A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding designation of the month of November as "National Military Family Month".

Madam President, the crisis created by the unprecedented use of filibusters to defeat judicial nominations must be solved while preserving two important Senate traditions. On the one hand, extended debate is an important part of how the United States Senate conducts its legislative business. On the other hand, we have traditionally given judicial nominations reaching the Senate floor a final confirmation decision. Two years ago, this latter tradition was attacked when the filibuster was used for the first time to defeat majority supported judicial nominations. Mr. President, these are two different and important traditions and each must be preserved.

Solving this crisis by restoring Senate tradition is not a partisan step, but is in the interest of the Senate as an institution. Both Republicans and Democrats should follow the same standard, no matter which party occupies the White House or runs the Senate. Neither Democrats nor Republicans should have to go through this vicious cycle of filibusters against qualified judicial nominees.

Let me first clarify once again the situation in which we find ourselves. Before 2003, no majority supported judicial nomination had been defeated by a filibuster. Under our Rule XXII, we did vote on motions to end debate on judicial nominations, though we did so just 15 times in 35 years. Simply taking a cloture vote, however, does not mean a filibuster is underway. In fact, some of those cloture votes were used deliberately to prevent filibusters, clearing the procedural path and guaranteeing an up or down confirmation vote. Some have been used for floor management purposes. We did so even on very controversial nominations, such as President Clinton's choices of Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Before 2003, only one judicial nomination on which cloture was not invoked was not confirmed. Opposition to cloture on the controversial 1968 nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice was evenly bipartisan and showed that

the nominee lacked clear majority support. At the nominee's request, President Lyndon Johnson withdrew the nomination the next day. Senator Robert Griffin, from Michigan, who led opposition to the nomination, personally told me that there never was an intention to use the filibuster to defeat the Fortas nomination. There was no need, since the votes were there to defeat the nomination outright. Lyndon Johnson knew it and that is why they withdrew the nomination rather than be embarrassed by the bipartisan vote of both parties against the nominee.

Before 2003, if the Senate rejected a judicial nomination that reached the Senate floor, we did so by voting it down; filibusters did not prevent a final vote in order to keep a nomination from confirmation. The break with that tradition came in 2003. During the 108th Congress alone, we voted on motions to end debate on judicial nominations 20 times. Each vote failed, and opposition to cloture was completely partisan. None of those nominees was confirmed, though each had clear bipartisan majority support.

Those who want to end this Senate tradition of giving judicial nominations reaching the Senate floor an up or down vote fear they will lose if we follow that tradition. To them, the end of defeating President Bush's judicial nominations justifies the means of destroying Senate tradition. Being honest about it would reveal how such partisan strategies are politicizing the judicial appointment process, so they try to make other arguments.

They claim Republicans filibustered President Clinton's judicial nominations, but each of his judicial nominees on whom we took a cloture vote is today a sitting Federal judge.

They claim they don't filibuster very often, which is beside the point if using the filibuster against judicial nominations violates constitutional principles and departs from Senate tradition. There have already been enough judicial nomination filibusters to give President Bush the lowest appeals court confirmation rate of any president since Franklin Roosevelt.

Or they claim they filibuster only nominees who are out of some kind of mainstream. It is difficult to know what that charge really means, especially since the American Bar Association--which Democrats once considered the gold standard--has found them qualified. Senators may, of course, vote against a judicial nominee for any reason they wish, but we should stop pretending that out of the mainstream is anything more than a prediction that the nominee may not always rule the way liberal interest groups want. Considering the stream in which many of those groups swim, I'm not so sure this isn't a compliment. If the mainstream really mattered, though, these filibusters would never have started. Newspaper editorials opposing filibusters of judicial nominations outnumber those supporting them by at least six-to-one.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that some representative editorials from mainstream newspapers be printed in the Record.

These may be their reasons, but there are no excuses. At the mere suggestion of abandoning the Senate's tradition regarding judicial nominations when President Clinton was in office, former Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said, ``I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination.'' That should be our response today as Senators on both sides of the floor.

Last week here on the Senate floor, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia made his case against returning to Senate tradition regarding judicial nominations. I respect him. I have a lot of regard for him, but I have to confess I was surprised that someone with such knowledge of the traditions and rules of this body would appear so willing to abandon tradition.

He equated the filibuster with the Senate itself. He equated filibustering judicial nominations with filibustering legislation and concluded that returning to our tradition regarding judicial nominations would be an attack on the Senate somehow. I would like to address each of these elements because I do not believe they can withstand fair scrutiny.

First, my friend from West Virginia argued that the Senate was designed from its very inception as a place of absolutely unfettered and completely unlimited debate. As such, he argues, any limitation of debate strikes at the very heart of the institution itself. Yet in the second volume of his own history of the Senate, he writes on page 115:

It is apparent that the Senate in the First Congress

disapproved of unlimited debate.

The original rule IV prohibiting a Senator from speaking more than twice in any one debate on the same day without leave of the Senate remains in only slightly modified form as our rule XIX today. Even more significantly, rule VIII in the first Senate provided for a majority to proceed to a vote by calling the previous question.

Coupled with the Founders' expressed commitment to majority rule, these facts demonstrate that even with regard to legislation, the possibility of preventing final action through extended debate was not created by original design. It arose by default through dropping that previous question rule in 1806.

It would still be decades before Senators who sought to protect the institution of slavery would discover they could use this procedural loophole to their advantage and, of course, the filibuster was born. Its twin, however, was a parallel and ongoing effort at filibuster reform by which we have actively sought properly to balance the minority's right to debate and the majority's right to decide. The solution we seek today is part of that ongoing effort.

The Senator from West Virginia next equated filibusters of judicial nominations with filibusters of legislation. His policy arguments in favor of the filibuster, however, apply only to the legislative process. He said, for example, that without the filibuster ``there exists no leverage with which to bargain for the offering of an amendment. All force to effect compromise between the parties will be lost.''

I note that in previous debates about filibuster reform, such as in 1975, Democrats, such as the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, offered this very same argument against the filibuster. Still, this notion obviously applies where the Senate either fashions or effects legislation, but it is irrelevant to nominations.

The Senator from West Virginia has long been this Chamber's leading expert on our history and procedure. For that I compliment him. For this reason, though, I was disappointed that he would fail to make such an important distinction between legislative and judicial nomination filibusters, a distinction based on both historical fact and constitutional principle. In other words, there is a difference between the legislative calendar and the executive calendar in the Senate.

The Senator from West Virginia is not the first in the debate over these new judicial nomination filibusters failing to make this critical distinction. Other Democratic Senators, for example, want to use the cup-and-saucer analogy by which George Washington allegedly described pouring hot action from the House cup to cool in the deliberation of the Senate saucer.

As Jeffrey Toobin's recent analysis in the New Yorker magazine points out, however, not only is this story probably apocryphal, but the supposed exchange between Washington and Jefferson specifically focused on, you got it, legislation. In fact, that is the only context in which it makes any sense. If they said it at all, they were talking about the relationship between the two Houses within the legislative branch, not the relationship between the legislative and executive branches.

The distinction between legislative and judicial filibusters is a matter of historical fact. Every example offered last week by my friend from West Virginia involved legislation. He opened and closed his speech by evoking scenes from the classic film ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' I went back and checked the script. Senator Jefferson Smith in that movie, played by the great Jimmy Stewart, filibustered an appropriations bill. That is legislation.

