Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to recognize one of my constituents, Janet Turcotte of Bowie, Maryland. I was fortunate to meet Janet in March of this year when she visited my Washington office. She came as part of C3, the Colorectal Cancer Coalition, a group whose mission is to eliminate suffering and death due to colorectal cancer.

Janet is a talented embroiderer, and for more than 20 years she has been decorating saddlecloths for the thoroughbreds at Maryland's Pimlico Race Course. For the past 2 years, she has added the colorectal cancer ``Blue Star of Hope'' to the saddlecloths of the contenders for the Preakness Stakes at Pimlico. Recognizing that the Preakness has more than 17 million television viewers each year, Janet aims to use this symbol to encourage early screening for colorectal cancer, and to save lives. Janet graciously brought me one of those ``Blue Star'' saddlecloths, which is now displayed in my personal office.

Janet Turcotte is far more than an advocate for colorectal health. She is also a patient. First diagnosed with stage IV colorectal cancer 4 years ago, she is currently battling her third recurrence of the disease. Last week, Janet's doctors told her that she does not have much time left.

Janet's message to Congress and to all Americans is an urgent and important one. It is that early screening, diagnosis and treatment of colon cancer can save lives. The American Cancer Society, whose members will visit Capitol Hill soon, reports that in 2006, more than 150,000 new cases of colon cancer were diagnosed and more than 50,000 Americans died from the disease, including more than 1,000 Marylanders.

I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our appreciation to Janet Turcotte, a dedicated and courageous advocate for colorectal health, for her

selfless efforts to promote a healthier America.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I take this time first to thank Senator Webb for bringing forward his amendment that I strongly support. I believe it is in the best interests of our troops, their families, our military readiness, and the proper deployment of our troops.

I also thank Senator Levin and Senator Reid for their efforts in allowing us the opportunity to try to change our mission in Iraq. I believe it is not only in the best interest of the United States to do that but also the Iraqi people.

I also compliment Senator Biden for his efforts to bring forward an amendment that would give us a more realistic and achievable political game plan in Iraq. As has been recently reported, the Iraqi Government is dysfunctional, and the only way we are going to be successful in Iraq is if we can have a political solution to their problems.

On September 3, 2007, President Bush told troops at Al-Asad Air Base that the troop buildup has strengthened security--and that the military successes are ``paving the way for the political reconciliation and economic progress'' in Iraq. ``When Iraqis feel safe in their own homes and neighborhoods,'' said President Bush, ``they can focus their efforts on building a stable, civil society.''

I believe that the last part of that statement, when an Iraqi can walk into the street without fear of being attacked, blown up, or bribed, of having family harmed, his house or his business taken, when he is confident that his children will have enough food and water and be able to attend school in peace, he will be able to focus on building a more stable civil society.

But what I don't see is any independent evidence that the increased U.S. troop presence has, as promised, led to greater civilian security, let alone paved the way for political and economic success.

The 2007 emergency supplemental appropriations bill required President Bush to report to Congress and the American people in July and September on the progress Iraqis are making toward achieving certain critical benchmarks put forward by the Iraqi Government and affirmed by President Bush in his January ``New Way Forward'' speech. These were not benchmarks established by Congress. These were benchmarks established by the Iraqis, in this legislation. That same legislation asked the independent Government Accountability Office to undertake the same investigation and chartered the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq to investigate the progress those institutions are making toward independence. We now have each of those reports.

Not even President Bush claims that substantial progress toward political or economic benchmarks has occurred. As reported by his administration in July and September there has been little progress on debaathification reform, oil revenue sharing, provincial elections, or amnesty laws.

The GAO reports that the Iraqi Government has met only \1/8\ of the legislative benchmarks. The rights of minority party political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected, though the same is not true for the Iraqi population whose ``rights are often violated.''

Any prospects for further progress toward these goals have been dashed by the withdrawal of 15 of the 37 members of the Iraqi cabinet. The Congressional Research Service reported that the boycott has left ``the Iraqi Government in essential collapse.''

That is another reason why we need The Biden amendment, and more important, for us to move forward implementing a new strategy in Iraq.

Just as important, there is no independent evidence that increased troop presence has created the security necessary to foster future political and economic progress in Iraq.

The GAO reports that it is not clear whether sectarian violence has been reduced and that the average number of daily attacks aqainst civilians has remained about the same.

The August National Intelligence Estimate reports that the level of overall violence in Iraq, including attacks on and casualties among civilians, remains high and will remain high over the next 6 to 12 months.

According to figures compiled by the Associated Press, Iraqis are suffering double the number of war-related deaths throughout the country compared to this time last year.

In an August op-ed, seven non-commissioned officers wrote:

[T]he most important front in the counterinsurgency,

improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on

which we have failed most miserably. . . . Cities lack

regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. . . .

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the

streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a

death-defying act. . . . When the primary preoccupation of

average Iraqis is when and how they are likely

to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care

packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep

resignation, ``We need security, not free food.''

Even if we assume a decline in violence, in certain regions in Iraq it is far from clear that increased U.S. troops are responsible. There are over 2 million refugees that have fled Iraq.

Internally displace persons are estimated at 2 million and are increasing by 80,000 to 100,000 each month. At that rate, Washington, DC would be empty by March.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees found that 63 percent of those displaced moved because of threats to their security. Sixty-nine percent left homes in Baghdad. Baghdad is undergoing sectarian cleansing. If the death toll in a Sunni district falls because its residents have fled, the resulting reduction in violence is not attributable to increased troops, and that kind of development is not ``progress.''

