early childhood education providers, principals, and administrators.

As Congress turns to the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we must ensure that educators receive the training and support necessary to thrive in our Nation's early childhood programs, elementary schools, and secondary schools. Improving teacher quality is the single most effective measure we can take to increase student achievement.

With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act we took an important step toward demanding that all of the Nation's children are taught by highly qualified teachers. To meet the law's definition, teachers are generally required to hold a bachelor's degree, be fully certified by a State, and to demonstrate content knowledge of the subjects they teach. The deadline is looming, and the States are struggling to get all of their teachers deemed highly qualified by the coming school year.

This struggle will not end at the initial deadline. Teacher turnover regularly drains schools of their most important resource, qualified educators. Higher standards for teacher credentials are essential, but at the same time make it even more challenging for schools to staff their classrooms. This is a critical moment for us to tackle persistent teacher attrition and to foment teacher retention. At the same time, we have an opportunity to support the development of educators so they not only have the credentials, but also the skills and training to be truly effective in the classroom. By strengthening the State, partnership, and recruitment grants in Title II of the Higher Education Act, my legislation will accomplish both of these important goals.

Teacher attrition undermines teacher quality and creates teacher shortages. According to the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, one-third of beginning teachers leave the profession within 3 years, and nearly one-half leave within 5 years. In high poverty schools turnover rates are even worse--approximately one-third higher than the rate for all teachers. A recent study in New York found that teachers who leave are likely to have greater skills than those who stay.

The Preparing, Recruiting, and Retaining Education Professionals Act focuses recruitment activities where high teacher turnover and shortages exist, where students are having trouble meeting academic standards, or where there is great difficulty demonstrating that teachers are highly qualified. The grants also allow funds for outreach to encourage recruitment in inner city and rural areas.

Teachers consistently cite lack of administrative support as a primary reason for leaving a school and teaching altogether. My legislation would create a year-long clinical learning experience for prospective teachers, and establish a three-year residency program for new teachers that provides comprehensive induction. The legislation also includes provisions to develop managerial skills among principals so they can provide the most effective instructional leadership and classroom support for teachers during induction and beyond. Research consistently shows that induction programs reduce the number of teachers who leave their schools or the profession. Comprehensive induction programs can cut that number by half or more.

Furthermore, my legislation promotes professional development throughout a teacher's career and strengthens teacher preparation programs so that teachers will reach their maximum potential to positively affect student achievement. A focus on scientific knowledge of teaching skills and methods of student learning will equip teachers to understand and respond effectively to diverse student populations, including students with disabilities, limited-English proficient students, and students with different learning styles or other special learning needs. The legislation also stresses the ability to integrate technology into the classroom, strategies to effectively use assessments to improve instructional practices and curriculum, and an understanding of how to communicate with and involve parents in their children's education.

My legislation further focuses on teaching skills and learning strategies by including in the partnership grants academic departments such as psychology, human development, or one with comparable expertise in the disciplines of teaching, learning, and child and adolescent development. It also ensures that States hold institutions of higher education and entities that provide alternative routes to State certification equally accountable for preparing highly qualified teachers and

highly competent early childhood education providers.

The State, partnership, and recruitment grants are currently funded at only $68 million a year--far too small of an investment for this critical enterprise. The stakes are too high, not just in terms of meeting the highly qualified requirements of No Child Left Behind, but for real students in real classrooms. My bill significantly boosts this funding, authorizing $500 million for these vital programs.

The PRREP Act is supported by a diverse array of education organizations, including the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, American Psychological Association, Council for Exceptional Children, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Association of Secondary School Principals, National Association of State Directors of Special Education, National Association for the Education of Young Children, National Council of Teachers of English, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, and National PTA.

I urge my colleagues to join me in this essential endeavor by cosponsoring this legislation and working for its inclusion in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern about the President's proposal to peg initial Social Security benefits to the growth in prices rather than wages, and the negative impact this so-called progressive price indexing scheme would have on future retirees.

The current method of calculating retirees' Social Security benefits was first put into place in 1979. Since then, the initial benefit level has risen with the growth in wages, ensuring that benefits reflect increases in living standards over time. Wages tend to grow faster than prices, so the effect of the President's proposed change would be a substantial reduction over time in initial benefit levels to people making more than $20,000 per year.

