Floor Statements

Mr. President, today in Iraq we sadly find ourselves at the very point I feared when I opposed giving the President the open- ended authority to wage this war in 2002, an occupation of undetermined length and undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences in the midst of a country torn by civil war.

The American people have waited. The American people have been patient. We have given chance after chance for a resolution that has not come and, more importantly, watched with horror and grief at the tragic loss of thousands of brave young American soldiers.

The time for waiting in Iraq is over. The days of our open-ended commitment must come to a close. The need to bring this war to an end is here.

That is why today I am introducing the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007. This plan would not only place a cap on the number of troops in Iraq and stop the escalation; more importantly, it would begin a phased redeployment of United States forces with the goal of removing all United States combat forces from Iraq by March 31, 2008, consistent with the expectations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that the President has so assiduously ignored.

The redeployment of troops to the United States, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the region would begin no later than May 1 of this year, toward the end of the timeframe I first proposed in a speech more than 2 months ago.

In a civil war where no military solution exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi Government to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions, that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability. My plan allows for a limited number of United States troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counterterrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.

If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the 13 benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush administration itself, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have actually been met and that the suspension is in the national security interest of the United States.

The United States military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq. Our troops have done all we have asked them to do and more, but no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war, nor settle the grievances in the hearts of the combatants.

It is my firm belief that the responsible course of action for the United States, for Iraq and for our troops, is to oppose this reckless escalation and to pursue a new policy. This policy I have laid out is consistent with what I have advocated for well over a year, with many of the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and with what the American people demanded in the November election.

When it comes to the war in Iraq, the time for promises and assurances, for waiting and for patience, is over. Too many lives have been lost and too many billions of dollars have been spent for us to trust the President on another tired and failed policy that is opposed by generals and experts, Democrats and Republicans, Americans, and many of the Iraqis themselves.

It is time for us to fundamentally change our policy. It is time to give the Iraqis back their country. And it is time to refocus America's efforts on the challenges we face at home and the wider struggle against terror yet to be won.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, there are countless reasons that the American people have lost confidence in the President's Iraq policy, but chief among them has been the Administration's insistence on making promises and assurances about progress and victory that have no basis whatsoever in the reality of the facts on the ground.

We have been told that we would be greeted as liberators. We have been promised that the insurgency was in its last throes. We have been assured again and again that we were making progress, that the Iraqis would soon stand up, that our brave sons and daughters could soon stand down. We have been asked to wait, and asked to be patient, and asked to give the President and the new Iraqi government six more months, and then six more months after that, and then six more months after that.

Despite all of this, a change of course still seemed possible. Back in November, the American people had voted for a new direction in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld was on his way out at the Pentagon. The Iraq Study Group was poised to offer a bipartisan consensus. The President was conducting his own review. After years of missteps and mistakes, it was time for a responsible policy grounded in reality, not ideology.

Instead, the President ignored the counsel of expert civilians and experienced soldiers, the hard-won consensus of prominent Republicans and Democrats, and the clear will of the American people.

The President's decision to move forward with this escalation anyway, despite all evidence and military advice to the contrary, is the terrible consequence of the decision to give him the broad, open-ended authority to wage this war in 2002. Over four years later, we cannot revisit that decision or reverse its outcome, but we can do what we didn't back then and refuse to give this President more open-ended authority for this war.

The U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq. Our troops have done all we have asked them to do and more. But no quantity of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war, nor settle the grievances in the hearts of the combatants.

I cannot in good conscience support this escalation. As the President's own military commanders have said, escalation only prevents the Iraqis from taking more responsibility for their own future. It's even eroding our efforts in the wider war on terror, as some of the extra soldiers could come directly from Afghanistan, where the Taliban has become resurgent.

The course the President is pursuing fails to recognize the fundamental reality that the solution to the violence in Iraq is political, not military. He has offered no evidence that more U.S. troops will be able to pressure Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds towards the necessary political settlement, and he's attached no conditions or consequences to his plan should the Iraqis fail to make progress.

In fact, just a few weeks ago, when I repeatedly asked Secretary Rice what would happen if the Iraqi government failed to meet the benchmarks that the Administration has called for, she could not give me an answer. When I asked her if there were any circumstances whatsoever in which we would tell the Iraqis that their failure to make progress would mean the end of our military commitment, she still could not give me an answer.

This is not good enough. When you ask how many more months and how many more lives it will take to end a policy that everyone knows has failed, ``I don't know'' isn't good enough.

Over the past four years, we have given this Administration chance after chance to get this right, and they have disappointed us so many times. That is why Congress now has the duty to prevent even more mistakes. Today, I am introducing legislation that rejects this policy of escalation, and implements a comprehensive approach that will promote stability in Iraq, protect our interests in the region, and bring this war to a responsible end.

My legislation essentially puts into law the speech I gave in November, 2006, and is, I believe, the best strategy for going forward.

The bill implements--with the force of law--a responsible redeployment of our forces out of Iraq, not a precipitous withdrawal. It implements key recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. It applies real leverage on the Iraqis to reach the political solution necessary to end the sectarian violence that is tearing Iraq apart. It holds the Iraqi government accountable, making continued U.S. support conditional on concrete Iraqi progress. It respects the role of military commanders, while fulfilling Congress's responsibility to uphold the Constitution and heed the will of the American people.

First, this legislation caps the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the number in Iraq on January 10, 2007--the day the President gave his ``surge speech'' to the nation. This cap could not be lifted without explicit authorization by the Congress.

Yet our responsibilities to the American people and to our servicemen and women go beyond opposing this ill-conceived escalation. We must fashion a comprehensive strategy to accomplish what the President's surge fails to do: pressure the Iraqi government to reach a political settlement, protect our interests in the region, and bring this war to a responsible end.

That is why my legislation commences a phased redeployment of U.S. troops to begin on May 1, 2007 with a goal of having all combat brigades out of Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group. The legislation provides exceptions for force protection, counterterrorism, and training of Iraqi security forces.