The example the Senator from West Virginia said was most relevant-- President Franklin Roosevelt's proposal to reorganize the judiciary-- was also, you got it, legislation. That example is actually not relevant at all, however, because that 1937 legislation was not defeated by a filibuster. The most definitive study of President Roosevelt's plan by Mary McKenna concludes that it did not have majority support in the Senate at all. There was no need for a filibuster. Rather than the majority being stymied in its attempt to pass the bill, the majority--and an overwhelming majority at that--sent it back to committee.

To my knowledge, no Senators are today calling for an end to the legislative filibuster as a group of Democratic Senators did a decade ago. Nine of them, led by the Senator from Iowa, Tom Harkin, and the Senator from Connecticut, Joseph Lieberman, serve in this body today. They argued back then that all filibusters, including those of legislation, unconstitutionally infringe on majority rule. The two Senators from Massachusetts, Edward Kennedy and John Kerry, along with the Senator from California, Barbara Boxer, the Senator from New Jersey, Frank Lautenberg, the Senator from Maryland, Paul Sarbanes, the Senator from New Mexico, Jeff Bingaman, and the Senator from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold, voted against tabling that proposal.

I find it simply baffling that Senators who once supported abolishing the Senate tradition of legislative filibusters would today support establishing a tradition of judicial nomination filibusters--in other words, filibusters of nominees by the President on the executive calendar, not the legislative calendar.

Ignoring the distinction between legislative and judicial nomination filibusters is necessary for the argument of the Senator from West Virginia, as evidenced when he asked:

If we restrain debate on judges today, what will be next?

Yet for more than a century, filibusters of legislation coexisted nicely with our tradition of giving up-or-down votes to judicial nominations that reach the Senate floor.

Our experience under the current version of rule XXII shows that these two traditions can peacefully coexist. That rule, by the way, was born in 1917

after a filibuster of legislation. We have had the current version of rule XXII since 1975. From 1975 to 2002, the 94th Congress through the 107th Congress, only 3 percent of cloture votes were judicial nominations; 85 percent of those cloture votes passed, and all nominations subject to cloture votes were confirmed.

During the 108th Congress, 49 percent of cloture votes were on traditional nominations. None of them passed, and none of the nominations were confirmed.

I must say, with all due respect to my dear friend from West Virginia, that using the filibuster to defeat majority-supported judicial nominations has not been part of even modern Senate practice, let alone historic Senate tradition.

Let me repeat that. Using the filibuster to defeat majority-supported judicial nominations has not been part of even modern Senate practice, let alone historic Senate tradition.

In his op-ed piece in the Washington Post last week, the Senator from West Virginia ignored our tradition regarding judicial nominations in another way. He argued that by preventing a confirmation vote through a filibuster, the Senate had formally rejected these judicial nominations. How can it be a rejection of judicial nominations when a majority of Senators supports confirmation of each one of those people? Each nominee on whom cloture was not invoked remained on the Senate's executive calendar. Our own rule XXXI states that nominations that are ``neither confirmed nor rejected'' shall be returned to the President. Each of those filibustered nominations was, indeed, returned to the President when the 108th Congress adjourned. By definition, common sense, and our own rules, that means they were not rejected. My friend from West Virginia cannot on the one hand claim these nominations were rejected but on the other hand claim that these filibusters are about deliberation and debate.

Legislative and judicial nomination filibusters are different as a matter of historical fact because they are different as a matter of constitutional principle. Legislation belongs to the legislative branch under article I of our Constitution, while nomination and appointment belong to the President under article II. In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the President would be the ``principal agent'' in appointments. The Senate has an important role of advice and consent that checks the President's appointment power, but we do not control the executive process any more than the President controls the legislative process. We recognize the difference between legislative and executive business when we leave legislative session and proceed to executive session to address nominations we have placed on the executive calendar. My friend from West Virginia, I think, ignored those differences.

Interacting with the executive branch is simply not the same as interacting within the legislative branch. And thus it would seem almost self-evident that procedures we use regarding our authority over legislation might not be appropriate when we affect the President's authority over appointments. We must preserve our tradition that recognizes this constitutional distinction between the executive and legislative branches, between our role of advice and consent on judicial appointments, and our authority over legislation.

The Senator from West Virginia, in my opinion, used an unfortunate analogy in attacking those who would return the Senate to its confirmation tradition regarding judicial nominations. Others, such as the Anti-Defamation League, have strongly objected to his reference to Hitler's Nazi regime for various reasons. My point here is not that. It is different. I object to his claim that returning to our tradition regarding judicial nominations would be an example of ``how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends.'' There is nothing cruel or unjust about the Senate returning to our traditional advice and consent role regarding judicial nominations.

The Constitution gives the Senate the authority to determine our procedural rules. It was pursuant to that authority that the Senate dropped the previous question rule in 1806, adopted a cloture rule in 1917, and amended that rule several times since.

It was also pursuant to that authority that the Senator from West Virginia aggressively used various strategies to change Senate procedures when he served as majority leader of this body. This includes approaches currently under discussion, such as seeking a ruling from the Senate's Presiding Officer. Though the Senator from West Virginia last week said such an approach would abandon the ``cloak of legality,'' it would simply be following a procedural path that he himself blazed. I was here for part of that.

The Senator from West Virginia said this approach ``seeks to alter the rules by sidestepping the rules, thus making the impermissible the rule.''

Yet the Senate operates on the basis of parliamentary precedents and traditions, as well as by our standing rules, a history my friend from West Virginia helped shape and has been recognized as helping shape those rules.

In 1977, for example, the Senator from West Virginia made a point of order that once cloture has been invoked, the Presiding Officer must rule dilatory amendments out of order. One Senator criticized this strategy as trying to change Senate rules by majority vote during the heat of the debate. That criticism sounds an awful lot like the criticism the Senator from West Virginia leveled last week against those who might take the same approach today. Nonetheless, the strategy succeeded when the full Senate tabled an appeal of the Presiding Officer's ruling in favor of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.

In 1979, the Senator from West Virginia introduced Senate Resolution 9 to make various changes to rule XXII. He argued that notwithstanding rule XXII's cloture requirement for rules changes, a simple majority could change Senate rules at the beginning of a new Congress. He was right. The current Senate, he argued, is not bound by the dead hand of the past Senate. He threatened that if the Senate did not come to a time agreement for considering his resolution, he would attempt to proceed by seeking a parliamentary ruling.

Also in 1979, the Senator from West Virginia made a point of order that the Presiding Officer, rather than the Senate, as required under our rule XVI, ruled nongermane certain amendments to appropriations bills.

As in 1977, that strategy worked when the Senate tabled an appeal of the Presiding Officer's ruling in favor of the Senator from West Virginia. In 1980, the Senator from West Virginia also secured a helpful parliamentary precedent but from a different procedural direction. He wanted to achieve confirmation for an individual nominee on the Executive calendar.

At that time, while a motion to go into executive session was not debatable, a subsequent motion to proceed to a specific item on the Executive calendar was debatable. On March 5, 1980, the Senator from West Virginia made a single motion for the Senate both to go into executive session and to proceed to a specific nomination. When the Presiding Officer sustained a point of order against this motion, one Senator criticized this attempt to change procedure by majority vote. Nonetheless, the Senator from West Virginia appealed the Presiding Officer's ruling, which was his right to do, and the Senate overturned, supporting the distinguished Senator's majority rule change.