Two recent reports by the Democratic staff of the Joint Economic Committee indicate the extent of the benefit cuts that future retirees would face under the President's proposal. The first report, entitled ``What If President Bush's Plan For Cuts In Social Security Benefits Were Already In Place?'' finds that if a price indexing approach like President Bush's had gone into effect in 1979 instead of the current method, middle-class workers retiring this year would receive a benefit 9 percent smaller than they will get under current law.

This chart illustrates that for 65-year-olds, if we had adopted in 1979 this indexing proposal, they would be receiving roughly $1,400 less per year than they would under the current system. The current system replaces wages. It keeps up with a growing standard of living. It keeps seniors out of poverty and able to afford all their expenses. This chart illustrates the fact that these cuts would have been very real and very significant.

This second chart indicates that Social Security under the President's plan will replace a smaller percentage of wages because it would be tied to prices, not wages. This chart also shows that if in 1979 we had adopted progressive price indexing rather than wage indexing--for 65-year-olds, they would be receiving upon retirement 4 percent less than under current law, but for the 45-year-olds, the drop is significant. In effect, we are not keeping up with the cost of living. We are not keeping up with the standard of living. That is the essence of the President's proposal.

What we are seeing with this proposal is another way to cut benefit levels for seniors. It will affect, if it is put in place, not just the seniors who are retiring after that date, the 65-year-olds, but the whole generation of Americans who will follow.

Price indexing would also hit middle-income workers much harder than upper income workers because middle-income workers rely on Social Security for a much larger percentage of their retirement income than do upper income workers. While the highest earners retiring until 2045 would experience a bigger benefit cut, their total retirement income would fall by less.

This chart shows what would happen to a 25-year-old if the President's proposal had been adopted in 1979. For the medium earner, they would see a 26-percent reduction in Social Security benefits, but it would translate into a 17-percent reduction in their overall retirement income because they don't have many alternate sources to Social Security to rely on when they retire. Upper income workers would see a cut in benefits that is larger, but again their overall retirement income and benefits would be cut much less. So the impact really hits the medium worker if this scheme is advanced.

There is a second report the Democratic staff of the Joint Economic Committee has done, entitled ``How President Bush's Social Security Proposals Would Affect Late Baby Boomers.'' There has been a lot of talk about how the President's proposal would not affect those 55 and above, but there is a whole large group of Americans--ages 40 to 45, sometimes called the late baby boomers--who would be significantly impaired by the proposal.

This chart shows the impact on benefits for today's 40-year-olds, those who are at the beginning of this late baby boom period. Under current law, they could expect retirement--these are medium-income earners, making $36,600 in 2005--they could expect annual benefits of $17,000. The President's plan cuts it to $15,450 if his benefit indexing plan alone is adopted.

With private accounts, it is further reduced to $12,470, if you adopt a very safe Treasury security investment approach--which, again, for the 40 and 45-year-olds, just 20 years or so from retirement, is probably the best, safest approach--you would still get less money than the current law benefit. The impact of progressive indexing, even with the private accounts, would be to reduce the benefits middle-income workers would receive.

Over all, this whole approach is one that will reduce benefits for middle Americans. It is one that, if it had been placed in effect in 1979, we would already see significant cuts in benefits to our seniors. I don't think there is any senior out there complaining they are receiving too much in their Social Security check. If this approach was adopted in 1979, they would be receiving on the order of 10 percent less, and their financial constraints would be even more severe.

There is another aspect to this whole issue of pension benefits and Social Security. In the past 25 years, there has been a major shift away from traditional defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans. This chart shows the late baby boomers are already assuming more of the risk in investing their own retirement assets than older generations. This line of the chart represents all pension plans, which this line shows defined benefit plans that essentially have been flat over many years, going back to 1980, to 1998, and beyond. The third line of the chart we see is the rise of defined contribution plans.

Most plans are offered to newer workers as they come into the workforce. These younger workers are assuming more of the risk of their retirement. They are assuming it under the defined contribution plans. As a result, they do not have the certainty that older generations of Americans had. They had the certainty of two defined benefit plans--one from their factory

workplace, office place, their private defined benefit plan; and the second, of course, is from Social Security.

As we consider cutting benefits from the defined benefit plans, we are putting additional pressure on young Americans and middle-aged Americans who now see most of their assets tied up in defined contribution plans. The middle-income workers, the middle-aged workers of today, and the younger workers of today will face a future with less certainty and less security than other generations have enjoyed. That is another strong argument against using a progressive index to cut the one defined benefit plan most Americans can still count on--Social Security.