To press the Iraqi government to act, this drawdown can be suspended for 90-day periods if the President certifies and the Congress agrees that the Iraqi government is meeting specific benchmarks and the suspension is in the national security interests of the United States. These benchmarks include: Meeting security responsibilities. The Iraqi government must deploy brigades it promised to Baghdad, lift restrictions on the operations of the U.S. military, and make significant progress toward assuming full responsibility for the security of Iraq's provinces. Cracking down on sectarian violence. The Iraqi government must make significant progress toward reducing the size and influence of sectarian militias, and the presence of militia elements within the Iraqi Security Forces. Advancing national reconciliation. The Iraqi government must pass legislation to share oil revenues equitably; revise de-Baathification to enable more Iraqis to return to government service; hold provisional elections by the end of the year; and amend the Constitution in a manner that sustains reconciliation. Making economic progress. The Iraqi government must make available at least $10,000,000,000 for reconstruction, job creation, and economic development as it has promised to do. The allocation of these resources, the provision of services, and the administration of Iraqi Ministries must not proceed on a sectarian basis.

These benchmarks reflect actions proposed by the President and promised by the Iraqi government. It is time to hold them accountable.

Recognizing that the President has not been straightforward with the American people about the war in Iraq, my legislation allows the Congress--under expedited procedures--to overrule a Presidential certification and continue the redeployment.

Time and again, we have seen deadlines for Iraqi actions come and go--with no consequences. Time and again we have heard pledges of progress from the administration--followed by a descent into chaos. The commitment of U.S. troops to Iraq represents our best leverage to press the Iraqis to act. And the further commitment of U.S. economic assistance to the Government of Iraq must be conditional on Iraqi action.

As the U.S. drawdown proceeds, my legislation outlines how U.S. troops

should be redeployed back to the United States and to other points in the region. In the region, we need to maintain a substantial over-the- horizon force to prevent the conflict in Iraq from becoming a wider war, to reassure our allies, and to protect our interests. And we should redeploy forces to Afghanistan, so we not just echo--but answer--NATO's call for more troops in this critical fight against terrorism.

Within Iraq, we may need to maintain a residual troop presence to protect U.S. personnel and facilities, go after international terrorists, and continue training efforts. My legislation allows for these critical but narrow exceptions as the redeployment proceeds and is ultimately completed.

My legislation makes it U.S. policy to undertake a comprehensive diplomatic strategy to promote a political solution within Iraq, and to prevent wider regional strife. This diplomatic effort must include our friends in the region, but it should also include Syria and Iran, who need to be part of the conversation about stabilizing Iraq. Not talking is getting us nowhere. Not talking is not making us more secure, nor is it weakening our adversaries.

The President should appoint a special envoy with responsibility to implement this regional engagement. And as we go forward, we must make it clear that redeployment does not mean disengagement from the region. On the contrary, it is time for a more comprehensive engagement that skillfully uses all tools of American power.

Finally, my legislation compels the President to formulate a strategy to prevent the war in Iraq from becoming a wider conflagration.

Let me conclude by saying that there are no good options in Iraq. We cannot undo the mistake of that congressional authorization, or the tragedies of the last four years.

Just as I have been constant in my strong opposition to this war, I have consistently believed that opposition must be responsible. As reckless as we were in getting into Iraq, we have to be as careful getting out. We have significant strategic interests in Iraq and the region. We have a humanitarian responsibility to help the Iraqi people. Above all, we have an obligation to support our courageous men and women in uniform--and their families back home--who have sacrificed beyond measure.

It is my firm belief that the responsible course of action--for the United States, for Iraq, and for our troops--is to oppose this reckless escalation and to pursue a new policy. This policy is consistent with what I have advocated for well over a year, with many of the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and with what the American people demanded in November.

When it comes to the war in Iraq, the time for promises and assurances, for waiting and patience, is over. Too many lives have been lost and too many billions have been spent for us to trust the President on another tried and failed policy opposed by generals and experts, Democrats and Republicans, Americans and even the Iraqis themselves. It is time to change our policy. It is time to give Iraqis their country back. And it is time to refocus America's efforts on the wider struggle against terror yet to be won.

Mr. President, there are countless reasons that the American people have lost confidence in the President's Iraq policy, but chief among them has been the Administration's insistence on making promises and assurances about progress and victory that have no basis whatsoever in the reality of the facts on the ground.

We have been told that we would be greeted as liberators. We have been promised that the insurgency was in its last throes. We have been assured again and again that we were making progress, that the Iraqis would soon stand up, that our brave sons and daughters could soon stand down. We have been asked to wait, and asked to be patient, and asked to give the President and the new Iraqi government six more months, and then six more months after that, and then six more months after that.

Despite all of this, a change of course still seemed possible. Back in November, the American people had voted for a new direction in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld was on his way out at the Pentagon. The Iraq Study Group was poised to offer a bipartisan consensus. The President was conducting his own review. After years of missteps and mistakes, it was time for a responsible policy grounded in reality, not ideology.

Instead, the President ignored the counsel of expert civilians and experienced soldiers, the hard-won consensus of prominent Republicans and Democrats, and the clear will of the American people.

The President's decision to move forward with this escalation anyway, despite all evidence and military advice to the contrary, is the terrible consequence of the decision to give him the broad, open-ended authority to wage this war in 2002. Over four years later, we cannot revisit that decision or reverse its outcome, but we can do what we didn't back then and refuse to give this President more open-ended authority for this war.

The U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq. Our troops have done all we have asked them to do and more. But no quantity of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war, nor settle the grievances in the hearts of the combatants.

I cannot in good conscience support this escalation. As the President's own military commanders have said, escalation only prevents the Iraqis from taking more responsibility for their own future. It's even eroding our efforts in the wider war on terror, as some of the extra soldiers could come directly from Afghanistan, where the Taliban has become resurgent.

The course the President is pursuing fails to recognize the fundamental reality that the solution to the violence in Iraq is political, not military. He has offered no evidence that more U.S. troops will be able to pressure Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds towards the necessary political settlement, and he's attached no conditions or consequences to his plan should the Iraqis fail to make progress.

In fact, just a few weeks ago, when I repeatedly asked Secretary Rice what would happen if the Iraqi government failed to meet the benchmarks that the Administration has called for, she could not give me an answer. When I asked her if there were any circumstances whatsoever in which we would tell the Iraqis that their failure to make progress would mean the end of our military commitment, she still could not give me an answer.

This is not good enough. When you ask how many more months and how many more lives it will take to end a policy that everyone knows has failed, ``I don't know'' isn't good enough.

Over the past four years, we have given this Administration chance after chance to get this right, and they have disappointed us so many times. That is why Congress now has the duty to prevent even more mistakes. Today, I am introducing legislation that rejects this policy of escalation, and implements a comprehensive approach that will promote stability in Iraq, protect our interests in the region, and bring this war to a responsible end.