The bottom line: the GAO report found the Iraqi Government has not eliminated militia control over local security or political intervention in military operations. It has not ensured evenhanded enforcement of the law or increased the number of army units capable of independent operations.

Are Iraqis more secure? For me, the 100,000 people fleeing their homes each month in fear for their safety answer the question. The truth, as everyone acknowledges, is that the security that Iraqi man wanted instead of free food will only come with political reconciliation.

Those same seven NOC's explained that:

political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our

insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will

happen on Iraqi terms. . . .

[I]t would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis

take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced

policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them

resolve their differences as they see fit.

President Bush predicted that increased U.S. troop levels taking a more visible--rather than marginal--role would stabilize the country so that its national leaders could reach political agreement. They would enable us to accelerate training initiatives so that Iraqi army and police force could assume control of all security in the country by November 2007. President Bush sent over 28,000 more soldiers into Iraq to fulfill these goals.

The reports before us in September, like the reports before us in July, show us that President Bush's troop escalation is ineffective. It has failed to make Iraq more secure, failed to stem the civil war going on in Iraq, and failed to lead to political reconciliation. That failure was clear when I last came to the floor to discuss this issue in July, and it is clear today.

Since July, 150 more American soldiers have died; nearly 5,000 more have been wounded. My home State of Maryland has lost three more of its bravest citizens. One of those seven NOC's, whose wisdom and insight I have quoted at length, was shot through the head and, just last week, two others were killed. Every month in 2007 has seen more U.S. military casualties over the same month in 2006.

Six years after 9/11, our policy in Iraq has distracted us from confronting the weaknesses those attacks revealed. Terrorist attacks around the world continue to rise. No progress has been made on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Our military might has been stretched thin.

The most recent intelligence analysis reports that al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is stronger now than at any other time since September 11, 2001. Iran is as dangerous as ever.

Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, cochairs of the 9/11 Commission, wrote that ``we face a rising tide of radicalization and rage in the Muslim world--a trend in which our own actions have contributed.'' Last week, Senator Warner asked General Petreaus whether continuing the strategy the general laid before Congress would make our country safer. General Petreaus responded, ``Sir, I don't know actually.''

He didn't know because he has been ``focused on . . . how to accomplish the mission of the Multi-national Force in Iraq.'' That is what he should be focused on. That is his job. But the people focused on our Nation's safety and our overall strategy in the Middle East agree with Kean and Hamilton.

Admiral Fallon, chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees Middle East operations, has argued for accepting more risks in Iraq in order to have the necessary forces available to confront other potential threats. The Joint Chiefs have been sympathetic to Admiral Fallon's view.

In order to bolster our military and refocus attention on the global terrorist threat, this Congress has attempted to change the mission of our operation in Iraq. But President Bush and a minority in Congress have rebuffed the effort.

We cannot wait any longer to change the mission in Iraq. The cost of further delay in lives, materiel, treasure, and our standing in the world is too great. President Bush's strategy has put this Nation at greater risk--a risk that metastasizes each day that we sit by and wait.

A new policy starts by removing our troops from the middle of a civil war and giving them a more realistic mission: counterterrorism, training, and force and border protection.

The Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, chaired by retired GEN James L. Jones, and composed of prominent senior retired military officers and chiefs of police, suggests that:

Coalition forces begin to be adjusted, realigned, and re-

tasked . . . to better ensure territorial defense . . .

concentrating on the eastern and western borders and the

active defense of the critical infrastructures essential to

Iraq.

The Commission also emphasized the importance of transferring responsibility to Iraqis, noting the ``fine line between assistance and dependence.'' Iraqi citizens turn to our military for protection and the basic services the government has failed to provide. We want Iraqis to become loyal to their government, not to the local U.S. military commander.

We must begin to extricate ourselves and hand responsibility to the Iraqis themselves.

As the bipartisan Iraq Study Group noted, ``There is no action the American military can take that, by itself, can bring about success in Iraq.'' But any effort must include stepped-up diplomacy--a ``diplomatic surge,'' if you will. Iraq's neighbors have a stake in Iraq's stability. The war in Iraq means the spread of fundamentalist insurrection and sectarian violence, and an increase in basic crime and lawlessness, and not just in Iraq.

We must begin to have a broader diplomatic and economic vision in the Middle East. Currently, all of Iraq's neighbors are involved in the conflict, but they operate under the table. Iran supports the Shiite militias. Saudi Arabia supports the Sunni militias. Turkey plays a role in the North, Syria exerts control over Iraq's western border.

The United States engaged all of Afghanistan's neighbors at the highest levels and secured their cooperation at the beginning of that conflict. We must engage in that same high level effort with Iraq's neighbors no matter how much we wish circumstances or the current balance of power in the region were different.

We need our Nation's most senior officials engaged in bringing other nations and international entities such as the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to the table.

The various agencies of the United Nations are well-suited to tackle matters of economic and community development and providing electricity, water, and sanitation service. OSCE could assist Iraq with collective border security, police training, and immigration and religious tolerance efforts.

A change of mission, an increased diplomatic effort, and a movement to engage international entities presents the best chance of helping the Iraqis build a government that has their confidence and would strengthen our own national security and military readiness.

The world has an interest in a safe and secure Iraq. We can no longer ignore the overwhelming evidence or recoil from the cold reality the facts on the ground reveal. It is time to change the mission, step up our diplomatic efforts with a realistic and workable game plan, recognize the limits of deployment of our troops and internationalize the effort to bring stability to the country and to the Middle East.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 1257, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act. This bill would provide the 580,000 residents of our Nation's Capital the voting representation in the House of Representatives that is so long overdue. It would also give the State of Utah a temporary at-large seat in the House through the next reapportionment.