In addition, the President's price indexing proposal does not close the 75-year gap between promised Social Security benefits and the taxes expected to be paid into the system. It falls short by about 25 percent. Adding on private accounts would worsen Social Security solvency and increase the Federal debt enormously. If price indexed benefits were combined with private accounts, future generations would face the double burden of large cuts in their guaranteed Social Security benefits and paying down a much higher debt.

We all want to work with President Bush to promote a system of Social Security that is solvent, that will encourage savings throughout the United States. But we have to find a plan that works, that does not penalize, particularly, the middle-income Americans.

We have to also address not just the issue of Social Security but the issue of private pensions. We are seeing tremendous pressure on our private pension plans. When you have huge companies such as United Airlines trying to eliminate their pension obligations through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, that is a wakeup call. Twenty years ago, no one thought when they got a job at United they would have to worry about their pension. That would be the last thing on their minds. Today, United workers and many workers in many other fields worry desperately about their private pensions. We have to pay attention to that. I argue that is probably a more pressing problem than the solvency issues of Social Security.

We hope to work with the President to devise a system to ensure the solvency of Social Security but a system that does not unduly penalize working middle-class Americans. I hope we can do that. From my perspective, it is incumbent, of course, that we move away from the issue of private accounts that certainly makes the system less solvent and does not provide sufficient benefits, particularly for Americans 40 years and older, and that we move to looking at other issues. I hope we can do that. Our commitment should be to ensure we have a Social Security system that works for all Americans and provides that true sense of security: People can count on it, it will be there, and it will be sufficient to support them when they are old.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words about the Energy Policy Act of 2005, H.R. 6. While I did not support the bill for several reasons, I do acknowledge that the bill is, in many respects, better than the bill the Senate rejected in 2003. I am pleased, for example, that the bill we are sending to conference does more to address the reliability of our electricity grid, contains a 10 percent renewable portfolio standard for electricity production, and does not include an unnecessary liability waiver for the MTBE industry.

We all agree that reliable, affordable energy is critical to the economic well being of our Nation. And increasingly, our Nation's energy policy is central to our national security. As I considered how to vote on the energy bill, I asked myself three questions. First, would this bill take meaningful action to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Second, would the bill enhance homeland security? And third, is this $48 billion bill fiscally responsible and does it set the right priorities for our Nation?

As for the first question, unfortunately, I find that this bill does not do nearly enough to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Oil prices have recently soared to around $60 a barrel, a level that, even when adjusted for inflation, has not been seen in over 15 years. Imports of foreign oil are draining valuable economic resources out of our communities and Nation. The U.S. imports 4.5 billion barrels of oil per year. With prices up $20 a barrel over the past year, an increase that appears to be with us for the foreseeable future, we are experiencing an effective annual reduction in domestic income of $90 billion. That is $90 billion that we could better invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy, as well as police, firefighters, workforce training, and education for our children.

Over the next 10 years the world's daily energy demand will grow to nearly 100 million barrels. We will have to find an extra 50 million barrels of oil per day to meet that demand. The industry is already spending $200 billion a year to find oil, but even at that extraordinary level of investment, there are enormous difficulties in finding recoverable reserves to fill the gap between supply and demand. The United States has about 2 percent of the

world's oil reserves. We simply cannot drill our way out of this crisis.

Reducing our dependence on oil must be both a national energy and a national security priority. But that is not a high priority of this Energy bill. This bill fails to promote meaningful reductions in our oil dependence by casting aside a much-needed increase in CAFE standards for cars and by omitting Senator Cantwell's 40 percent oil savings amendment.

According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, since 1975 the U.S. has doubled the economic activity wrung from each barrel of oil. Overall energy savings, worth about $365 billion in 2000 alone, are effectively the Nation's biggest and fastest-growing major energy source-- equivalent to three times our total oil imports. CAFE standards were a primary reason for these savings. We must make even greater strides in fuel efficiency if we want to move our country towards true energy independence.