My legislation essentially puts into law the speech I gave in November, 2006, and is, I believe, the best strategy for going forward.

The bill implements--with the force of law--a responsible redeployment of our forces out of Iraq, not a precipitous withdrawal. It implements key recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. It applies real leverage on the Iraqis to reach the political solution necessary to end the sectarian violence that is tearing Iraq apart. It holds the Iraqi government accountable, making continued U.S. support conditional on concrete Iraqi progress. It respects the role of military commanders, while fulfilling Congress's responsibility to uphold the Constitution and heed the will of the American people.

First, this legislation caps the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the number in Iraq on January 10, 2007--the day the President gave his ``surge speech'' to the nation. This cap could not be lifted without explicit authorization by the Congress.

Yet our responsibilities to the American people and to our servicemen and women go beyond opposing this ill-conceived escalation. We must fashion a comprehensive strategy to accomplish what the President's surge fails to do: pressure the Iraqi government to reach a political settlement, protect our interests in the region, and bring this war to a responsible end.

That is why my legislation commences a phased redeployment of U.S. troops to begin on May 1, 2007 with a goal of having all combat brigades out of Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group. The legislation provides exceptions for force protection, counterterrorism, and training of Iraqi security forces.

To press the Iraqi government to act, this drawdown can be suspended for 90-day periods if the President certifies and the Congress agrees that the Iraqi government is meeting specific benchmarks and the suspension is in the national security interests of the United States. These benchmarks include: Meeting security responsibilities. The Iraqi government must deploy brigades it promised to Baghdad, lift restrictions on the operations of the U.S. military, and make significant progress toward assuming full responsibility for the security of Iraq's provinces. Cracking down on sectarian violence. The Iraqi government must make significant progress toward reducing the size and influence of sectarian militias, and the presence of militia elements within the Iraqi Security Forces. Advancing national reconciliation. The Iraqi government must pass legislation to share oil revenues equitably; revise de-Baathification to enable more Iraqis to return to government service; hold provisional elections by the end of the year; and amend the Constitution in a manner that sustains reconciliation. Making economic progress. The Iraqi government must make available at least $10,000,000,000 for reconstruction, job creation, and economic development as it has promised to do. The allocation of these resources, the provision of services, and the administration of Iraqi Ministries must not proceed on a sectarian basis.

These benchmarks reflect actions proposed by the President and promised by the Iraqi government. It is time to hold them accountable.

Recognizing that the President has not been straightforward with the American people about the war in Iraq, my legislation allows the Congress--under expedited procedures--to overrule a Presidential certification and continue the redeployment.

Time and again, we have seen deadlines for Iraqi actions come and go--with no consequences. Time and again we have heard pledges of progress from the administration--followed by a descent into chaos. The commitment of U.S. troops to Iraq represents our best leverage to press the Iraqis to act. And the further commitment of U.S. economic assistance to the Government of Iraq must be conditional on Iraqi action.

As the U.S. drawdown proceeds, my legislation outlines how U.S. troops

should be redeployed back to the United States and to other points in the region. In the region, we need to maintain a substantial over-the- horizon force to prevent the conflict in Iraq from becoming a wider war, to reassure our allies, and to protect our interests. And we should redeploy forces to Afghanistan, so we not just echo--but answer--NATO's call for more troops in this critical fight against terrorism.

Within Iraq, we may need to maintain a residual troop presence to protect U.S. personnel and facilities, go after international terrorists, and continue training efforts. My legislation allows for these critical but narrow exceptions as the redeployment proceeds and is ultimately completed.

My legislation makes it U.S. policy to undertake a comprehensive diplomatic strategy to promote a political solution within Iraq, and to prevent wider regional strife. This diplomatic effort must include our friends in the region, but it should also include Syria and Iran, who need to be part of the conversation about stabilizing Iraq. Not talking is getting us nowhere. Not talking is not making us more secure, nor is it weakening our adversaries.

The President should appoint a special envoy with responsibility to implement this regional engagement. And as we go forward, we must make it clear that redeployment does not mean disengagement from the region. On the contrary, it is time for a more comprehensive engagement that skillfully uses all tools of American power.

Finally, my legislation compels the President to formulate a strategy to prevent the war in Iraq from becoming a wider conflagration.

Let me conclude by saying that there are no good options in Iraq. We cannot undo the mistake of that congressional authorization, or the tragedies of the last four years.

Just as I have been constant in my strong opposition to this war, I have consistently believed that opposition must be responsible. As reckless as we were in getting into Iraq, we have to be as careful getting out. We have significant strategic interests in Iraq and the region. We have a humanitarian responsibility to help the Iraqi people. Above all, we have an obligation to support our courageous men and women in uniform--and their families back home--who have sacrificed beyond measure.

It is my firm belief that the responsible course of action--for the United States, for Iraq, and for our troops--is to oppose this reckless escalation and to pursue a new policy. This policy is consistent with what I have advocated for well over a year, with many of the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and with what the American people demanded in November.

When it comes to the war in Iraq, the time for promises and assurances, for waiting and patience, is over. Too many lives have been lost and too many billions have been spent for us to trust the President on another tried and failed policy opposed by generals and experts, Democrats and Republicans, Americans and even the Iraqis themselves. It is time to change our policy. It is time to give Iraqis their country back. And it is time to refocus America's efforts on the wider struggle against terror yet to be won.

Mr. President, since coming to the Senate two years ago, I have worked to fulfill pledges I made during my campaign. The first piece of legislation I introduced, the HOPE Act, addressed my pledge to make college more affordable. The HOPE Act arose from what I heard when meeting people across Illinois during my Senate campaign, and what I now continue to hear from students and families across the Nation.

The dreams of our Nation's youth increasingly require a college diploma, but that diploma is becoming, for many, ever more difficult to attain. That difficulty arises not from lack of ambition or aptitude, but from lack of any realistic way for many American families to afford the requisite college education.

This difficulty impacts not only the dreams of millions of students, but also the wellbeing of our Nation. Competition in the global economy requires the attainment of a college degree, in order to create and strengthen the innovative and flexible workforce America needs.

But as college costs increase, financial aid lags. The College Board reports that over the most recent five-year period, the cost of tuition and fees at public four-year colleges jumped 35 percent, even adjusting for inflation. Over that same five-year period, the maximum award offered by the Federal Government through Pell grants increased little. As a result, the proportion of college expenses met by Pell Grants decreased from 42 percent to 33 percent over that five-year period. At the same time, we see that qualified high school graduates from low- and moderate-income families are much less likely to earn that college degree than their wealthier peers.