Today's vote presents us the opportunity to grant District of Columbia residents the voice in ``the people's House'' that other Americans possess. It is time to remember the cry of our Founders that ``taxation without representation is tyranny'' and end the discriminatory treatment of our Capital City's residents.

District of Columbia citizens pay Federal taxes, and they deserve their full say in determining the direction of our country. They should have as much influence on the House and Senate floors as any other American over the policies that shape this Nation: our Tax Code, our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our laws affecting Social Security, health care, and childcare.

The right to representation is a basic civil right, and this is no less than a moral issue. Since coming to Congress, I have supported full voting representation for the citizens of the District of Columbia that would comprise one voting member of the House of Representatives and two Senators. The authors of this bill have, after much deliberation, crafted a compromise that they believe can pass both Chambers and be sent to President Bush for his signature. I will support that compromise with the hope that one day we will be able to enact legislation providing full representation to the District.

Mr. President, only 2 weeks ago this Nation marked the 50th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. That landmark legislation, signed into law on September 9, 1957, was Congress' first civil rights bill since the end of Reconstruction.

It established the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department and empowered Federal prosecutors to obtain court injunctions against interference with the right to vote. It also established a Federal Commission on Civil Rights with authority to investigate discriminatory conditions and recommend corrective measures.

In the Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Vermont, we held a hearing to commemorate this milestone, to talk about our Nation's progress over the past half century and how we must move forward if we are to live up to the ideals enumerated in the Constitution. My former colleague from the House and an American hero, John Lewis, shared his recollections and his hopes for the future with us.

Today, however, it is with great sadness that I come to the Senate floor to talk about a rash of incidents that have occurred over the past month in this region of the country. These incidents are a painful reminder of just how far we have to go.

At the College Park Campus of the University of Maryland, fewer than 10 miles from here, students found a noose hanging in a tree near the University's African-American Cultural Center. It is believed that the noose had been hanging there for almost 2 weeks before the assistant editor of the school's African-American newspaper noticed it and notified the police.

University President C.D. Mote has denounced the incident, as have student leaders and faculty. It is under investigation as a possible hate crime and may be connected to the trial of six African-American teenagers in Jena, Louisiana. In that case, three nooses were placed in the so called ``white-only'' tree on campus after black students sat under it. The ensuing altercations led to charges of attempted murder against only the black teenagers, charges that have since been dismissed.

In Montgomery County, Maryland, three separate acts of vandalism were reported at Jewish centers in Rockville, Gaithersburg, and Silver Spring.

In two of those cases, vandals defaced banners declaring the synagogues' support for the State of Israel, scrawling anti-Semitic slurs on them. Police are investigating all three acts as possible hate crimes.

Then, in the hills of Big Creek, West Virginia, a 20-year-old African-American woman was held captive in a shed for more than a week. During her ordeal, she was beaten, choked, stabbed, sexually assaulted, and forced to perform inhumane acts. Throughout, she was called racist slurs and was told she was being victimized because of her skin color. She was rescued by police responding to an anonymous tip. A local Sheriff described this as ``something that would have come out of a horror movie.'' Six people, all white, have been arrested in connection with the assault and kidnapping, and police are still searching for two more. The young woman is recovering in a hospital from her ordeal.

In Gaithersburg, Maryland, a Muslim family was again the victim of vandalism. Over the years, the family had been victimized multiple times, beginning in 1994 when they moved to the area. Their house and automobiles were broken into, garbage and dead animals were strewn in their yard, and racist notes were taped to their door.

This time, on September 11, tires on both of the family's vehicles were slashed. The mother has worked hard to counteract anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiment in America, speaking at schools and libraries about Islam and Arab-American culture and teaching a cultural sensitivity class. Police are continuing to investigate this incident as a possible hate crime.

In Manassas, Virginia, the Ku Klux Klan recently began distributing leaflets urging ``white Christian America'' to stand up for its rights. The neighborhood has recently begun a demographic shift as older residents moved out and younger Latino families moved in.

Finally, Mr. President, last Friday, it was reported that the Metropolitan Police Department here in Washington is investigating a series of hate crimes targeting gay and transgender people. The latest attack happened seven blocks from here near the Verizon Center, where reportedly a group of young men threw a 16-year-old male-to-female transgender person through a plate glass window. Police reports indicate that the suspect had been arrested twice before for similar attacks against gay men.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has reported that in 2005 there were approximately 7,100 incidents classified as hate crimes. The FBI uses voluntary reports from local law enforcement agencies across the country to determine the totals, but the actual number could be far higher.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has analyzed data compiled and reported by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics. That November 2005 report, based on data from the biannual National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), found that fewer than half of hate crimes are reported to the police and others are not counted by the FBI. This is because they are not recorded as hate crimes, or because some police departments do not report statistics to their State offices. The NCVS estimates that the United States averages about 191,000 hate crimes each year.

The report also found that hate crimes involve violence far more than other crimes. The data showed that four out of five hate crimes were violent--involving a sexual attack, robbery, assault or murder, as compared to 23 percent of non-hate crimes.

Mr. President, the situation is even more dire than most Americans imagine. The Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project counted 844 active hate groups in the United States in 2006.

Hate crimes' tentacles reach far beyond the intended targets. They bring a chill to entire neighborhoods and create a sense of fear, vulnerability, and insecurity in our communities. They poison the well of our democracy and strike at the very heart of the American spirit.