This strategy might be described by some, using the Senator from West Virginia's words last week, as altering the rules by sidestepping the rules. It certainly limited what he now insists would be unfettered and unlimited debate.

In 1987, the Senator from West Virginia secured a parliamentary precedent that obviously dilatory requests by Senators to be excused during a rollcall vote were out of order. This applied the same strategy he had used in 1977, getting the Presiding Officer to rule dilatory tactics out of order, in a new context. Each of these examples has similarities and differences with the current situation.

I offer this detail only to demonstrate that Senate procedures have been changed through parliamentary rulings as well as by formal amendments to the rules themselves. As my friend from West Virginia has demonstrated by pursuing each of these

strategies himself, the Senate can exercise its constitutional authority to determine its procedural rules either way.

He may certainly believe that the changes he sought were warranted while the change we may seek today is not. That is his right, and he can express that right in debate by voting against such a change. But that difference of opinion does not make his attempts to limit debate, even on legislation, right and just while any attempt to do so today on judicial nominations cruel and unjust.

We departed from our tradition of giving judicial nominations reaching the Senate floor an up-or-down vote only 2 years ago. The result has been the Senate's inability to do its constitutional duty of providing advice and consent regarding judicial nominations. We were able to give advice, I presume, but with regard to these 10 nominees we were never able to give consent or not consent, whichever the case may be. And that is done by a vote up and down. It demonstrates that the confirmation process is, in the words of the Washington Post, ``steadily degrading.''

Returning to that tradition of giving up-or-down votes for judicial nominations will not in the long run mean either party will always get its way. Both the executive branch and the Senate do change partisan hands from time to time. This standard, this tradition, knows no party and guarantees no partisan advantage. It applies no matter which party occupies the White House or which party controls the Senate. It would bind Republicans as well as Democrats and preserve our institutional traditions. I hope and believe, however, that restoring this tradition will, despite some Senators' threats to blow up the Senate, help restore some comity and good will to this body.

Returning to that tradition, which recognizes the difference between our authority over legislation and the President's authority over appointments, is not an attack on the Senate; rather, it affirms our traditions and the Senate's unique place in our system of separated powers. Returning to it both respects the President's authority over appointments and asserts the Senate's role of advice and consent, not just advice but consent as well.

A majority of Senators have been deprived of the right to give or not give consent by these irresponsible filibusters of judicial nominations on the Executive calendar. The deviation we have seen from that tradition, wherein a filibuster prevents confirmation of nominees with majority support, undermines the President's authority and distorts the Senate's role. Preserving both of our traditions--extended debate regarding legislation and up-or-down votes on judicial nominations reaching the Senate floor--will restore the proper balance.

There is nobody in this body who respects the distinguished Senator from West Virginia more than I do. I hope we can resolve these matters so both parties are bound by the correct tradition that we are not going to filibuster executive branch nominees and we will both preserve the right to filibuster over the matters we totally control on the legislative calendar. I would fight to my death to preserve rule XXII on legislation because I have also been in the minority from time to time, and it was the only way we could stop some things which would have been just terrible for this country. But there is a difference between the legislative calendar and the Executive calendar.

I respect my colleague from West Virginia. I can truthfully say I love him because he has been a strong force around here for years, but I hope he will look at some of these examples I have given and some of these thoughts I have and help us stop this impasse that is occurring in the Senate, not by preferring one party over the other but by binding both parties to treat Presidential nominations with the respect they deserve.

I have to say I never quite concentrated on this enough until these judicial nominations were filibustered in 2003 and 2004. I myself am to blame for not having thoroughly studied this until these problems arose, but I have now studied it. I believe it would be far better for our Senate to get rid of these animosities and threats to have nuclear warfare and bind both the Republicans and the Democrats in the Senate to do what is right, to give a vote up or down, so that we can not only give advise but consent as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, opponents of free speech and debate claim that, during my tenure as majority leader in the United States Senate, I established precedents that now justify a proposal for a misguided attempt to end debate on a judicial nomination by a simple majority vote, rather than by a three-fifths vote of all Senators duly chosen and sworn as required by paragraph two of Senate rule XXII. Their claims are false.

Proponents of the so-called nuclear option cite several instances in which they inaccurately allege that I ``blazed a procedural path'' toward an inappropriate change in Senate rules. They are dead wrong. Dead wrong. They draw analogies where none exist and create cock-eyed comparisons that fail to withstand even the slightest intellectual scrutiny.

Simply put, no action of mine ever denied a minority of the Senate a right to full debate on the final disposition of a measure or matter pending before the Senate. Not in 1977, not in 1979, not in 1980, or in 1987--the dates cited by critics as grounds for the nuclear option. The Congressional Research Service confirms that only six amendments have been adopted since the cloture rule was enacted in 1917, and ``each of these changes was made within the framework of the existing or `entrenched' rules of the Senate, including rule XXII.''

In none of the instances cited by those who threaten to invoke the nuclear option did my participation in any action deny the minority in the Senate, regardless of party, its right to debate the real matter at hand.

Let us examine each of these so-called precedents in greater detail.

October 3, 1977--Enforcing Senate Rule XXII Against Improper Post- Cloture Delay: In 1977, the Senate invoked cloture on S. 2104, described as ``a bill to establish a comprehensive natural gas policy.'' Shortly thereafter, two Senators began a postcloture ``filibuster by amendment,'' after a supermajority of the Senate had already chosen to invoke cloture (under the Senate rules) and had made clear its desire to bring debate on the bill to close. Though the Senate had voted to invoke cloture by an overwhelming vote of 77 to 17, two Senators nonetheless continued to offer amendments, to request quorum calls, and to offer amendments to amendments to preserve and extend time on the bill post-cloture. Their efforts, as confirmed by the Chair, ran directly contrary to the purpose of rule XXII, which is to limit debate.

The tactics employed were sufficiently egregious that the Senate spent 13 days and 1 night debating the bill, which included 121 rollcalls and 34 live quorums. Cloture having been invoked by an overwhelming vote, I then made the point of order that:

when the Senate is operating under cloture, the Chair is

required to take the initiative under rule XXII to rule out

of order all amendments which are dilatory or which on their

face are out of order.

Critics have alleged that my actions in this instance ``cut off debate'' and somehow constitute a precedent for ending a filibuster of a judicial nominee by 51 votes before cloture has been invoked. But that argument is erroneous.

The Senate was operating postcloture. The Senate had voted 77 to 17 to end debate. I didn't do that; the Senate took that action.

If anything, my actions clarified that rule XXII means what it says. The text of rule XXII provides explicitly that, once cloture is invoked, ``no dilatory motion, or dilatory amendment, or amendment not germane shall be in order.'' Therefore, once Members have voted to invoke cloture, dilatory amendments or actions are simply out of order. Senators still retain their hour of postcloture debate. Senators still have the right of appeal.

Some have falsely alleged that I even acted to impede debate on that appeal,

but they are mistaken yet again: Under the provisions of rule XXII, appeals from rulings of the Chair were not and are not debatable postcloture.