That is why I am pleased to support Senator Kennedy as he introduces the Student Debt Relief Act. Not only does it substantially increase Federal support for the Pell Grant, it also takes other steps to make college more affordable. The Act proposes to cut student loan interest rates, to make loan reconsolidation more feasible for many students, and to cap the amount of monthly loan payments for graduates who enter public service careers.

These measures require a major investment. I believe we must continue to support qualified students who deserve the opportunity to turn their dreams into reality. I will continue to work to increase support for our students though the Pell Grant Program, and other measure that make a college degree attainable for many. This remains a priority for me, and I ask all my colleagues to join in this effort.

Mr. President, since coming to the Senate two years ago, I have worked to fulfill pledges I made during my campaign. The first piece of legislation I introduced, the HOPE Act, addressed my pledge to make college more affordable. The HOPE Act arose from what I heard when meeting people across Illinois during my Senate campaign, and what I now continue to hear from students and families across the Nation.

The dreams of our Nation's youth increasingly require a college diploma, but that diploma is becoming, for many, ever more difficult to attain. That difficulty arises not from lack of ambition or aptitude, but from lack of any realistic way for many American families to afford the requisite college education.

This difficulty impacts not only the dreams of millions of students, but also the wellbeing of our Nation. Competition in the global economy requires the attainment of a college degree, in order to create and strengthen the innovative and flexible workforce America needs.

But as college costs increase, financial aid lags. The College Board reports that over the most recent five-year period, the cost of tuition and fees at public four-year colleges jumped 35 percent, even adjusting for inflation. Over that same five-year period, the maximum award offered by the Federal Government through Pell grants increased little. As a result, the proportion of college expenses met by Pell Grants decreased from 42 percent to 33 percent over that five-year period. At the same time, we see that qualified high school graduates from low- and moderate-income families are much less likely to earn that college degree than their wealthier peers.

That is why I am pleased to support Senator Kennedy as he introduces the Student Debt Relief Act. Not only does it substantially increase Federal support for the Pell Grant, it also takes other steps to make college more affordable. The Act proposes to cut student loan interest rates, to make loan reconsolidation more feasible for many students, and to cap the amount of monthly loan payments for graduates who enter public service careers.

These measures require a major investment. I believe we must continue to support qualified students who deserve the opportunity to turn their dreams into reality. I will continue to work to increase support for our students though the Pell Grant Program, and other measure that make a college degree attainable for many. This remains a priority for me, and I ask all my colleagues to join in this effort.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly on what is a roiling debate not only in the Senate but across the country and that is the President's policy with respect to Iraq. There are countless reasons the American people have lost confidence in the President's Iraq policy, but chief among them has been the administration's insistence on making promises and assurances about progress and victory that do not appear to be grounded in the reality of the facts. We have been told we would be greeted as liberators. We have been promised the insurgency was in its last throes. We have been assured again and again that we are making progress and that the Iraqis would soon stand up so we could stand down and our brave sons and daughters could start coming home. We have been asked to wait, we have been asked to be patient, and we have been asked to give the President and the new Iraqi Government 6 more months and then 6 more months after that and then 6 more months after that.

Now, after the loss of more than 3,000 American lives, after spending almost $400 billion after Iraq has descended into civil war, we have been promised, once again, that the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq will, this time, be well planned, well coordinated, and well supported by the Iraqi Government. This time, we didn't have to wait to find out that none of this seems to be the case. Already, American military officials have told the New York Times that there is no clear chain of command between Iraqis and U.S. commanders and no real indication that the Iraqis even want such a partnership. Yesterday, Prime Minister al-Maliki, the person whom the President said had brought this plan to us, the man who is supposed to be our partner in chief for this new plan, told foreign journalists that if the United States would only give his Army better weapons and equipment, our soldiers could go home.

The President's decision to move forward with this escalation anyway, despite all evidence and military advice to the contrary, is the terrible consequence of the decision to give him the broad, open-ended authority to wage this war back in 2002. Over 4 years later, we can't revisit that decision or reverse some of the tragic outcomes, but what we can do is make sure we provide the kind of oversight and constraints on the President this time that we failed to do the last time.

I cannot in good conscience support this escalation. It is a policy which has already been tried and a policy which has failed. Just this morning, I had veterans of the Iraq war visit my office to explain to me that this surge concept is, in fact, no different from what we have repeatedly tried, but with 20,000 troops we will not in any imaginable way be able to accomplish any new progress.

The fact is that we have tried this road before. In the end, no amount of American forces can solve the political differences that lie at the heart of somebody else's civil war. As the President's own military commanders have said, escalation only prevents the Iraqis from taking more responsibility for their own future. It is even eroding our efforts in the wider war on terror as some of the extra soldiers will come directly from Afghanistan where the Taliban has become resurgent.

The President has offered no evidence that more U.S. troops will be able to pressure Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds toward the necessary political settlement, and he has attached no consequences to his plan should the Iraqis fail to make progress. In fact, just last week, when I repeatedly asked Secretary Rice what would happen if the Iraqi Government failed to meet the benchmarks the President has called for and says are an integral part of their rationale for escalation, she couldn't give me an answer. When I asked her if there were any circumstances whatsoever in which we would tell the Iraqis that their failure to make progress means the end of our military commitment, she could not give me an answer. This is simply not good enough. When you ask how many more months and how many more dollars and how many more lives it will take to end the policy that everyone now knows has not succeeded, ``I don't know'' isn't good enough.

Over the past 4 years, we have given this administration every chance to get this right, and they have disappointed us many times. But ultimately it is our brave men and women in uniform and their families who bear the greatest burden for these mistakes. They have performed in an exemplary fashion. At no stage have they faltered in the mission that has been presented to them.

Unfortunately, the strategy, the tactics, and the mission itself have been flawed. That is why Congress now has the duty to prevent even more mistakes and bring this war to a responsible end. That is why I plan to introduce legislation which I believe will stop the escalation of this war by placing a cap on the number of soldiers in Iraq. I wish to emphasize that I am not unique in taking this approach. I know Senator Dodd has crafted similar legislation. Senator Clinton, I believe, yesterday indicated she shared similar views. The cap would not affect the

money spent on the war or on our troops, but it would write into law that the number of U.S. forces in Iraq should not exceed the number that were there on January 10, 2007, the day the President announced his escalation policy.