Our local law enforcement agencies need help in investigating and prosecuting these crimes, and this help must come from the United States Attorney General and the Department of Justice.

I am a cosponsor of the Mathew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, S. 1105, to strengthen existing Federal hate crime laws. I want to thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership on this issue.

While the responsibility for prosecuting hate crimes primarily rests with the individual States, this new measure will give local law enforcement additional tools to combat violent hate crimes. It also will provide Federal support through training and assistance to ensure that hate crimes

are effectively investigated and prosecuted. In addition, it will ensure that Federal investigations and prosecutions are carried out when local authorities request assistance or are unwilling or unable to effectively prosecute cases.

It is important that the Federal Government have the ability to take aggressive action against hate crimes in States where current laws are inadequate. For example, only 31 States and the District of Columbia include sexual orientation-based or disability-based crimes in their hate crimes statutes. This law will help ensure that all hate crimes are fully investigated and prosecuted.

This measure, which has strong bipartisan support, would strengthen existing law in two ways. First, it would eliminate a serious limitation on Federal involvement under existing law--namely, the requirement that a victim of a hate crime was attacked because he or she was engaged in federally-protected activity such as voting or attending school. It also would authorize the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute hate crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Current law does not provide authority for involvement in these four categories.

Hate crimes are un-American. They cannot be tolerated. When individuals are targeted and attacked because of who they are, entire communities suffer and we are all diminished by it.

S. 1105 would give us the tools we need to be more effective in combating crimes of hate. The House passed its version of hate crimes legislation on May 3 and now the Senate must do our part. I call on my colleagues to support S. 1105 and I urge its passage without further delay.

Mr. President, I wish to commemorate the life of Dr. Martin Abeloff, a leader in Maryland's health care community who passed away last Thursday, September 14, 2007. Our State and our Nation have lost a phenomenally gifted doctor who was also a pioneer in the fight against cancer. Tragically, his life was taken by the disease he dedicated his career to fighting.

Dr. Martin Abeloff was an internationally recognized oncologist who for 15 years led the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, one of America's premier cancer research and treatment centers.

During his tenure as cancer center director, Dr. Abeloff doubled the size of the center's facility, helped increase research funding sixfold, and expanded facilities to nearly 1 million square feet of treatment and research space. Under his leadership, some of the most salient findings in cancer genetics and cancer cell biology were realized and have begun to be translated into patient care.

Foremost a humanitarian, Dr. Abeloff was an activist who worked diligently to get clinical trials legislation passed in Maryland to ensure that cancer patients have access to state-of-the-art therapies. A staunch advocate for tobacco control, he led the Maryland Cigarette Restitution Fund initiatives at Johns Hopkins supporting research and cancer prevention outreach to benefit poor and underserved communities burdened by disproportionately high cancer death rates.

A trusted authority and adviser, Abeloff had served as president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, ASCO, chairman of the FDA Oncology Drug Advisory Committee, and he had been a member of the National Cancer Institute Executive Committee.

He is remembered by his colleagues and friends across the globe for his characteristic humility, wry sense of humor, extraordinary devotion to his patients and students, and the collaborative spirit he nurtured in his long tenure at Johns Hopkins, where he spent most of his career.

Dr. Edward Miller, the CEO of Johns Hopkins Medicine, described Abeloff as an ``iconic Hopkins physician, scientist, educator, leader, and good citizen rolled into one.''

I wish to express my condolences to Dr. Abeloff's family and to the Johns Hopkins community, which will also miss him greatly. I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering him today.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of a strong bill, H.R. 3074, the Transportation and Housing funding bill for fiscal year 2008. I congratulate Chairman Murray and Ranking Member Bond for producing a bill that invests in America's critical infrastructure and housing needs.

This bill faces a veto threat from President Bush because it exceeds the funding levels he proposed back in February by about 5 percent. I congratulate my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, however, because the increased funding fits within the overall budget adopted by the Senate earlier this year. That budget has a smaller deficit than the one proposed by the President. We have different spending priorities than President Bush. But I am confident that the priorities reflected in this bill are America's priorities. The Appropriations Committee is to be congratulated for bringing us a bill that meets our needs and does so in a fiscally responsible fashion.

The tragedy of the I-35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis this summer sent an alarm throughout the Nation. We need to embark upon a significant reinvestment in America's aging infrastructure. This bill makes an initial downpayment on this reinvestment. The bill also contains increases in other programs above the President's budget request. These, too, represent a much-needed investment.

The Hope VI Housing Program is designed to revitalize severely distressed public housing. The President wanted to spend just $1 million on this program which is so important to our aging cities such as Baltimore. This bill, I am proud to say, increases the funding level for Hope VI from $1 million to $100 million.

Several other housing programs get needed boosts as well. The section 202 program for low-income seniors is $160 million above the President's request. In addition, the bill contains an innovative voucher program, not requested by President Bush, which would provide section 8 vouchers to homeless veterans.

This bill also contains a major increase in the funding level for the community development block grant program, providing more than $1 billion above the President's request. The

CDBG block grant program has spawned successful development and redevelopment in locations across the Nation. Its track record of success is visible in the revitalized neighborhoods in both urban and rural communities across Maryland and America.

The President had zeroed out the successful Brownfields redevelopment program, but this bill provides $10 million. The brownfields programs operated by HUD, which is funded in this bill, and by EPA, which is separately funded, have been enormously successful. All across Baltimore we see former manufacturing facilities returned to productive use because of these programs. We have seen successful brownfields redevelopment projects in Hagerstown, in Prince George's County, and other sites across the State of Maryland. Our experience is not unique. This is a wonderful program, and I am proud that this bill reverses President Bush's misguided attempt to eliminate the Brownfields redevelopment program in HUD.