Nothing that was done in 1977 changed rule XXII or sent a shock wave through the Senate. Nothing that was done restricted the right of Senators to wage a filibuster against a nominee or legislation before cloture is invoked. No action taken affected the fundamental right of Senators to debate the natural gas deregulation bill; they had already debated the bill and, of their own volition, had decided to end their debate by an overwhelming vote. Instead, I sought to end dilatory tactics postcloture, when such tactics were, and remain today, prohibited by the plain text of paragraph two of rule XXII. I simply sought a ruling from the Chair to enforce Senate rule XXII.

In fact, when, in 1977, my point of order was sustained, the Chair in so doing noted that the point of order was consistent with the purpose of rule XXII, which ``is to require action by the Senate on a pending measure following cloture within a period of reasonable dispatch.'' When the Chair's ruling in support of my point of order was thereafter appealed, that appeal was tabled in the Senate by another overwhelming vote of 79 to 14.

No Member of the minority in the Senate lost his right to debate the natural gas deregulation bill. Their ability to debate the bill was not tampered with or impeded in any way. Each Senator retained the right to debate, under the Senate rules, the bill both precloture and in the hour that was provided to each Senator under rule XXII postcloture.

Thus, contrary to current assertions, in 1977, a strong, bipartisan, supermajority of the Senate, supported by, among others, Minority Leader Howard Baker and myself, endorsed this necessary effort to halt postcloture dilatory tactics consistent with Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate. That is completely unlike the so-called nuclear option that is currently being discussed by some in the Senate. I sought to enforce rule XXII; not to destroy it.

January 15, 1979--Enforcing Rule XXII Against Improper Post-Cloture Delay: At the beginning of the new Congress in 1979, I, as Senate majority leader, introduced a resolution to make various changes to Senate rule XXII, the bulk of which addressed circumstances postcloture. Recently, on March 10, 2005, a Senator spoke on the Senate floor and stated that this resolution serves as a precedent for the nuclear option. However, my resolution served to enforce rule XXII, not to destroy it. My introduction of S. Res. 9 was influenced by the postcloture dilatory tactics that were suffered by the Senate during its consideration of the natural gas deregulation bill during the preceding Congress.

My efforts in that regard were supported, on a bipartisan basis, by Minority Leader Howard Baker who stated in response to my introduction of S. Res. 9:

I point out, as I am sure most of our colleagues are aware

and will recall, that in the case of the most recent post-

cloture filibuster, it was the majority leader and the

minority leader, with the distinguished occupant of the

chair, the Vice President, in the chair at the time, who

managed to establish a line and series of precedents that

created the possibility to at least accelerate the

disposition of the controversy and conflict.

The point of the matter is that this is not, nor has it

been, a matter that is purely partisan in its character. . .

.

He added:

I share with the majority leader the belief that the post-

cloture filibuster, a creature of fairly young age and recent

development, is one that the Senate has not focused on

adequately. I am prepared to do that and I want to do that.

As the minority leader in the Senate recognized at the time, the text of rule XXII provides explicitly that, once cloture is invoked, ``no dilatory motion, or dilatory amendment, or amendment not germane shall be in order.'' Therefore, once Members vote to invoke cloture, dilatory amendments or actions are impermissible. No proposal of mine in 1979 restricted the right of Senators to filibuster a nominee or a piece of legislation prior to the invocation of cloture, consistent with Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate. And the position I took at the time enjoyed support on both sides of the aisle.

November 9, 1979--Strengthening Rule XVI Against Legislation on Appropriations Bills: Opponents of free speech and debate in the Senate cite a third event as a supposed basis for their proposed ``nuclear option.'' In November 1979, during consideration of a Department of Defense Appropriations bill, Senator Stennis raised a point of order that an amendment to change the rate of pay for military personnel, which had been offered by Senator Armstrong, constituted legislation on an appropriations bill and was therefore out of order under the express terms of Senate rule XVI. Legislative amendments to appropriations bills violate Senate rule XVI. However, by precedent, the ``defense of germaneness'' arose. According to this practice, which evolved outside the text of rule XVI, if the House has acted first to ``open the door'' to legislate on an appropriations measure, a Senator could respond with a legislative amendment, provided that it is germane to some House legislative language. If a point of order were made that an amendment constituted legislation, a ruling by the Chair on that question would be preempted by a vote on the germaneness of the amendment to the House language. This practice was justified only if the House had included legislative language in its bill. But this practice made a mockery of the rule if the House had not included any legislative language.

When Senator Stennis raised the point of order that the Armstrong amendment constituted legislation on an appropriations bill, Senator Armstrong asserted the defense of germaneness, meaning that his amendment was germane because it was relevant to the House bill. At that point, I made the following point of order:

I make the point of order that this is a misuse of the

precedents of the Senate, since there is no House language to

which this amendment could be germane and that, therefore,

the Chair is required to rule on the point of order as to its

being legislation on an appropriation bill and cannot submit

this question of germaneness to the Senate.

I was concerned that, as a threshold matter, the amendment should not be considered because there was no House language to which the proposed amendment could possibly be germane. The Chair noted that while this was a case of first impression, my point was ``well taken,'' and he sustained my point of order. Senator Armstrong then appealed the ruling of the Chair, and I moved to table that appeal. My motion was adopted by the Senate.

Critics claim that my actions in this instance were contrary to the plain language of rule XVI, because rule XVI at paragraph four states, ``all questions of relevancy of amendments under this rule, when raised, shall be submitted to the Senate and be decided without debate.'' But their assertion that I acted in a manner contrary to rule XVI is false.

My point of order went not to the issue of legislating on an appropriations bill, but to a different issue: The concept of ``defense of germaneness.'' Nowhere in rule XVI is there a reference to the concept of ``defense of germaneness.'' The source and subsequent application of defense of germaneness and its threshold test is not rooted in any Senate rule. Instead, it dates back to a precedent, which is identified by Riddick's Senate Procedure as a ``theory,'' which was ``enunciated'' by Vice President Marshall in 1916, that, ``Notwithstanding the rule of the Senate . . . when the House of Representatives opens the door and proceeds to enter upon a field of general legislation . . . the Chair is going to rule, but of course the Senate can reverse the ruling of the Chair, that the House having opened the door the Senate of the United States can walk through the door and pursue the field.''

Second, my efforts were to avoid the misuse of precedent and thereby enforce the express provisions of Senate rule XVI, which prohibits legislation on an appropriations bill. It is only by precedent that germaneness justified a legislative amendment on an appropriations bill, and only if the House opened the door. My goal was to preserve proper precedent and strengthen rule XVI; not to weaken it, as the nuclear option would do to rule XXII. My actions did not establish any precedent to destroy the right of extended debate in the Senate. In fact, the Senate's action affected only the ability to offer certain amendments to particular legislation, and, even then, the Senate minority's rights to appeal a ruling of the Chair were fully preserved.

March 5, 1980--Enhancing the Right of Debate of Nominations on the Executive Calendar: Critics of extended debate also reference a motion I made in 1980 to proceed directly to a nomination on the Executive Calendar. They claim that this created a precedent making a motion to proceed to any nomination on the Executive Calendar nondebatable. It did no such thing.

At the time, a nondebatable motion to go into executive session automatically put the Senate on the first treaty on the Executive Calendar. This meant that moving to the Executive Calendar required consideration of treaties before nominations, simply because the Senate's Executive Calendar prints both treaties and nominations in the order in which they are reported out of their respective committees of jurisdiction, and treaties are then printed in the first section of the Calendar.