This measure would stop the escalation of the war in Iraq, but it is my belief that simply opposing the surge is not good enough. If we truly believe the only solution in Iraq is a political one--and I fervently believe that--if we believe a phased redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq is the best--perhaps only--leverage we have to force a settlement between the country's warring factions, then we should act on that. That is why the second part of my legislation is a plan for phased redeployment that I called for in a speech in Chicago 2 months ago. It is a responsible plan that protects American troops without causing Iraq to suddenly descend into chaos. The President must announce to the Iraqi people that, within 2 to 4 months, under this plan, U.S. policy will include a gradual and substantial reduction in U.S. forces. The President should then work with our military commanders to map out the best plan for such a redeployment and determine precise levels and dates.

Drawing down our troops in Iraq will put pressure on Iraqis to arrive at the political settlement that is needed and allow us to redeploy additional troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region, as well as bring some back home. The forces redeployed elsewhere in the region could then help to prevent the conflict in Iraq from becoming a wider war, something that every international observer is beginning to worry about. It will also reassure our allies in the gulf. It will allow our troops to strike directly at al-Qaida wherever it may exist and demonstrate to international terrorist organizations that they have not driven us from the region.

My plan would couple this phased redeployment with an enhanced effort to train Iraqi security forces and would expand the number of our personnel--especially special forces--who are deployed with Iraqis as unit advisers and would finally link continued economic aid in Iraq with the existence of tangible progress toward reducing sectarian violence and reaching a political settlement.

One final aspect of this plan that I believe is critical is it would call for the engagement by the United States of a regional conference with other countries that are involved in the Middle East--particularly our allies but including Syria and Iran--to find a solution to the war in Iraq. We have to realize that neither Iran nor Syria wants to see the security vacuum in Iraq filled with chaos, terrorism, refugees, and violence, as it could have a destabilizing effect throughout the entire region and within their own countries. So as odious as the behavior of those regimes may be at times, it is important that we include them in a broader conversation about how we can stabilize Iraq.

In closing, let me say this: I have been a consistent and strong opponent of this war. I have also tried to act responsibly in that opposition to ensure that, having made the decision to go into Iraq, we provide our troops, who perform valiantly, the support they need to complete their mission. I have also stated publicly that I think we have both strategic interests and humanitarian responsibilities in ensuring that Iraqi is as stable as possible under the circumstances.

Finally, I said publicly that it is my preference not to micromanage the Commander in Chief in the prosecution of war. Ultimately, I do not believe that is the ideal role for Congress to play. But at a certain point, we have to draw a line. At a certain point, the American people have to have some confidence that we are not simply going down this blind alley in perpetuity.

When it comes to the war in Iraq, the time for promises and assurances, for waiting and patience is over. Too many lives have been lost and too many billions have been spent for us to trust the President on another tried-and-failed policy, opposed by generals and experts, opposed by Democrats and Republicans, opposed by Americans and even the Iraqis themselves. It is time to change our policy. It is time to give Iraqis their country back, and it is time to refocus America's effort on the wider struggle against terror yet to be won.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to discuss the amendment I introduced with Senator Feingold to require that lobbyists disclose the contributions that they bundle for campaigns. I am grateful to the leadership for accepting the amendment and believe it strengthens an already very strong bill.

Neither I nor any of my colleagues enjoy the amount of money that running for office requires us to raise and spend. And I realize that having influential people help a campaign by asking their friends for contributions makes that task a little easier. And so I appreciate how difficult it can be for us to legislate our own behavior in this area.

But lobbyists who bundle contributions have a personal stake in the outcome of specific legislation before Congress. And because of that nexus, lobbyists should have to report who they are raising money for and the amounts that they are raising--including the contributions that they collect for campaigns from their networks of friends and colleagues.

The legislation before us today is meant to shine a bright light on how lobbyists influence the legislative process. Influence is not just about free meals or gifts or travel but about the millions upon millions of dollars raised to get us elected every few years. We should not keep the biggest role lobbyists play in that process hidden.

We all know that with strict campaign contribution limits, an important sign of a lobbyist's influence is not only how much money he gives but also how much he raises from friends and associates. During the last Presidential campaign, both candidates made great use of bundling.

For instance, the Bush Rangers each raised over $200,000; the Bush Pioneers each raised over $100,000. The Kerry campaign also relied on ``vice chairs'' who raised at least $100,000.

According to a USA Today story in 2003: ``Motives for becoming a bundler include the possibility of increased influence on government policy and consideration for appointment to ambassadorships and other government posts.''

And so if we believe that lobbyists should have to disclose campaign contributions, then they should certainly have to disclose the bundling they engage in so that the public knows the relationship between members, their views on policy, and the industries that support them.

Right now, this relationship is largely hidden from public view. So to correct this gap in the underlying bill, my amendment would require quarterly reporting of all contributions that a lobbyist collected or arranged that total more than $200 in a calendar year. This includes not only campaign contributions, but also contributions to Presidential libraries, inaugural committees, and lawmakers' charities.

The amendment has the support of all the major reform advocacy organizations, as well as congressional scholar Norm Ornstein and Thomas Susman, the chair of the Ethics Committee for the American League of Lobbyists.

According to Norm Ornstein: ``What is needed is disclosure here--who is doing the bundling, for whom, and how much. These are simple but critical steps for openness in the lobbying and money relationship. The public deserves to know--and this amendment gives them that opportunity.''

And in Professor Susman's words: ``Full disclosure of these activities, including the `bundling' of campaign contributions for a candidate, will not burden or inhibit lobbyists. Lobbyists are proud of the role that we play in helping to finance federal campaigns, and we will be just as effective if the public knows about that role as well. Senator Obama's amendment is a reasonable way to keep these activities out in the open.''

Under the amendment that Senator Feingold and I are offering, contributions are considered to be collected by a lobbyist if they are received by the lobbyist and forwarded to the campaign. Contributions are considered to be arranged by a lobbyist if there is an arrangement or understanding between the lobbyist and a campaign that the lobbyist will receive some kind of credit or recognition for having raised the money.

In discussing this proposal that I am offering, a Washington Post editorial this week said: ``No single change would add more to public understanding of how money really operates in Washington.''

This is an important addition to the bill we are considering, and I thank my colleagues for accepting it.