Amtrak will receive nearly $1.5 billion in this bill, a $570 million boost over the President's request. Baltimore's Penn Station served more than 900,000 passengers on Amtrak in fiscal 2006. The BWI Airport station in Lithicum, MD, had more than 560,000 boardings and deboardings in fiscal 2006. Amtrak plays a vital role in our national transportation system, posting a record ridership of 24.3 million passengers last year. This bill provides Amtrak with the funding necessary to continue all current services and improve railway infrastructure.

The list of programs that are critical to America and given appropriate funding resources in this bill is long. The major funding levels in this bill, from transportation to housing, represent a sensible investment in America.

In Maryland there are a number of specific provisions that I also want to highlight. The bill contains transportation funding for projects that will help Maryland cope with the major influx of workers and their families associated with the most recent round of Base Realignment and Closures, or BRAC. Harford County, MD, is home to the Aberdeen Proving Ground. This bill contains $3 million for BRAC-related transportation projects in the immediate vicinity of the Base.

Similarly, the bill contains $3 million for improvements on Maryland Route 355 in the area of the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, which will now be home to the Walter Reed Hospital operations. As many of my colleagues know, traffic in this area is already very challenging, so this funding is especially important to help us adapt to the infusion of additional workers at NNMC-Bethesda.

Money is also included for two Transit Center operations. The Bi- County Transit Center in Langley Park will serve bus passengers in Montgomery and Prince George's County. The Central Maryland Transit Operations Facility in the middle of the State is also funded at $1 million. We must make sure that transit programs are our first option as we try to move increasing numbers of people in congested areas that suffer from poor air quality. This bill makes that key investment in Maryland.

The bill provides $13 million for the final design of MARC commuter rail improvements and rolling stock. As thousands of Maryland commuters can attest every day, the MARC commuter rail service is filled to capacity every workday. These funds will help to meet the needs of a growing system.

The Transportation title also contains $500,000 to buy an unused railroad bridge in Baltimore. Funding will be used to assess, acquire, and restore the old CSX Railroad Bridge across the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River. That bridge will serve as the vital connecting link for the Gwynns Falls Trail, a highly valued pedestrian and bike path that traverses Baltimore City.

The Housing and Urban Development title also includes funds for several Maryland-specific projects.

The east Baltimore workforce development project will receive $200,000 as part of a comprehensive program to bring jobs, training and neighborhood revitalization to a distressed east Baltimore neighborhood.

Montgomery County Long Branch pedestrian linkages project is funded at $400,000. This project will create pedestrian-friendly linkages from apartment complexes to the public resources and commercial core of the Long Branch neighborhood in Montgomery County.

Colmar Manor is a small town just over the State line from the District of Columbia in Prince George's County. The Colmar Manor Community Center, which will serve four of the port towns along the Anacostia River, will benefit from the $600,000 provided in the bill.

Mr. President, $500,000 in funding will support environmental education for underserved students in the Baltimore area at the new Irvine Urban Outreach Center.

This bill addresses the needs of America and it addresses the needs of Maryland. I am proud to support it and encourage my colleagues to join me in doing so.

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the State of Maryland and the United States lost a brave and committed public servant last month. Former Senator Daniel Brewster, who served in this esteemed Chamber during the 1960s, died of cancer on August 19.

Few Americans have the political ancestry of Senator Brewster, who was a direct descendant of Ben Franklin and the former Attorney General for President Chester Arthur. Public service came naturally to this man, whose life and work showed his commitment to our country. He first gave to this country through his military service as a decorated war hero, wounded seven times during his service in Guam and Okinawa. Then he served as an elected official for 18 years. He served in the Maryland House of Delegates starting in 1950, was elected to the House of Representatives in 1958 and then to the Senate in 1962.

Senator Brewster first came to politics as an advocate for civil rights. In his own Baltimore neighborhood, neighbors complained when he invited African-American servicemen from World War II to his home. This was an outrage to him. He would never slight a person, particularly soldiers who had courageously served to defend the American flag. Senator Brewster went on to cosponsor the Civil Rights Act of 1964, forever changing the course of history in this country.

Senate Brewster represented much of what is great about public service: a desire and commitment to make this country better and stronger for every American, black and white, rich and poor, farmer and businessman.

Senator Brewster had some very trying times in his life: First, at the age of 10 when his father died; then when he was beset with personal struggles in the very public forum of public life. The lesson he left for all of us is one can rise above adversity, even in the face of trying times, and continue to serve the people of this great Nation. He did that and left this country and this Congress with a lasting legacy of accomplishments.

He left another legacy quite apparent today, introducing some of our country's strongest leaders to the world of politics. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer both started their political careers working for Senator Brewster.

I am personally indebted to Senator Brewster for the wisdom and advice he shared with me as a newly elected Senator. This past spring, he, along with former Senators Joe Tydings and Charles Mathias, Jr., met with me to share their insights. For this, I am forever grateful.

Senator Brewster and his wife Judy Lynn had five children: Gerry, who served in the Maryland legislature, Daniel, Jr., Dana, Danielle, and Jennilie. On behalf of the citizens of Maryland and this body, I wish to extend our sincere condolences to Senator Brewster's family. He will be missed by all.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the conference report to accompany the College Cost Reduction and Access Act now before the Senate. The conference report and the underlying bill make extraordinary progress on one of the most critical challenges before this Congress: making college affordable for all our Nation's deserving students.