Gasoline consumption in the transportation sector represents about 44 percent of total oil consumption in the United States each year. If one includes diesel fuel, that 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 through an increase in CAFE standards, as well as by promoting the use of hybrids and vehicles that use alternative fuels. In model year 2002, the average fuel economy for cars and light trucks was 20.4 miles per gallon--a 22-year low. Yet, if performance and weight had stayed constant since 1981, the average fuel economy would have improved 33 percent--enough to displace the amount of oil we import from the Persian Gulf 2.5 times over. Not only will raising CAFE standards improve our energy security, it will also ensure our economic security. China is putting in place fuel efficiency rules that will be significantly more stringent than those in the United States. The Chinese standards call for new cars, vans, and sport utility vehicles to get as much as two miles a gallon of fuel more in 2005 than the average required in the U.S. and about five miles more in 2008. And they plan to export these cars to the United States. We need to improve efficiency to remain competitive.

For these reasons, I am an original cosponsor of S. 889, Senator Feinstein's bill to close the SUV loophole by gradually increasing fuel efficiency standards for SUVs to 27.5 miles per gallon--the same standard that now applies to passenger cars--by 2011. The legislation would also require that the average fuel economy of new vehicles purchased by the Federal Government be increased by three miles per gallon by 2008 and six miles per gallon by 2011. In addition, the bill would increase the weight range within which vehicles are bound by CAFE standards, making it harder for automotive manufacturers to build SUVs too big to be regulated by CAFE standards. The legislation would save the United States 1 million barrels of oil a day; reduce our dependence on foreign oil imports by 10 percent; prevent about 240 million tons of carbon dioxide--the top greenhouse gas and the biggest single cause of global warming--from entering the atmosphere each year; and save SUV and light duty truck owners hundreds of dollars each year in gasoline costs. It is unfortunate that the Senate energy bill includes no provision to require increased CAFE standards so that we can make real progress in reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Moving to my second question: would this bill enhance our homeland security? Unfortunately, it would not.

Consumption of natural gas is growing at a faster rate than for any other primary energy source and is growing in all sectors of the economy--families heat their homes with natural gas, businesses use natural gas to produce products, natural gas vehicles are becoming more common, and power producers generate cleaner energy with it. According to the Consumer Federation of America, since 2000, the toll of higher natural gas prices on consumers is an estimated $80 billion. Similar to oil, demand is growing faster than available supplies can be delivered and the tightening in supply is resulting in dramatic price volatility. One way to increase natural gas supply in the United States is through liquefied natural gas, known as LNG. Again, however, we would do well to learn from our lessons with oil. One-third of the world's proven reserves of natural gas are in the Middle East, nearly two-fifths are in Russia and its former satellites, and significant reserves exist in Nigeria and Algeria. Political stability and terrorism are very real threats to the reliability of natural gas from these countries.

On the domestic front, the siting of liquefied natural gas, LNG, import terminals is an issue that has taken on critical importance for me and for the people of Rhode Island in recent months, as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, is now considering proposals by KeySpan Energy and Weaver's Cove Energy to establish LNG import terminals in Providence, RI and Fall River, MA, respectively.

I recognize that natural gas is an important and growing component of New England and the Nation's energy supply, and that imported LNG offers a promising new supply source to complement our domestic natural gas supplies. In a post-September 11 world, however, we must consider the substantial safety and security risks associated with siting LNG marine terminals in urban communities and requiring LNG tankers to pass within close proximity to miles of densely populated coastline.

That is the major problem with the current siting process and with the underlying bill before us. While States do have certain environmental permitting authorities delegated to them under Federal laws like the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act, States have no clear authority over the siting of LNG terminals in the one area that everyone is most concerned about: public safety and security.

Senator Feinstein and I offered an amendment that would have ensured that States have an authentic voice in the siting of LNG terminals by giving Governors the same authority to approve or disapprove onshore terminals that they now have over offshore terminals under the Deepwater Port Act. If a Governor has the right to say yes or no to an offshore LNG terminal, it only makes sense that he or she should have the same rights with respect to an LNG terminal located onshore or in State waters. The National Governors Association agreed and wrote in strong support of our amendment.

I know that some of the opponents of this amendment say this is all about NIMBY, or ``Not in My Backyard,'' as if the issue is that our constituents would just rather not have to see these storage tanks and large vessels. But it is a much more serious and complicated matter than that.

The Sandia National Laboratory released a report last December that said a terror attack on a tanker delivering LNG to a U.S. terminal could set off a fire so hot it would burn skin and damage buildings nearly a mile away. For the terminals proposed in New England, that means schools, libraries, and thousands of homes, all within the damage zone. We can argue about the odds of such an attack, but when new LNG terminals are already being developed nearby in the Canadian maritime provinces--an area with reliable pipeline access to New England--and the first U.S. offshore LNG facility recently began receiving deliveries, there is no justification for placing these terminals in the heart of our communities.