Amendments Nos. 9, 98, 51, 31, 33, 77, 41, 57, and 39, as Modified, En

Bloc

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I may call up amendment No. 41 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this is a supplement to what I already think is an excellent bill that has been presented by the two leaders to try to improve our processes and provide more transparency and accountability in how lobbyists interact and how we conduct ourselves in an ethical fashion.

To make it very plain, this amendment simply says that all registered Federal lobbyists would have to disclose not only the contributions they make but also the contributions they have solicited and bundled. It applies only to registered lobbyists. It has strong support on a bipartisan and bicameral basis. I hope we can have this amendment agreed to. I think it will make a strong bill that much stronger.

With that, I appreciate the time given to me by the Senator from Utah. I look forward to the vote.

Mr. President, more than 18 months ago I stood in this Chamber to express my support for a previous version of the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act, and to urge the support of my colleagues. On that day, I said that there are moments when we have the chance to take a new course that will leave our children a better world. However, in the interim, Congress has chosen not to act. In the interim, our Nation, and others around the world, continued to release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at increasing rates.

With each passing year, as we choose not to act, the air we breathe contains ever more carbon dioxide, resulting from our use of fossil fuels. If we continue on our present course, human endeavors could cause a rise in temperature equivalent to the change between the last ice age and today. The decisions we make now on greenhouse gas emissions will have effects in the second half of this century, and into the next. The consequences of our inaction will be devastating for our children and grandchildren, and will be even worse for the poorest global populations.

Climate change is not reflected just in the fact that last year was the warmest year on record in the United States, or in the recent proposal that polar bears be listed as an endangered species because Arctic ice is melting. Those are just symptoms. The bigger problem is that global climate change will, in this century and the next, have effects on human health, on access to water, and on production of food.

Our inaction may reflect a misunderstanding of scientific evidence, even though such evidence accumulates, year by year, showing that climate change is a global threat resulting from human activity. Perhaps our inaction betrays an uncertainty about our ability to address this problem. Or perhaps our inaction is simply a result of inertia, a lack of political will in facing a difficult problem.

Whatever the basis of our inaction, I am convinced that we must now act. Every delay makes a solution more distant, and more difficult. I am also convinced that the best solution takes the form of the Climate Stewardship Act, which addresses the real costs and consequences of our current patterns of energy use, establishing a framework for a market- based solution which relies on American will, ingenuity, and technological expertise to mitigate climate change.

This bill establishes limits for greenhouse gas emissions well into the 21st century. To remain below these limits, the bill encourages the market to determine how best to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, rewarding cost-effective approaches using a system of tradeable allowances.

Revenues generated from this program will be used to help the industries and individuals most affected by the limits. These revenues will also fund research and development of efficient energy technologies, such as green buildings, high-power batteries for hybrid cars, safer nuclear plants to generate electricity, large scale biofuels facilities, renewable sources, and advanced coal power plants that capture the carbon dioxide they generate. This program will spur American innovation, creating business opportunities as new markets are created in low-carbon technologies and services.

I am proud to join Senators Lieberman and McCain in introducing this legislation, and I urge others to join this effort. I also look forward to the support of the American people as we move together to confront the very real threat to future generations of global climate change.

Mr. President, more than 18 months ago I stood in this Chamber to express my support for a previous version of the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act, and to urge the support of my colleagues. On that day, I said that there are moments when we have the chance to take a new course that will leave our children a better world. However, in the interim, Congress has chosen not to act. In the interim, our Nation, and others around the world, continued to release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at increasing rates.

With each passing year, as we choose not to act, the air we breathe contains ever more carbon dioxide, resulting from our use of fossil fuels. If we continue on our present course, human endeavors could cause a rise in temperature equivalent to the change between the last ice age and today. The decisions we make now on greenhouse gas emissions will have effects in the second half of this century, and into the next. The consequences of our inaction will be devastating for our children and grandchildren, and will be even worse for the poorest global populations.

Climate change is not reflected just in the fact that last year was the warmest year on record in the United States, or in the recent proposal that polar bears be listed as an endangered species because Arctic ice is melting. Those are just symptoms. The bigger problem is that global climate change will, in this century and the next, have effects on human health, on access to water, and on production of food.

Our inaction may reflect a misunderstanding of scientific evidence, even though such evidence accumulates, year by year, showing that climate change is a global threat resulting from human activity. Perhaps our inaction betrays an uncertainty about our ability to address this problem. Or perhaps our inaction is simply a result of inertia, a lack of political will in facing a difficult problem.

Whatever the basis of our inaction, I am convinced that we must now act. Every delay makes a solution more distant, and more difficult. I am also convinced that the best solution takes the form of the Climate Stewardship Act, which addresses the real costs and consequences of our current patterns of energy use, establishing a framework for a market- based solution which relies on American will, ingenuity, and technological expertise to mitigate climate change.

This bill establishes limits for greenhouse gas emissions well into the 21st century. To remain below these limits, the bill encourages the market to determine how best to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, rewarding cost-effective approaches using a system of tradeable allowances.

Revenues generated from this program will be used to help the industries and individuals most affected by the limits. These revenues will also fund research and development of efficient energy technologies, such as green buildings, high-power batteries for hybrid cars, safer nuclear plants to generate electricity, large scale biofuels facilities, renewable sources, and advanced coal power plants that capture the carbon dioxide they generate. This program will spur American innovation, creating business opportunities as new markets are created in low-carbon technologies and services.

I am proud to join Senators Lieberman and McCain in introducing this legislation, and I urge others to join this effort. I also look forward to the support of the American people as we move together to confront the very real threat to future generations of global climate change.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning, in introducing this important legislation.

The geologic deposit known as Illinois Basin Coal--which lies beneath Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky--has more untapped energy potential than the combined oil reserves of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This coal deposit underlies more than 65 percent of the surface of the State of Illinois, with recoverable reserves estimated to be in excess of 38 billion tons from my State alone. Moreover, with just a glance at a map of Illinois, one can see that my State is dotted with towns that reflect our 200- year coal mining history--towns with names like Carbondale, Energy, Carbon Hill, Coal City, and Zeigler.

In some parts of Illinois, however, these names are just shadows of the past. More than 15 years ago, upon the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, coal mining in Illinois was drastically transformed. Given the high sulfur content of Illinois coal, many users switched from Illinois coal to other, lower sulfur coals mined out West. As a result, thousands of Illinois jobs vanished, and with it, the life force of many of these towns. Air quality throughout the Nation improved drastically, but vast energy resources were rendered idle, awaiting new future technologies.