We all know that education plays a crucial role in helping people pursue the American dream. That term was first used by James Truslow Adams in his book ``The Epic of America,'' which he wrote in 1931 during the Great Depression. He wrote:

The American Dream is that dream of a land in which life

should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with

opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. . .

. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but

a dream of social order in which each man and each woman

shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they

are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what

they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth

or position.

Congress passed the Higher Education Act in 1965 to help all Americans ``attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable.'' Millions of students have gained access to higher education due to the financial assistance programs, including Pell grants, this historic legislation created.

The problem now is that tuition costs are rising rapidly, wages are stagnant, and Congress hasn't kept up in terms of providing the funding necessary to bridge the gap. In my home State of Maryland, for example, in the 5 years between the 2000-2001 and 2005-2006 school years, the cost of attending 4-year public colleges increased 36 percent, from $10,846 to $14,793. But the median household income in Maryland increased just 11 percent. Even after financial aid is taken into account, 32 percent of the median family income in Maryland is needed to pay for just 1 year at a 4-year public college.

The effects of this disparity between college costs and family income are devastating. Each year, more than 400,000 talented, qualified, hopeful students cannot attend a 4-year college because, they cannot afford it. When I was a young man, such a person might have had other viable options for making a decent wage and pursuing a fulfilling career. But today, 60 percent of new jobs require some postsecondary education, compared to just 15 percent of new jobs when I was a student.

Those students who do go on to college are becoming more and more dependent on private loans which carry high interest rates to finance their education. In 1986-1987, the maximum Pell grant covered 39 percent of the average public 4-year college tuition in Maryland; in 2005-2006 it covered only 27 percent. This decline is due, in part, to a shift of a great portion of Federal spending on student aid from grants to loans: 30 years ago, 77 percent of Federal aid to students was in the form of grants, and only 20 percent was in the form of loans. By the 2005-2006 school year, this distribution pattern had been reversed, to 73 percent of aid taking the form of loans and 20 percent coming in grants.

Just 15 years ago, fewer than half of all students took out loans to finance their education. That number must seem incredible to today's students and parents struggling to finance a college education because today more than two-thirds of students borrow for college. In Maryland, 53 percent of students graduating from 4-year institutions in 2005 graduated with debt. The average student graduating from a 4-year college in Maryland that year owed $14,822 in student loan debt.

The growing barriers to higher education also have a profound effect on our national economy. We do not have enough highly skilled workers in this country. We recruit overseas to find engineers, computer programmers, and scientists. Nor can we fill essential social service positions. More and more students avoid critically important career paths such as teaching, nursing, social work, and law enforcement. These are some of the most important professions in our country but lower starting salaries are a distressingly powerful disincentive: nationally, nearly a quarter of public 4-year college graduates and over a third of private 4-year college graduates have too much debt to afford a starting teacher's salary. Over half of those graduating from private colleges have too much debt to enter the social work profession. Debt levels are also causing graduates to delay buying a home or a car and postpone marriage and having children. Such decisions have important ramifications not just for the individuals involved, but for society as a whole.

As a member of the Budget Committee, I worked hard with my colleagues to make more money available for grant aid. We allocated $9.2 billion for education and training over and above the President's budget request to be invested, in part, in Pell grants. We believe such an investment will make college more affordable so that all eligible students can gain the knowledge, skills, and experience they need to succeed, and to ensure that employers have the workforce they need to compete in a fiercely competitive, global marketplace.

The important legislation before us today takes essential steps to reverse our current course. The College Cost Reduction and Access Act will make college more affordable by: Increasing access for low-income students by increasing the maximum Pell grant from $4,310 to $4,910 next year and to $5,400 by 2012, and simplifying the financial aid process for low-income students by increasing the income level at which a student is automatically eligible for the maximum Pell grant; easing the burden on borrowers by cutting student loan interest rates in half, from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent for undergraduate students with subsidized student loans; protecting borrowers by capping monthly Federal loan payments at 15 percent of discretionary income; protecting working students and ensuring they are not penalized by increasing the amount of student income that is sheltered from the financial aid process; and encouraging public service by providing Federal loan forgiveness for public service employees.

The College Cost Reduction and Access Act would increase access to and preparation for college by both restoring funding for Upward Bound, a key college access program, and creating college access challenge grants to increase college outreach activities in every State.

The legislation strengthens minority serving institutions with an additional $500 million investment. Despite tremendous challenges and limited resources, minority serving institutions are responsible for educating many of our Nation's minority students who would not otherwise obtain a degree. Increasing Federal investment will allow these institutions to provide a better education to more students.

But it is not enough to offer more aid. Recent investigations have shown that private lenders have been exploiting the student loan system, to the detriment of the students the system is meant to serve. The College Cost Reduction and Access Act will ensure that the student loan system works for students and saves taxpayer dollars by directing unnecessary lender subsidies to student aid and injecting competition into the loan program.

In addition, this legislation will help ensure that more students are prepared for college by helping to provide good teachers to the schools where they are needed most. According to research, teacher quality is the schooling factor with the most profound effect on student achievement. Good teachers can make up to a full year's difference in learning growth for students and overwhelm the impact of any other educational investment, including smaller class sizes. Unfortunately, our educational system pairs the children most behind with teachers who, on average, have less experience, less education, and less skill than those who teach other children. We will only close student achievement gaps when we improve teacher quality and experience. We must make obtaining advanced training and experience in teaching more accessible and teaching at-risk students more desirable. I have introduced a bill, S. 1282, which Senators Snowe and Durbin have cosponsored, to encourage the establishment of a class of ``Master Teachers'' with extensive experience and training. If they are willing to teach for an extended period of time in a school that is not meeting adequate yearly progress goals, then they would be rewarded under my bill with a 25-percent Federal tax exemption on their salary.