I again want to emphasize that I recognize LNG's important role in the energy infrastructure of Rhode Island and the Nation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure reliable supplies of natural gas to our homes and businesses. I am disappointed that the Feinstein-Reed amendment was defeated, but our efforts have just begun. For now, I hope the 45 votes the amendment received will send a strong message to FERC that the agency should work more closely with Governors and the State environmental and first responder agencies that have firsthand knowledge of the geography and population of our States, so that we can bring more natural gas to our communities while minimizing the risk to our citizens.

Finally, we must ask ourselves, is the $48 billion cost of this bill fiscally responsible given our growing national debt and cuts in funding for other priorities such as education, water infrastructure, and transit? For me, the answer is no.

Over 11 years, this bill would provide $18.2 billion in energy tax incentives for electricity infrastructure, fossil fuels supply, energy efficiency, renewables, and vehicle and fuel incentives. I want to commend the Finance Committee for its work on the energy efficiency and renewable energy incentives in the bill. However, I am disappointed that the bill provides nearly $6 billion in tax breaks for oil, gas, and coal, and in addition, provides tax credits for nuclear energy. These tax breaks are provided despite the fact that President Bush has repeatedly stated that we do not need tax breaks for the oil and gas industry given the high prices Americans are experiencing.

Regrettably, this Energy bill also contains the Archer Daniels Midland ethanol mandate. In 2003, the United States consumed only 2.8 billion gallons of ethanol. But starting in 2006, the Energy bill will require Americans to purchase 4 billion gallons of ethanol, then 8 billion gallons by 2012, and then increasing amounts every year after 2012 in perpetuity by a percentage equivalent to the proportion of ethanol in the entire U.S. gas supply. So in addition to the already high gas prices Americans are paying at the pump, they will now be charged a tax to unnecessarily subsidize the ethanol industry, which already benefits from an income tax credit of 51 cents per gallon of pure ethanol, as well as a 54 cents per gallon tariff on imported ethanol.

The bill also provides loan guarantees for so-called innovative technologies, including nuclear power, a provision that would cost taxpayers $600 million. The legislation sets no limits on the number of projects, or the total principal that could be guaranteed for these speculative investments. As the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, points out, if a borrower defaults on a loan, the Department of Energy could take over a facility to recoup losses, or the Department could take over a loan and make payments on the loan for the borrower. To quote the CBO, ``Such payments could result in DOE effectively providing a direct loan with as much as a 100 percent subsidy rate-- essentially a grant--that could be used by the borrower to pay off its debt.'' Is this a responsible use of taxpayer dollars when we are dramatically cutting funding for education, clean water, and energy efficiency programs? In my opinion, the answer is no.

I believe the American people deserve a better Energy bill from the Senate. They deserve a bill that takes seriously the need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. They deserve a bill that provides for both our national security and energy security. They deserve a bill that requires real reductions in the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. They deserve a bill that reduces energy prices for consumers, not one that hands out unnecessary subsidies to industries. Unfortunately, if history is any indicator, this bill is going to get worse, not better, in conference with the House. I look forward to working with my colleagues to oppose the addition of MTBE liability waivers and any other onerous House provisions to the Energy bill. It is high time we gave the American people an Energy bill that deserves their full support.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues, Senators Ensign, Dodd, Hatch, and Burr, in introducing the Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act of 2005. This bipartisan legislation represents a critical step forward in expanding access to lifesaving therapies to millions of patients with conditions that can be treated and even cured with bone marrow or cord blood.

The bill we are introducing today builds upon the already highly successful National Marrow Donor Program that has been in operation since 1987. In addition to reauthorizing this program, our bill calls for the establishment of a formal registry of cord blood units available for transplantation and expands to cord blood transplant recipients many of the program's existing functions, such as donor recruitment, education, information, and patient advocacy, presently available to only bone marrow recipients. It creates an umbrella program, aptly called the Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Cell Transplantation Program.

Our legislation also captures many of the key recommendations of the Institute of Medicine, IOM, in their April 2004 report entitled, ``Cord Blood: Establishing a National Hematopoietip Stem Cell Bank Program.'' The report called for a stepped up effort to expand the inventory of cord blood units available for transplantation and, when appropriate, for research. Our bill establishes a grant program for qualified cord blood banks to help facilitate building an inventory of 150,000 new cord blood units. At that level, 95 percent of Americans with a condition that can be treated through a cord blood transplant could find a genetically suitable match. Additionally, the bill establishes an advisory council to consult and make recommendations to ensure the efficient and effective operation of the program.