Today, we are exploring those new technologies, which promise a renaissance for coal communities. Two east central Illinois towns, for example, are under consideration for the billion-dollar FutureGen project, which many of my colleagues know will be the first near zero- emissions coal-fired powerplant in the world.

But coal from the Illinois Basin, with its high energy content, is a superb feedstock not just for power generation, as promised by FutureGen, but also for the manufacture of Fischer-Tropsch--FT--fuel. Created in the 1920s by German scientists and used during World War II, the FT process is the major fuel source for vehicles in South Africa. In both nations, the production of diesels from coal was developed as a response to petroleum embargoes against those nations at various points in their history.

Meanwhile, in the United States, more than 55 percent of our fuel consumption continues to come from foreign oil, and that number is growing. Our economy is exposed to potential jeopardy from oil supply disruptions and price shocks. We must diversify our fuel supply, and that means all domestic options should be on the table for consideration.

Fischer-Tropsch fuel is interchangeable with standard diesel, functioning in existing engines with little or no modification. FT fuels can be transported in our existing fuel distribution infrastructure. Moreover, FT fuels have far lower emissions than standard diesel. The Department of Defense, the largest consumer of petroleum in the United States, has great interest in acquiring this fuel. But Fischer-Tropsch is not manufactured in the U.S., and no focused federal initiatives exist to encourage the development of a Fischer-Tropsch manufacturing base.

The bill introduced by Senator Bunning and myself will provide that Federal focus. This bill will help to create a new market for abandoned and abundant Illinois Basin coal, revitalizing economic development and jobs in the coal communities of our States. It will help develop the capital infrastructure for producing FT fuels at the levels necessary for preliminary testing by the Department of Defense and for the private sector. It will explore carbon sequestration for this technology before we can pursue construction. And it will play a key role in reducing our Nation's dependence on foreign oil.

I know that there are no perfect answers in the pursuit of energy independence. There is no single fuel or feedstock that offers affordability, reliability, transportability, and sensitivity to the environment in equal ways. But, as we pursue the best course of action for our energy independence, we cannot delay action until we reach the perfect solution. Maintaining our dependency on unstable regions of the world for the fuel that we cannot live without is far too great a risk. Actions taken today must be accompanied by rigorous concurrent debate in preparation for the second and third generation choices of our alternative fuel infrastructure.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Madam President, in November, the American people sent a clear message to their representatives in Washington. After a year in which too many scandals revealed the influence special interests have in this town, the American people told us that we better clean up our act, and we better do it fast.

But it would be a mistake if we conclude this message was intended for just one party or one politician. After all, the votes hadn't even been counted in the last election before we started hearing reports that corporations were already recruiting lobbyists with Democratic connections to carry their water in the next Congress. This is why it is not enough to just change the players; we have to change the game.

Americans put their faith in us this time around because they want us to restore their faith in Government, and that means more than window dressing when it comes to ethics reform.

I was hopeful that last year's scandals would have made it obvious to us that we need meaningful ethics legislation, but last year, despite some good efforts on this side of the aisle, the bill we ended up with, I thought, was too weak. It left too many loopholes, and it did too little to enforce the rules. It was a lost opportunity. It would not have restored the people's faith in Congress, and in that end I had no choice but to vote against it.

I don't want that to happen this time. Fortunately, the substitute amendment the majority leader, Harry Reid, has offered today brings us close to the bill that will achieve his stated goal, and that is to pass the most significant ethics and lobbying reform since Watergate. We owe the American people real reform, and if we work hard this week and next, we will get it done.

This time out, we must stop any and all practices that would lead a responsible person to believe a public servant has become indebted to a lobbyist. That means a full gift and meal ban. That means prohibiting lobbyist-funded travel that is more about playing golf than learning policy. And that means closing the revolving door to ensure that Capitol Hill service, whether as a Member of Congress or as a staffer, isn't all about lining up a high-paying lobbying job. We should not tolerate a committee chairman shepherding the Medicare prescription drug bill through Congress at the same time he is negotiating a job with the pharmaceutical industry to be their top lobbyist.

The substitute bill offered by Majority Leader Reid contains many of these reforms. I thank him for working with Senator Feingold and me in crafting this package. But in two important respects, I think we still need to go further.

First, we need to go further with respect to enforcement. I will save my remarks on this subject for a later time, but I fully support the creation of an office of public integrity, as Senators Lieberman and Collins have proposed. It is similar to the independent ethics commission I proposed last February. Regardless of what approach we adopt, we have to take politics out of the initial factfinding phase of ethics investigations, and we have to ensure sufficient transparency in the findings of those investigations so the American people can have confidence that Congress can police itself.

The second area in which we need to go further is corporate jets. Myself and Senator Feingold introduced a comprehensive ethics bill that, among other things, would close the loopholes that allow for subsidized travel on corporate jets. Today, I am very pleased to see the majority leader has offered an amendment that would serve the same purpose. I fully support him in his effort.

Let me point out that I fully understand the appeal of corporate jets. Like many of my colleagues, I traveled a good deal recently from Illinois to Washington, from Chicago to downstate, from fundraisers to political events for candidates all across the country. I realize finding a commercial flight that gets you home in time to tuck in the kids at the end of a long day can be extremely difficult. This is simply an unfortunate reality that goes along with our jobs.

Yet we have to realize these corporate jets don't simply provide a welcome convenience for us; they provide undue access for the lobbyists and corporations that offer them. These companies don't just fly us around out of the goodness of their hearts. Most of the time we have lobbyists riding along with us so they can make their company's case for a particular bill or a particular vote.

It would be one thing if Congressmen and Senators paid the full rate for these flights, but we don't. We get a discount--a big discount. Right now a flight on a corporate jet usually costs us the equivalent of a first-class ticket on a commercial airplane. But if we paid the real price, the full charter rate would cost us thousands upon thousands of dollars more.

In a recent USA Today story about use of corporate jets, it was reported that over the course of 3 days in November 2005, BellSouth's jet carried six Senators and their wives to various Republican and Democratic fundraising events in the Southeast. If they had paid the full charter rate, it would have cost the Democratic and Republican campaign committees more than $40,000. But because of the corporate jet perk, it only cost a little more than $8,000.