But the placement of treaties and nominations on the Senate Calendar was not and is not based on any great precedent or legal requirement that would elevate treaties to a position of prominence greater than nominations. Instead, the placement of treaties and nominations on the Senate Executive Calendar is simply the result of a clerical printing convention. There has never been a logical reason for the Senate to distinguish between a motion to proceed to a nomination and a motion to proceed to the first treaty. Because there is no substantive reason that the Senate should have to go to treaties before being able to consider a nomination, it seemed logical that the Senate should be able to proceed directly to a nomination on the Executive Calendar.

My motion to proceed directly to the first nomination, rather than a treaty, did not inhibit or frustrate Senate debate in any way. The Chair explicitly confirmed that it did not contravene any precedent or Standing Rule of the Senate. Moreover, it also did not restrict the ability of the Senate to filibuster the nomination itself. In fact, disposition of the nomination remained, as it is today, fully debatable in several respects. A nomination remains fully debatable when it comes before the Senate, and motions to proceed from one nomination to another are also fully debatable when the Senate is in executive session.

May 13, 1987--Enforcing Rule IV Against Improper Debate of a Motion To Approve the Journal: In 1987, a Republican minority led a filibuster seeking to prevent the Senate from considering a defense authorization bill. Prior to moving to the bill, I sought unanimous consent that the Journal of the preceding day ``be approved to date,'' a routine request in the course of Senate business. The Journal is the official record of the proceedings of the Senate, and under Senate rule IV, the Journal of the preceding day must be read following the prayer by the Chaplain unless, by nondebatable motion, the reading of the Journal is waived.

In this instance, Senator Dole objected to my request that the Journal be approved by unanimous consent, and the question of whether the Journal should be approved was put to a vote. Under Senate rule XII, if a Senator declines to vote during a rollcall, he or she must, at the time his or her name is called, give a reason for not voting. In an unusual occurrence, Senator Warner advised the Chair that he ``decline[d] to vote for the reason that I have not read the Journal.'' Rule XII requires that if a Senator declines to vote, the Presiding Officer must put a nondebatable question to the Senate on whether it is ``permissible for the Senator to decline his right to vote on the issue.''

The Chair called for the vote to determine whether Senator Warner should be excused from voting on the Journal. However, before that vote was completed, Senator Dan Quayle stated that he, too, declined to vote, because he said, ``I do not believe a Senator should be compelled to vote.'' The Chair asked the clerk to call the roll on whether to excuse Senator Quayle from voting, when Senator Symms stated that he, too, declined to vote for the same reason. At this point, there were four Senate votes pending. if additional Senators in the Chamber similarly chose to decline to vote, seriatim, the process could have continued forever.

Recognizing that, just a bit over a year previously, the Senate had deliberately amended rule IV to make the motion to approve the Journal a nondebatable motion, I made a point of order that the requests of the Senators to decline to vote were not in order. I stated:

that in amending rule IV, the Senate intended that a majority

of the Senate could resolve the question of the reading of

the Journal. I make my point of order that a request of a

Senator to be excused from voting on a motion to approve the

Journal is, therefore, out of order and that the Chair

proceed immediately, without further delay, to announce the

vote on the motion to approve the Journal.

Through a series of subsequent motions and votes, I prevailed in rectifying what I observed at the time was an extraordinary situation illustrated by a series of, in essence, ``votes within a vote.''

Contrary to erroneous allegations by some, my actions in this regard did not set a precedent that ``changed Senate procedure to run contrary to the plain text of a Standing Senate Rule.'' In fact, the action I took achieved exactly the opposite result: It ensured that Senate procedure would conform more closely to both the intent and the plain text of Senate rule IV.

At the time, one Senator mistakenly stated that the Chair could not entertain a unanimous consent request to suspend the application of rule XII in this instance. But that is an incorrect understanding by a Senator who was referring to rule XII, paragraph 1--where Senators cannot seek to be added to a vote that they missed, and the Chair may not do it or entertain a request to do so, a rule that was not in question and has always been strictly enforced by the Chair--not rule XII, paragraph 2, which was in dispute at the time.

Again, the actions I took were to enforce both rules IV and XII. Should I, instead, have endorsed a procedure whereby one Senator after another could simply decline to vote and put each Senator's reasons for declining to vote to another vote? Should Senators have been permitted, one after another, to decline to vote, then force a vote on each one's reason for not voting, on what is a nondebatable question in a nondebatable posture? Had I not raised a point of order against this abusive practice, it could have been used in innumerable future circumstances, and the Senate would not be able to complete a vote on any measure or matter, ever. It would, again, have made a mockery of the Senate's rules. Keep in mind that, if the tactic were ever legitimized, it could be employed to prevent a judicial nominee from ever receiving a vote.

It should be further noted that the point of order I made applies only to proceedings on motions to approve the Journal. Both the Presiding Officer and I confirmed this specifically in response to a question from Senator Alan Simpson. As I then stated:

where Senators decline to vote on other rollcall votes in

other situations--this point of order does not go to those.

This point of order only goes to the unusual situation, the

extraordinary circumstances, in which the Senate found itself

today, when it was trying to act on a motion to approve the

Journal to date, and when three Senators in succession stood

to say, ``Mr. President, I decline to vote on this rollcall

for the following reasons.''

Elsewhere, I also expressly stated that, ``for the legislative history,'' the precedential value of my point of order was ``confined only to that situation in which the Senate is trying to complete a vote on a motion to approve the Journal to date . . . It is confined to that very narrow purpose.''

The Senate's decision on that day was fully consistent with the text of rules IV and XII, which provides expressly that the question of whether a Senator could decline to vote, ``shall be decided without debate.'' The decision, once again, further enforced the existing rules of the Senate. This stands in stark contrast to the proposed nuclear option, which would contravene, by a simple majority vote, the express text of rule XXII, which applies to ``any measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate,'' and which requires an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn.

Let me state, once again, that no action of mine cited by the proponents of the nuclear options has ever denied a minority in the Senate its right to full debate on the final disposition of a measure or matter pending before the Senate.

The steps discussed here have all gone toward strengthening or enforcing

Senate rules, or clarifying the application of Senate precedents--not undermining them. The Senate has been the last fortress of minority rights and freedom of speech in this Republic for more than two centuries. I pray that Senators will pause and reflect before ignoring that history and tradition in favor of the political priority of the movement.

I yield myself such time as I might use.

Mr. President, I speak now in morning business because at 11 o'clock we will have a continuation of votes in the Senate on the bankruptcy bill. Then we will have a series of votes later on in the afternoon, with a time to be designated by the leadership. Then we will move to final passage. There would not be otherwise an opportunity to express my views about the bankruptcy bill in general and on a number of the items we have debated and on which we have failed to persuade the majority of our colleagues. I want to reference those in my remarks this morning.

America at its best is when we are united in common cause and a unified purpose. We came together to overcome the Great Depression. We came together to fight two world wars against tyranny. We came together in the Cold War years to contain and defeat Communism. We came together to fight polio, to explore the heavens, and to create a secure retirement for our seniors. We came together after much struggle to expand the circle of opportunity in America for civil rights, voting rights, disability rights, and women's rights. We came together on 9/11 as a nation determined to fight terrorism and defend our land.

As Americans, we know how to come together to achieve great goals, to make stronger our communities, our families, our economy, our schools, and our nation. That is the America I believe in. That is the America I fight for every day. An America where we are joined arm in arm to advance the cause of opportunity, freedom, and fairness for all of our people.