Another important aspect of this bill is the creation of a demonstration project to study cord blood donations within families where a first degree relative has been I diagnosed with a condition that could benefit from a cord blood transplant. The legislation sets aside 5 percent of the cord blood inventory grants for the collection and storage of cord blood units at no cost to such families. This effort will be beneficial for families who find themselves in the tragic situation of having a sick child with another child on the way whose cord blood could provide a cure to the sibling. This demonstration program ensures that families will have this treatment option available to them.

I believe that the Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Transplantation and Research Act of 2005 represents a strong compromise that upholds the principals my colleagues and I held as essential in developing a combined bone marrow and cord blood program. The bill also builds on the many strengths of the National Marrow Donor Program, which has facilitated over 20,000 transplants since its inception and has built a donor registry of over 5.5 million potential donors.

I urge the support of all of my colleagues for this bipartisan legislation so that we can send it quickly to the President for his signature.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues, Senators Ensign, Dodd, Hatch, and Burr, in introducing the Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act of 2005. This bipartisan legislation represents a critical step forward in expanding access to lifesaving therapies to millions of patients with conditions that can be treated and even cured with bone marrow or cord blood.

The bill we are introducing today builds upon the already highly successful National Marrow Donor Program that has been in operation since 1987. In addition to reauthorizing this program, our bill calls for the establishment of a formal registry of cord blood units available for transplantation and expands to cord blood transplant recipients many of the program's existing functions, such as donor recruitment, education, information, and patient advocacy, presently available to only bone marrow recipients. It creates an umbrella program, aptly called the Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Cell Transplantation Program.

Our legislation also captures many of the key recommendations of the Institute of Medicine, IOM, in their April 2004 report entitled, ``Cord Blood: Establishing a National Hematopoietip Stem Cell Bank Program.'' The report called for a stepped up effort to expand the inventory of cord blood units available for transplantation and, when appropriate, for research. Our bill establishes a grant program for qualified cord blood banks to help facilitate building an inventory of 150,000 new cord blood units. At that level, 95 percent of Americans with a condition that can be treated through a cord blood transplant could find a genetically suitable match. Additionally, the bill establishes an advisory council to consult and make recommendations to ensure the efficient and effective operation of the program.

Another important aspect of this bill is the creation of a demonstration project to study cord blood donations within families where a first degree relative has been I diagnosed with a condition that could benefit from a cord blood transplant. The legislation sets aside 5 percent of the cord blood inventory grants for the collection and storage of cord blood units at no cost to such families. This effort will be beneficial for families who find themselves in the tragic situation of having a sick child with another child on the way whose cord blood could provide a cure to the sibling. This demonstration program ensures that families will have this treatment option available to them.

I believe that the Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Transplantation and Research Act of 2005 represents a strong compromise that upholds the principals my colleagues and I held as essential in developing a combined bone marrow and cord blood program. The bill also builds on the many strengths of the National Marrow Donor Program, which has facilitated over 20,000 transplants since its inception and has built a donor registry of over 5.5 million potential donors.

I urge the support of all of my colleagues for this bipartisan legislation so that we can send it quickly to the President for his signature.

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

Mr. President, I rise to join many of my colleagues to express my dismay concerning the deplorable comments by Karl Rove that suggest that--indeed states that Democrats did not respond to the attack on this country on 9/11, that they did not join in with other Americans who not only recognized the consequences but came together to work together to attack those who attacked us and to bring to justice those who had callously attacked and killed thousands of Americans. Such a statement is beyond the pale.

Mr. President, 9/11 is a moment in which the Nation was attacked, and we all came together, not as Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, but as Americans. We all came together.

The record itself clearly undercuts this contention of Mr. Rove. Within days of the attack of 9/11, we passed in this Senate an authorization for the use of military force. The vote was 98 to nothing. Every Republican and every Democratic Senator voting cast his or her vote to give the President of the United States the authority and the power to go forward, seek our enemies, and destroy them.