There is going to be a lot of talk in the coming days about how important

it is to ban free meals and fancy gifts, and I couldn't agree more, but if we are going to go ahead and call a $50 lunch unethical, I can't see why we wouldn't do the same for the $32,000 that BellSouth is offering in the form of airplane discounts. That is why I applaud Senator Reid on his amendment to require Members to pay the full charter rate for the use of corporate jets.

As I said, I understand that for many Members, these jets are an issue of convenience. They allow us to get home to our constituents, to our families, and to the events that are often necessary for our jobs. But in November, the American people told us very clearly they are tired of the influence special interest wields over the legislative process. The vast majority of Americans can't afford to buy cheap rides on corporate jets. They don't get to sit with us on 3-hour flights and talk about the heating bills they can't pay, or the health care costs that keep rising, or the taxes they can't afford, or their concerns about college tuition. They can't buy our attention, and they shouldn't have to. And the corporation lobbyists shouldn't be able to either. That is why we need to end this corporate jet perk if we are to pass real, meaningful ethics reform.

The truth is, we cannot change the way Washington works unless we first change the way Congress works. On November 7, voters gave us the chance to do this, but if we miss this opportunity to clean up our act and restore this country's faith in Government, the American people might not give us another opportunity.

I urge my colleagues to support both the substitute amendment and the Reid amendment to close the corporate jet loophole. I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to the Reid-McConnell amendment No. 3 and Reid amendment No. 4.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Child Tax Credit and to support S. 218, a bill I've worked on with Senators Snowe and Lincoln. Working families should get the tax relief they deserve, and I am proud to cosponsor this bill to help realize this aspiration. The Child Credit is an important component of our Federal tax code, and S. 218 is an important step in making the credit more valuable and more fair for those who need it most.

Raising children is expensive and has become even more so in recent years. The Child Tax Credit allows middle class families to claim a credit of $1,000 per child against their Federal income tax. That's a big help in covering these rising costs.

Importantly, the Child Credit also recognizes the particular vulnerability low-income families with children. Since the credit is refundable to the extent of 15 percent of a taxpayer's earned income in excess of $11,300, families earning more than that threshold level of income get at least a partial benefit even if they have no Federal income tax liability. The benefit may be small for families with low incomes, but every penny helps defray the rising costs of being a working parent in America today.

Unfortunately, as currently structured, the Child Credit leaves more and more families out of the benefit each year. That's because the income threshold for eligibility rises annually at the rate of inflation even though family incomes may not rise as fast. That means that if you earn the minimum wage, or if your wage is low and you didn't get a raise, or if you worked fewer hours than the year before, then your tax refund probably shrunk. It may even have disappeared. Given that an estimated four and a half million households with children experienced this decline last year alone, we must reverse this unintended--and unfair--effect.

In many cases, indexing the parameters of the tax system for inflation makes sense because it neutralizes the effects of inflation on the tax system. In this case, however, indexing the threshold results in an unfair tax increase for low-income, working families whose incomes are not keeping up with rising costs. Recent data indicates that the typical low-income household actually saw its earnings decline during the first few years ofthis decade. At the same time, the costs of housing, childcare, and driving to work have increased sharply.

This bill returns the threshold to its original level of $10,000 and freezes it, thereby expanding the benefit to include more kids and protecting those families from unfair tax increases due to inflation. This is an important step in improving the fairness of our tax code and providing necessary support to working families.

In time, I hope we will do more. It is unfair that more than eight million children in families with incomes too low to qualify for even a partial credit get no benefit at all. These are families whose incomes are far below the Federal poverty level and whose children ironically have the greatest needs--even as their parents pay an enormous share of their incomes in taxes and basic services, such as food, housing, and clothing.

America can do better. In the new Congress, I hope we will tackle the broader challenge of ensuring that their parents have jobs that pay living wages, a home they can afford, a school district that enables a life of opportunity, a community that cares for its children, and the faith that hard work and personal commitment payoff. America can do this.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill as a first step in addressing the broader goal of equal opportunity for all Americans.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Child Tax Credit and to support S. 218, a bill I've worked on with Senators Snowe and Lincoln. Working families should get the tax relief they deserve, and I am proud to cosponsor this bill to help realize this aspiration. The Child Credit is an important component of our Federal tax code, and S. 218 is an important step in making the credit more valuable and more fair for those who need it most.

Raising children is expensive and has become even more so in recent years. The Child Tax Credit allows middle class families to claim a credit of $1,000 per child against their Federal income tax. That's a big help in covering these rising costs.

Importantly, the Child Credit also recognizes the particular vulnerability low-income families with children. Since the credit is refundable to the extent of 15 percent of a taxpayer's earned income in excess of $11,300, families earning more than that threshold level of income get at least a partial benefit even if they have no Federal income tax liability. The benefit may be small for families with low incomes, but every penny helps defray the rising costs of being a working parent in America today.

Unfortunately, as currently structured, the Child Credit leaves more and more families out of the benefit each year. That's because the income threshold for eligibility rises annually at the rate of inflation even though family incomes may not rise as fast. That means that if you earn the minimum wage, or if your wage is low and you didn't get a raise, or if you worked fewer hours than the year before, then your tax refund probably shrunk. It may even have disappeared. Given that an estimated four and a half million households with children experienced this decline last year alone, we must reverse this unintended--and unfair--effect.

In many cases, indexing the parameters of the tax system for inflation makes sense because it neutralizes the effects of inflation on the tax system. In this case, however, indexing the threshold results in an unfair tax increase for low-income, working families whose incomes are not keeping up with rising costs. Recent data indicates that the typical low-income household actually saw its earnings decline during the first few years ofthis decade. At the same time, the costs of housing, childcare, and driving to work have increased sharply.

This bill returns the threshold to its original level of $10,000 and freezes it, thereby expanding the benefit to include more kids and protecting those families from unfair tax increases due to inflation. This is an important step in improving the fairness of our tax code and providing necessary support to working families.

In time, I hope we will do more. It is unfair that more than eight million children in families with incomes too low to qualify for even a partial credit get no benefit at all. These are families whose incomes are far below the Federal poverty level and whose children ironically have the greatest needs--even as their parents pay an enormous share of their incomes in taxes and basic services, such as food, housing, and clothing.

America can do better. In the new Congress, I hope we will tackle the broader challenge of ensuring that their parents have jobs that pay living wages, a home they can afford, a school district that enables a life of opportunity, a community that cares for its children, and the faith that hard work and personal commitment payoff. America can do this.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill as a first step in addressing the broader goal of equal opportunity for all Americans.