But this legislation breaks the bond that unites America, the bond that makes our country strong. It says the concerns of low and middle- income families don't matter. They no longer have a voice in the United States Senate. What matters are the special interests. This bill sacrifices the hopes and dreams of average Americans to the rampant greed of the credit card industry. It turns the United States Senate into a collection agency for the credit card companies, reaching the long arm of the law into the pocketbooks of average Americans who have reached the end of their economic rope.

That is wrong. That is not what we should be doing here. We have a responsibility to the people to fight for them and their needs, not to do the bidding of the almighty credit card companies.

A lot of people are going to be pained with this bill. Make no mistake. The idea that this bill is focused on spendthrifts is laughable when the other side admits that the most we have in terms of spendthrifts is maybe 10 percent of the total of those who go into bankruptcy, and most of the bankruptcy attorneys say it is anywhere from 5 to 7 percent. We are picking up all these individuals who are going to be forced to pay and be treated more harshly with this bill than they otherwise would be under the regular Bankruptcy Act.

Our bankruptcy laws are intended to give families a second chance. As Americans, we believe that if you work hard, live responsibly, but fall on hard times, our bankruptcy laws should be there to help you get back on your feet. If you get sick and face a mountain of medical bills, if you face divorce and no longer have two incomes to support your family, if your job gets sent overseas, then Americans believe you should have an opportunity to rebuild your lives.

These are the principal causes for bankruptcy. We know that more children drop out of college every single year, not academically, but because of the cost of student loans. They can't pay them. We have been through this during the course of the debate. If you have a heart attack, if you are diagnosed with cancer, even if you have health insurance, you basically have overwhelming bills and more often than not get thrown into bankruptcy. If you get divorced--as we will have a chance to vote on--200,000 women don't receive alimony and don't receive child support, these are hard-working Americans who are going to get thrown into bankruptcy. And rather than be let out so that they will have a new chance and a new opportunity in life because they have done nothing wrong, they are going to be tied up and paying the credit card companies for the next 5 years. That is the way this bill works.

This bill changes everything. It takes dozens and dozens of bankruptcy rules and rewrites every single one of them in favor of the credit card industry. Yesterday, we witnessed the powerful grip of this industry over the Republican Party. The Republicans defeated amendment after amendment after amendment after amendment that tried to give average Americans a fair chance when they face the credit card company lawyers in bankruptcy court. But when it appeared that a special interest loophole for the financial services industry threatened to be closed by the Leahy-Sarbanes-Warner amendment, the Republicans shut down the Senate.

It is not as if the credit card industry is suffering. As we can see from this chart, the profits are in the billions of dollars: $6.4 billion 1990; $12.9 billion in 1995; $20.5 billion in 2000; and they expect as a result of this bill that it will be 5 billion more dollars in profits. That is what this bill will mean. Over who? Over the families going into bankruptcy because of a heart attack, a stroke, children who have spina

bifida, over women who are not getting paid alimony or child support, over those workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas trying hard to pick up another job and can't keep up with the payments and go into bankruptcy. Those are the people who are suffering. But when it came to an issue involving the financial services industry, our Republican leadership closed the Senate down last night.

In the 8 years that this bill has been before the Senate, credit card profits have jumped 163 percent from $11.5 billion a year to more than $30 billion a year.

We hear the proponents of this legislation say: Look, we have had this legislation before us for 8 years. We have a problem. We have to deal with the problem. A problem, with these kinds of profits?

We have a problem with health care coverage for Americans. We have a problem with the cost of health care. We have a challenge in supporting our schools and our local communities. That is what is on the minds of Americans. Here we are in the Senate, taking 2 weeks of our time in order to look out for the credit card companies and make sure there are going to be greater profits for a single industry. That is the priority of the Republican leadership, rather than dealing with the root causes of so many of those who will be dragged into bankruptcy and made indentured servants to the credit card industry for the next 5 years. It does not make sense. These are the wrong priorities, the wrong values.

Middle class families are facing tough times with incomes falling, health costs out of control, college tuition through the roof, and now gasoline prices rising once again.

But this bill says that what's going on in your life every day doesn't matter.

You may be a member of the Guard or the Reserve called to Iraq and your business failed because you were away serving your country. In fact, 40 percent of those called up say they lost income, and over 19,000 soldiers declared bankruptcy just last year. They sacrificed their lives in Iraq and their financial security here at home, but the credit card companies will honor their service by squeezing every last dime out of our veterans in bankruptcy court.

Here is a letter from the Military Officers Association of America:

On behalf of the nearly 370,000 members of the Military

Officers Association . . . I am writing to request your

support for the protection of servicemembers, veterans, and

military survivors from the increased bankruptcy penalties.

They have it right, ``increased bankruptcy penalties.'' And this was written after Senators accepted the Sessions amendment which is just eye dressing.

Our association is sensitive that overseas contingencies

disrupt the lives and finances of servicemembers and their

families. This is particularly true of the mobilized Guard

and Reserve members. Those who are self-employed, or who took

significant pay cuts from their civilian occupations, have

been placed at increased risk of facing bankruptcy because of

their service and sacrifice for our Nation. Survivors of

members killed on active duty also may find themselves at

increased financial risk. Many have left service rather than

be subject to similar recalls in the future, and we are

already concerned about the implications of this for long-

term retention and readiness.

MOAA does not believe this is the time to impose new

financial strictures . . .

There it is. Nonetheless, we have gone ahead and done that. Democrats tried to correct this problem, to put some balance and fairness in the bill. Senator Durbin offered an amendment to protect those who protect us, but our Republican friends said no. Every single Republican in the United States Senate voted for more credit card profits and against our service men and women.

You may be a cancer survivor, but you can't survive the $35,000 in medical bills that your insurance company won't pay, and you lost another $20,000 for all the months you couldn't work and had to use your credit cards to pay the mortgage, cover the car payments, pay the utilities, and buy the groceries. You're doing everything you can to pay down your debt. You have taken out a second mortgage. You have cashed in your retirement savings. Your family is sharing one car.

But that doesn't matter. Under this bill, the profits of the credit card companies are more important than your recovery from cancer. Tough words; tough bill.

Democrats fought to correct this problem. I offered an amendment to give responsible Americans who fall on hard times due to illness or injury a fair chance in bankruptcy court. But the Republicans voted against these Americans in favor of the credit card companies.

You may be a single mother trying to raise your family, juggle your job and school, and rely on alimony and child support to pay the bills. But more than 200,000 women owed alimony or child support are forced into bankruptcy every year.

Democrats are addressing this problem, too. Republicans have a chance to vote for single mothers later this morning. We have a chance to say to women across America, who are taking responsibility every single day for their children, but have a deadbeat dad who won't do his part, that we're on your side. We believe it's more important for you to get back on your feet than for the credit card companies to have greater profits.

Maybe your job was one of the 2.8 million manufacturing jobs that have been shipped overseas in the past 4 years. You found a new job, but it pays only half as much. But under this bill, it doesn't matter. In bankruptcy court you will still have to keep paying the exorbitant interest payments to the credit card companies as if you still had your old, better paying job.

It doesn't matter that you have worked hard and lived responsibly all your life.

It doesn't matter that you were willing to take a lower paying job because you wanted to be a contributing member of society.