I can recall going up to Providence, RI, my State capital, that afternoon, and standing with every one of the elected officials in the State, Republican and Democrat, before a crowd of 25,000 people. My message was very simple. The Senate unanimously has authorized the President to seek out and destroy those who attacked us. That is what happened on 9/11. It was not as Mr. Rove tries to distort, to spin some situation in which we did not recognize the consequences or respond to the responsibilities of that dreadful moment.

Mr. Rove suggests that our response was simply to suggest therapy, to understand our attackers. That is a misstatement of the fact. In fact, following that authorization of the use of force, we succeeded in this Senate, acting with virtual unanimity on measure after measure, to give the President and this Nation what we all needed to defend ourselves and to inflict upon our adversaries the justice which they so richly deserved.

We passed the Aviation Transportation Security Act. We passed the fiscal year Intelligence Authorization Act--unanimously, the fiscal year Defense Authorization Act, the fiscal year Defense Appropriations Act, on and on and on, with virtual unanimity.

We did this because we recognized that we are Americans. Today, Mr. Rove seeks to distort this historic record, to suggest we did not come together as Americans, but that there were those who knew the way and took it and those who tried to ignore the reality. That is a gross misstatement of history, of the facts, and he should apologize for it. It is inappropriate that an individual who works in the White House should make such callous and clearly erroneous statements for political effect.

Mr. Rove suggests, in the article I have seen in the newspaper describing his speech, that our response was one of moderation and restraint. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our response was one voice authorizing the President to attack, giving him the tools to carry out the attack. Mr. Rove suggested that conservatives saw 9/11 and said we will defeat our enemies. That is exactly what all Americans said or did. He goes on to suggest that what liberals saw prompted liberals to say: We must understand our enemies.

Again, that is not the reality. I hope Mr. Rove is not suggesting unwittingly that we should go about without respecting and understanding our enemies. He should look back at Sun Tzu,

the Chinese philosopher whose ``Art of War'' speaks to us today as it did centuries ago. As Sun Tzu said:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear

the results of 100 battles.

In fact, some might suggest we are learning about our enemy too late in Iraq today.

The point I make is this type of attack has no place, it does not conform to history, it undercuts the spirit of that moment, a moment in which every American came together as one people, indeed, as the world responded to us. That unanimity may have lessened over the last several months, but it was there. To view September 11 any other way is a gross distortion. Mr. Rove should apologize for it.

He went on to attack my colleague, the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin. Senator Durbin has apologized for his comments, and that apology is appropriate. But to continue to attack this individual does nothing to advance any of the ideals or aspirations or policies that we must be engaged with. What it does is distort a person, someone I have come to know, respect, and admire. Someone who is caring and concerned for people, whose thoughtfulness, whose intense commitment to doing what is appropriate for all Americans, and who is particularly sensitive to the needs of our military forces has impressed me.

Like anyone who has had the privilege of serving and understanding in the U.S. Army or any uniformed service, I had the privilege of commanding paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne Division. We understand the extraordinary courage and bravery and valor of those individuals.

I have been impressed many times with Senator Durbin's commitment to help those individuals in meaningful ways by providing the equipment they need, by ensuring that our veterans who have served with distinction are not ignored. The attacks on him are without correlation to the person and to the service of this individual.

I hope Mr. Rove would apologize for these remarks and would refrain in the future from distorting the historial record. I don't think that is too much to ask of someone who is in such a position of power in the White House.

At this point, it is sufficient to conclude by saying I hope, indeed, that we can avoid this kind of personalized attack, this gross distortion, which is untrue, misleading, and divides a nation and does not unite it. I hope we move on to substantive policy as we face real problems that face this Nation.

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

Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Feinstein as a cosponsor of this amendment, along with my colleagues, Senator Snowe, Senator Sessions, Senator Kennedy, and many other cosponsors.

The siting of liquefied natural gas import terminals is a critical issue of importance to me and my neighbors in Rhode Island as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is considering two proposals: the KeySpan Energy proposal in Providence, RI, and a Weaver's Cove Energy proposal in Fall River, MA. Both of these have a huge impact on the people of Rhode Island.

LNG ships will have to transit Narragansett Bay to get to both of these facilities. The route of transit would be this way, coming off of Block Island Sound. It will pass between Newport, RI, and Jamestown, RI. Newport is one of the most populated cities in our region. It is densely populated. We all know it as a place of tourism and recreation. The boats, literally, would be within hundreds of yards of critical installations--hotels, hospitals, et cetera. Then it would move up, if it is going to Weaver's Cove in Fall River, this way, and would move up under several bridges until it got to the city of Fall River.