While my Master Teachers bill has not been incorporated into the legislation before us, I hope the Senate will pass it soon.

The College Cost Reduction and Access Act also creates incentives for good teachers to teach in high-need schools by establishing new TEACH grants. These grants will provide scholarships of $4,000 per year for high-achieving undergraduate and graduate students who commit to teaching a high-need subject in a high-need school.

This legislation contains the biggest increase in Federal student aid since the original G.I. bill. This is how our country should be investing its money: helping to open the door to our children's dreams, not just for their benefit, but for the benefit of our communities, our economy, our Nation, and all of humanity. I am proud that this Congress realizes that increasing access to postsecondary education serves both as a gateway to the American dream for our Nation's students and a pathway to our economic success and security as a Nation.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 2642, the fiscal year 2008 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. This is an important bill, one that makes the necessary investments in caring for our veterans, in improving the quality of life for our military families, and in building and improving the facilities integral to our military's current and future mission and our national security. The legislation provides $64.7 billion in discretionary funding, which is $4 billion above the President's budget request. Frankly, the President's request was insufficient, so I support the Appropriations Committee's recommendation.

The bill offers substantial new investments in health care for America's veterans and takes into consideration the unique needs of our service men and women returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. By increasing critical investments in medical services, which include treatment of traumatic brain injury, TBI, and post traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, providing the funding necessary to hire new claims processors to address the VA's backlog, and investing in VA repair and maintenance necessary to prevent another Walter Reed-type situation, the bill addresses key shortcomings in our veterans health care system.

The bill also addresses key quality-of-life and mission-related needs for all U.S. troops and their families. I am grateful it includes $265 million for construction of facilities at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Patuxent River, Suitland, Fort Detrick, and Fort Meade in recognition of the growing and critical role these Maryland installations play in our national defense.

As stated in the Base Realignment and Closure, BRAC, Commission Report, the primary goal for the 2005 BRAC process was military transformation. While acknowledging the need to save money, the Commission went beyond a business model analysis, giving military value criteria priority consideration. Of critical importance to communities in Maryland and to citizens across the Nation, the bill provides $8.17 billion for BRAC 2005 to implement the base closures and realignments that the Commission determined are critical to our military's current and future mission. This includes over $700 million for the construction of crucial facilities at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Indian Head, Andrews Air Force Base, Fort Meade, and the Bethesda National Naval Medical Center.

Given the critical nature of these appropriations, you can imagine my concern when I read the Statement of Administration Policy on this bill. President Bush, it seems, thinks that such investments in our veterans and our military infrastructure are ``excessive.'' While he has indicated that he will not veto H.R. 2642, he has threatened to veto other appropriations bills unless we find ways to cut spending in those measures equal to the spending--$4 billion--in this bill that exceeds his request.

This administration, which has consistently underestimated the resources it would take to fund our military and care for our veterans, promises that it is ``closely tracking the ongoing cost of providing for our veterans.'' When it comes to bases, troops, and veterans, we shouldn't be cutting corners or scrambling later to make up for earlier mistakes. It is our duty to pass this bill and fully fund the veterans initiatives and military construction projects it contains.

I applaud Senators Byrd, Cochran, Johnson, Hutchison, and Reed and my other colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their excellent work and look forward to quick passage of this critical legislation.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2691

Mr. President, I am pleased that last night the Senate passed the conference report that accompanies H.R. 2272, the America COMPETES Act of 2007. Innovation resulting from Americans' genius and gift for innovation has revolutionized the global economy and workplace as well as all our everyday lives.

Unfortunately, our education system has failed to keep pace; now, many of our Nation's schools are unable to provide their students with the scientific, technological, engineering, and mathematical knowledge and skills the 21st century economy demands. Without well-trained people and the scientific and technical innovations they produce, this Nation risks losing its place as the epicenter for innovative enterprise that has been one of our proudest traditions.

I applaud Senators Bingaman and Alexander and the other leading sponsors of the bill for their action to ensure that this Nation remains a technological leader. I was proud to join them as a cosponsor of the bill and was proud to join them to vote for its final passage.

I am grateful to the academic and business leaders, including Nancy Grasmick, the Maryland State superintendent of schools, and Dr. C.D. Mote, Jr., president of the University of Maryland, who produced both the National Academies' ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' and the Council on Competitiveness's ``Innovative America'' reports and recommendations that serve as the foundation for this critical legislation.

This legislation is critical for it addresses the growing gap in this country between what is taught in elementary and secondary schools and the skills necessary to succeed in college, graduate school, and today's workforce. This gap threatens the implicit promise we have each made to our own children and those whom we represent: get

good grades in school and you will succeed in life.

H.R. 2272 contains provisions that will encourage better alignment of elementary and secondary curricula with the knowledge and skills required by colleges and universities, 21st century employers, and the Armed Forces. There are critical measures that will improve teacher recruitment and training, develop partnerships between schools and laboratories, and encourage internship programs. These provisions will increase students' exposure to inspirational teaching, talented scientists, and real-world experience so that high school graduates students are better prepared to succeed in today's global economy.

But it is not enough to improve science and math education. Those students who choose to pursue high-tech careers require federal funding to conduct research. H.R. 2272 will significantly increase America's investment in research, doubling funding for the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy's Office of Science over the next 4 years and authorizing a significant increase in funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The legislation goes further toward encouraging scientific and technological discovery by targeting more funds to young researchers and high-risk frontier research.