It doesn't matter that you clip grocery coupons every week to try to preserve the money you set aside to put your children through college.

It doesn't matter that you gave up your vacation to pay for repairs to your leaky roof.

It doesn't matter that your lost job means you had to move your elderly parents into a cheaper nursing home to try to avoid bankruptcy.

It doesn't matter. You can sacrifice and cut corners and put aside hopes and plans and dreams. But all that matters in this bill is for the credit card companies to have more and more profits.

We'll have a chance to vote on this question later this morning, too. But I have a feeling that Republicans are going to say no to the needs of Americans whose jobs have been outsourced overseas, just as they have said no to Iraq veterans, to single mothers, to children, and to seniors.

We should be working to unite the country to achieve great goals again. Why are we not debating those issues here on the floor of the Senate, instead of trying to get more profits for the credit card industry--perhaps the most profitable industry in America--at the expense of the mothers, children, veterans of Iraq, those who have serious health care bills, and those whose jobs have been shipped overseas. We should be battling for them. We should be battling to improve our schools and make college more affordable. We should be strengthening our economy and training our workers to compete against globalization. We should be fighting to keep our country safe from terrorism.

This bill makes these goals more difficult to achieve. It divides America by rewarding the most powerful special interests at the expense of low and middle-income families. A Republican supporter of the bill said yesterday that this bill was ``fair and balanced.'' Where is the fairness? Where is the balance?

It does nothing to fix the millionaires' mansion loophole that allows millionaires to go into bankruptcy and still keep their massive estates. You may lose your home, but they get to keep their palaces under this bill. Where was the effort on the other side--talking about a fair and balanced bill--to try to do something about that? All they could do was whip up their own membership in order to defeat that amendment to have one standard for all Americans. That is what I thought we were about as a country one standard--not a dual standard for wealthy millionaires that can hide the tens of millions of dollars

in their mansions and palaces in a handful of States.

It does nothing to help the thousands upon thousands of employees and retirees of companies like Enron and WorldCom and Polaroid, who are left out, twisting in the wind, after a bankruptcy process that lets the responsible corporate executives go free. They go free. These employees lose their pensions, their health insurance, their retirement, and their investments, as they did at Polaroid. Is there anything in this bill to try to help those individuals, many of whom worked a lifetime for these companies? Absolutely not. They are fair game. After these individuals, the Ebbers, the Skillings, Enron, and the rest, robbed those companies, they are sitting in their mansions now in Houston; but these other individuals will be dragged into bankruptcy court if they get a serious illness or sickness, or if they run into family problems.

Fair and balanced? No way, Mr. President. The Republicans and the credit card companies may get their way, and the American people may lose this round; but the fight is never over until we have assured fairness and freedom and opportunity for every one of our citizens. That is our pledge as Democrats today and tomorrow and in the future. That is why I hope our colleagues will vote no.

I will mention a few further items. One is from the Children's Defense Fund, who care about children. We tried to point out some of the other groups that will be affected. Here is a letter from the Children's Defense Fund. I will read excerpts of it. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

In part, the letter says:

This bill would inflict hardship on more than 1 million

economically vulnerable women and families who are affected

by the bankruptcy system each year.

. . . and after the bankruptcy is over, more and more debts

owed to the commercial creditors will survive--and mothers

and children owed support are not a match for the collection

departments of the commercial credit industry.

There it is. The credit card companies and the mothers will be scrambling over the nickels and dimes that might be left. Guess who is going to win out? That is the fairness and balance that has been put in here. That is why the Children's Defense Fund is strongly opposed to this.

The National Women's Law Center wrote:

This bill would inflict additional hardship on over one

million economically vulnerable women and families who are

affected by the bankruptcy system each year: those forced

into bankruptcy because of job loss, medical emergency, or

family breakup--factors which account for nine out of ten

filings--and women who are owed child or spousal support by

men who file for bankruptcy.

It will make it ``harder for women to meet their children's needs after bankruptcy because many more debts would survive.''

Finally, the Alliance for Retired Americans wrote:

The fastest growing group of Americans filing for

bankruptcy are those over 65. This unfortunate situation has

been caused by skyrocketing health costs that can drain a

lifetime of savings in a very short period of time. In

addition, many older Americans have seen their pensions and

retirement savings disappear as well. The result has been

that many older Americans cannot enjoy the security in their

retirement through no fault of their own. And they end up in

bankruptcy.

This legislation before the Senate actually increases the

burden on older Americans who undergo financially difficult

times through health care costs or loss of retirement income.

This administration wants to privatize Social Security. This is what they say. That is why they are opposed to it. Those who represent the children are opposed to it. The ones in the military are opposed to it. Those who represent workers are opposed to it. Those who represent women are opposed to it. The one group that is for it is the credit card companies. Take your choice. I know how I will decide.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the first piece of legislation that I will sponsor in the 109th Congress--a resolution calling on the Senate to strengthen the Pell grant program so that more families can afford higher education.

The Pell grant program is the single largest source of grant aid for postsecondary education funded by the Federal Government. It provides grants to students based on their level of financial need to support their studies at the institutions they have chosen to attend. For this fiscal year, the Pell program is funded at $12.8 billion and is estimated to serve more than 5.3 million students.

I am pleased to have Senator Feingold and Senator Coleman joining me in this bipartisan effort to marshal additional Federal resources for the Pell program. They each have been a leader in the effort to expand access to higher education.

Our system of higher education is in many ways the envy of the world, but its benefits have not been equally available. Unfortunately, it is still the case that one of the most determinative factors of whether students will pursue higher education is their family income. Students from families with incomes above $75,000 are more than twice as likely to attend college as students from families with incomes of less that $25,000.

Even more unsettling are studies demonstrating the negative effect of unmet financial need on college attendance for even the most academically prepared students. Among the most highly qualified high school students, those from low-income families were 43 percent less likely to attend college than their wealthier counterparts.

To help remedy these inequities, the Federal Government has wisely invested in a need-based system of student financial aid designed to help remove the economic barriers to higher education. Central to this effort over the past 30 years has been the Pell grant program. This program was designed as the cornerstone of Federal student assistance.

Unfortunately, the purchasing power of the Pell grant has been significantly eroded in recent years, forcing students to rely increasingly on loans to finance their higher education. In 1975, the maximum Pell grant covered approximately 80 percent of the costs of attending a public, 4-year institution. Today, it covers less than half of these costs, forcing students to make up the difference by taking on larger and larger amounts of debt. On average, students from the University of Maine graduate with approximately $18,000 in debt from Federal student loans alone, and this reflects national trends. As startling as this figure is, it does not include additional indebtedness that many students incur through private loans or credit card debt to finance their education.

The decline in the value of grant aid and the growing reliance on loans bring other negative consequences. The staggering amount of loans can force some students to abandon their plans to attend college altogether. According to the College Board, low-income families are significantly less willing, by almost 50 percent, to finance a college education through borrowed money than their wealthier counterparts.

That does not surprise me. Many working families in Maine are committed to living within their means. Understandably, they are extremely wary of the staggering amount of debt that is now required to finance a college education.

I also know this to be true from my experiences as a college administrator at Husson College in Maine. At Husson, 85 to 90 percent of students currently receive some sort of Federal financial aid, and approximately 60 percent of students receive Pell grants.