The KeySpan proposal would require the transit of a ship going up this way and then moving up around and all the way into Providence, RI, the most densely populated part of the State of Rhode Island, with a huge concentration of people and, indeed, where all of these bay-side areas are being developed intensively.

This project poses serious risks to the State of Rhode Island and the State of Massachusetts. Therefore, it is incumbent we provide local authorities with the ability to effectively involve themselves in the decisionmaking process. We understand there are certain Federal laws that give authority to the State to participate in these decisions--the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, Coastal Zone Management Act--but none of them give the kind of clear involvement and clear leverage that State leaders need to effectively involve themselves in this decisionmaking.

Our amendment ensures that States have an authentic voice in the siting of LNG terminals by giving Governors the same authority to approve or disapprove onshore terminals that they now have over offshore terminals under the Deepwater Port Act.

It seems incongruous that Governors would have the authority to essentially veto an offshore project but they have no meaningful involvement on onshore projects placed in the heart of urban areas.

Let me show you the impact this proposal will have on the city of Providence. The KeySpan proposal would be situated right here, as shown on this chart. Within a very short radius, we have our largest hospital in the State of Rhode Island, our major medical center. We have thousands of homes. We have the downtown business area. Anything that happened here would have catastrophic effects on the State of Rhode Island.

To say the Governor cannot take into consideration factors such as safety and security ignores the current situation we face as a nation. These are very attractive targets to those people who want to seriously harm us, both in a physical sense and a psychological sense. We have to provide, I believe, at the local level, a meaningful way for Governors to participate in the siting of these facilities.

Again, it is not just a situation where they do not want it in their particular area. We understand there is a need for liquefied natural gas. We understand it is becoming an increasingly more important component of our energy sector. But we have to have the ability to look at safety issues and security issues.

This is particularly important after the report from the Sandia National Laboratories that said a terror attack on a tanker delivering LNG to a U.S. terminal could set off a fire so hot it would burn skin and damage buildings nearly a mile away. A mile from this facility encompasses huge swathes of Providence, RI, Cranston, RI, East Providence, RI, major medical facilities. This would be a devastating blow.

Now, the odds of such an attack, we hope, are very low, but the low odds, together with the huge consequences, suggest we have to be careful about this. We have to, I believe, give our local leaders, our Governor particularly, the ability to participate in this approval process.

I am confident this amendment will do that. It will require FERC and other Federal agencies to work more closely with Governors and State environmental authorities and the first responder agencies that have firsthand knowledge of the geography and the population of these particular areas.

We want to bring more natural gas to our communities, but we do not want to jeopardize the safety and the security of our communities in a world

today, regrettably but actually, very dangerous and very capable of these types of attacks on these types of facilities.

So I urge all of my colleagues to support Senator Feinstein. I thank her for her leadership. This is very typical of her very thoughtful review of this bill but particularly this aspect of LNG.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to discuss briefly my vote today in favor of the McCain-Lieberman climate change amendment. I supported this amendment because I believe our nation needs to take real action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, something the Bush administration has so far refused to do. Global warming is a serious problem that has alarming repercussions for our future food production, water supplies, national security, and the survival of many species of wildlife. The vast majority of mainstream scientists now accept that global warming is real and that it is caused in large part by human activities.

The McCain-Lieberman amendment would hold total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions at year 2000 levels starting in 2010. Most importantly, once that cap is set in place, emissions would not be allowed to increase. The amendment would establish a cap and trade regime for greenhouse gases based on the successful acid rain program that has harnessed the incentives of the free market to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions.

I recognize the concerns that have been expressed about this amendment because its innovation title would provide funding for the demonstration of a list of technologies that includes new nuclear reactors. I share this concern, and I agree that many questions remain unanswered about the safe and secure disposal of nuclear waste.

On the other hand, nuclear power is only one of many technologies that are eligible to compete for demonstration funding in the McCain- Lieberman amendment, including, but not limited to, solar, biofuels, and coal gasification with carbon capture. In addition, these funds would come not from taxpayer dollars but from the sale of emissions allowances under the new cap and trade program. While I would prefer not to see nuclear power in this mix, the McCain-Lieberman amendment would have provided substantial mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases that are essential for our future. It is my sincere hope that the Congress and the Bush administration will finally recognize the reality of climate change and take action to reduce our Nation's greenhouse gas emissions.