As Linda Conant, the financial aid director at Husson told me, ``You cannot imagine how difficult it is to sit with a family and to explain to them the amount of loans that are needed to finance a post-secondary degree. It

scares them. That is why Pell grant aid is so important for low-income families. For these families, loans don't always work, but Pell does.''

I also heard from Judy Kenney from Northern Maine about the importance of Pell grants. Judy lives in Castle Hill, not far from my home town of Caribou. Her daughter and son both were able to attend college with the help of Pell grants. As she told me, ``At the time, my husband Maylen was farming and having a rough go of it and I was a teacher and didn't make much. But the Pell grants my children received made it possible for them to graduate, one from the University of New England and one from Thomas College. Without these grants, they couldn't have finished and now they are making good wages and paying taxes!''

Judy couldn't be more right on both counts. Not only can the typical bachelor's degree recipient expect to earn about 73 percent more over a lifetime than a high school graduate, they also typically contribute 100 percent more in Federal income taxes than the average high school graduate. So this is truly a Federal investment that pays for itself over the long run.

We also know that having a well-educated workforce is crucial to our economic future and competitiveness in the global economy. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has projected that over the next 10 years, there will be significant growth in jobs requiring at least some post- secondary education. So increasingly, higher education is going to be necessary to ensure employability and to prepare Americans to participate in tomorrow's economy.

Pell grants make the difference in whether students have access to higher education, and a chance to participate fully in the American dream. That is why today I am introducing a resolution calling on the Senate to begin restoring the value of the Pell grant program.

This resolution calls on the Senate to raise the Pell maximum grant award to $4,500, a $450 increase in a single year. This increase is long overdue. The maximum grant award has been essentially level-funded for 4 straight years--at $4,050 for the past 3 years and only a $50 increase in FY 2002.

During these 4 years, think of the students who might have entered college and graduated with a degree, if only they had received additional Pell grant aid. Pell grants are targeted to the neediest of students--recipients have a median family income of only $15,200. An additional $450 in Pell grant aid may very well be the deciding factor on whether these students can pursue their college dreams.

The resolution also calls on the Senate to amend the Higher Education Act to provide higher authorization levels for the Pell maximum grant that would allow for a doubling of the maximum grant to $9,000 over the next 5 years. This is an ambitious goal but a worthy one for a nation that understands the opportunities that a college education brings.

As my colleagues know, the Higher Education Act is expected to be reauthorized this year. As the Senate HELP Committee considers the reauthorization, it is my hope that this resolution will prompt a discussion about the need for the maximum grant to grow.

I know that my good friends Senator Enzi, the new chairman of the Senate HELP Committee; Senator Kennedy, the ranking member; Senator Alexander, the chairman of the new Education and Early Childhood Development Subcommittee; and his Democratic counterpart will all work hard with other committee members to produce a strong reauthorization bill. I look forward to working with them further; they are all champions of ensuring greater access to quality education for all Americans, regardless of their financial means.

The President also has recently announced his intention to include a proposal in his 2006 budget request to eliminate the Pell shortfall and to provide an increase in the maximum grant of $100 for each of the next 5 years. I commend the President for focusing on Pell grants, and I hope that we can work together to provide a more substantial increase for the maximum grant for the upcoming year. An increase of approximately $100 for each of the next 5 years will not be enough to increase the purchasing power of Pell grants and will not keep pace with inflation or rising tuition costs. For 2004-2005, the average costs of tuition and fees for a public, 4-year institution rose by over 10 percent.

I will ask unanimous consent to have a letter of support for my legislation printed in the Record. This letter is from the Student Aid Alliance, a coalition of more than 60 organizations representing students, colleges and universities. Founded by the American Council on Education and the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, the Student Aid Alliance includes members such as the American Association of Community Colleges, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, and the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, to name just a few. I am pleased to have their support.

Mr. President, now is the time for us to make a commitment to raising the Pell maximum award to $4,500 for the upcoming award year. The Pell grant program is the foundation of making good on the American promise of access to higher education. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution.

I ask unanimous consent to have the letter to which I referred printed in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in an effort to bring attention to the insufficient policies that this nation has levied toward our veterans. The great sacrifices made by our military personnel should be acknowledged, at the very least, through a secure retirement. Yet time and again, the rhetoric presented by Members of Congress does not match the policies that are created.

It is imperative that we address the needs of veterans through real proposals that will be flexible and hold up against the course of time, as opposed to short-term fixes. I believe that we can provide military retirees with the degree of support that is reasonable in light of the sacrifices that they have made in service to this nation.

This belief is reflected in a measure adopted by the Texas State Senate on May 15, 2006. Texas Senate Resolution No. 9 (S.R. 9), which was authored by Texas State Senator Leticia Van de Putte, urges Congress to address problems in the Department of Veterans Affairs and to enact legislation that assures predictable and adequate funding of the Veterans Health Administration.

I would like to submit the text of S.R. 9 to the Congressional Record so that we in the Federal Government might be reminded of our duty to provide appropriate services to the men and women of our military who have served our nation so proudly. I am hopeful that we can make the needs of veterans a greater priority and that we will thusly adopt policies that recognize the profound commitment and steadfast courage our military personnel demonstrate every day.

Texas Senate Resolution No. 9

Whereas, military veterans who have served their country

honorably and who were promised and have earned health care

and benefits from the Federal Government through the

Department of Veterans Affairs are now in need of these

benefits; and

Whereas, the funding of the health care programs of the

Veterans Health Administration of the Department of Veterans

Affairs has failed to reflect the admission of newly eligible

veterans in the wake of the Veterans' Health Care

Eligibility Reform Act of 1996 and has fallen short of the

amount needed to counter soaring medical care inflation,

resulting in a funding shortfall of at least $10 billion;

and

Whereas, the current discretionary method of funding the

health care programs of the Veterans Health Administration is

uncertain and is subject annually to the whims and competing

priorities of Congress, to the detriment of the veterans

being served; and

Whereas, the Vietnam Veterans of America organization

supports the adoption of a new funding mechanism for the

health care programs of the Veterans Health Administration

that is indexed to medical inflation and the per capita use

of the administration's health care system; and

Whereas, the substantial delay in adjudicating veterans'

claims for service-connected disability compensation is the

cause of much anguish and anger among veterans and is the

result of a lack of funding of the Veterans Benefits

Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs, which

has led to an insufficient number of adjudicators and the

inadequate training and supervision of adjudicators; and

Whereas, while the vast majority of Department of Veterans

Affairs employees are dedicated to serving veterans, it is

necessary to ensure that employee accountability standards be

strengthened at senior and junior levels; and

Whereas, while more than five million veterans use the

Veterans Health Administration of the Department of Veterans

Affairs for their health care needs, tens of thousands more

are eligible for benefits of which they are unaware due to

inadequate outreach efforts by the department; now,

therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate of the State of Texas, 79th

Legislature, 3rd Called Session, hereby respectfully urge the

Congress of the United States to address problems in the

Department of Veterans Affairs related to the provision of

health care and benefits, the adjudication of claims,

accountability, and outreach and to enact legislation that

creates an appropriation formula that ensures predictable and

adequate funding of the health care programs of the Veterans

Health Administration; and, be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate forward official

copies of this Resolution to the Secretary of Veterans

Affairs, the President of the United States, the President of

the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives of the

United States Congress, and all members of the Texas

delegation to the Congress with the request that this

Resolution be officially entered in the Congressional Record

as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of

America.