Today, we face enormous challenges from halting global climate change to curing devastating diseases. This legislation takes critical steps to ensure we arm ourselves with the skills and resources to tackle these problems so that our children and grandchildren may inherit a better world rich with economic opportunities

Mr. President, I strongly support S. 1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007. I urge my colleagues to support this measure, which is the most sweeping reform of ethics and lobbying laws and rules in many years.

I am pleased that we have worked in a bipartisan fashion on ethics and lobbying reform. The American people made their views clear in last year's election, and sent a strong message to Congress to clean up our act.

In January the Senate passed this legislation as our first order of business by a vote of 96 to 2, and the House followed suit by a vote of 411 to 8 earlier this week. I hope that the Senate will once again give overwhelming, bipartisan approval of this legislation, and send it to the President for his signature into law.

I have been privileged to serve as a legislator--first in the Maryland House of Delegates, then in the United States House of Representatives, and now in the United States Senate. I appreciate the trust that the people of Maryland placed in me. And I appreciate how important it is that we adhere to the strictest ethical standards. The American people need to believe their Government is on the up and up.

The legislation represents a significant change in the way elected officials, senior staff, and lobbyists would do business.

When it comes to how we treat ourselves, this legislation provides much greater transparency in earmarking. It requires that the sponsors of all earmarks, including limited tax and tariff benefits, that are inserted into bills

and conference reports be identified on the Internet at least 48 hours before a Senate vote. The bill requires Senators to certify that they and their immediate family members have no financial interest in the earmark. The bill also creates a point of order against new earmarks added in conference reports for the first time.

When it comes to making how Congress works more transparent, the bill requires conference reports to be available for public review on the Internet 48 hours before a Senate vote. It ends the practice of secret Senate holds which can kill legislation or nominations. It requires all Senate committees and subcommittees to post video recordings, audio recordings, or transcripts of all public meetings on the Internet.

This legislation makes needed reforms to the lobbying industry as well. The bill prohibits lobbyists and their clients from giving gifts, including free meals and tickets, to Senators and their staffs. It requires Senators to pay charter rates for trips on private planes. The bill prohibits Senators and their staff from accepting multiday private travel from registered lobbyists. It requires much greater transparency for lobbyist bundling and political campaign fund activity. The bill requires lobbyists' disclosure filings to be filed quarterly instead of semiannually, and requires these disclosures to be filed electronically and in a publicly searchable Internet database. It increases civil and criminal penalties for lobbyists who break the law.

The bill also takes major stops in slowing the revolving door between Members of Congress, staff, and the private sector. It stops partisan attempts like the K Street Project to influence private-sector hiring. It strengthens the revolving door restrictions by increasing the cooling off period for Senators from 1 to 2 years before they can lobby Congress, and prohibits senior Senate staff from lobbying contacts within the entire Senate for 1 year. It eliminates floor, parking, and gym privileges for former Members who become lobbyists.

Finally, the bill holds Members of Congress and staff accountable by making ongoing ethics training mandatory for Members and staff. It increases civil and criminal penalties for Members of Congress and senior staff who falsify or fail to report items on their financial disclosure forms. It denies congressional retirement benefits to Members of Congress who are convicted of serious crimes related to their official duties, such as bribery.

Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis' famous dictum still holds true today: ``Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' The leadership and Members of Congress will have delivered on their promise to the American people by passing this bill. That is what the American people have asked us to do, and that is what we need to do to regain their trust.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 7 minutes, and if the Chair would notify me when I have used 6 minutes.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to speak in favor of the Children's Health Insurance Program and its reauthorization, which is the legislation that is before us. We hear the numbers that 6 million children benefit from the program today--over 6 million--and this will provide for an additional 3 million children.

I want my colleagues to know that each one of these people are people, they are families, and they are affected by what we do here today. I take this time to acquaint my colleagues to Deamonte Driver. He was a 12-year-old who didn't live far from here--6 miles from here-- in Prince Georges County, MD. He had a tooth problem. His mother tried to get him help. He had no insurance, and he fell through the cracks. He had a brother, Dashawn Driver, who had six decaying teeth. They tried to get help for him. The mother thought the older brother was in worse shape than Deamonte. He started having headaches and was rushed to the emergency room. They found out his problem--he could not get to a dentist--was an abscessed tooth.

Before this, a social worker made 20 phone calls in an effort to try to get dental care for the Driver family, without success. They could not find a dentist willing to treat someone without insurance or in the Medicaid system. Deamonte ended up needing emergency surgery, which cost $250,000, and he ended up losing his life because the system did not provide care for a 12-year-old.

Mr. President, we can certainly do better than that. Dr. Koop, a former Surgeon General of the United States, said, ``There is no health care without oral health.'' Medical research has shown the linkage between plaque and heart disease. We know now that gum disease can be a signal of diabetes or a liver ailment or a hormone imbalance. We have to do better than we are doing today.

Dental disease is the most common childhood ailment in the United States to date. One out of five children between the ages of 2 to 4 will have some form of decaying teeth. By the time they reach 15, three out of five will have tooth decay.

There is an imbalance as far as the racial effects. Racial minorities are much more likely to sustain untreated tooth decay. Forty percent of African-American children have untreated tooth decay.

I thank my colleague, Senator Bingaman, for his leadership on these issues and for introducing legislation and moving forward to try to provide better oral health care for children. I thank Senator Snowe for her leadership. I thank Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley for including initiatives in the legislation that is before us that will help the States meet this challenge--the $200 million included in the bill. That will have a major impact to try to help American families.

We have an important opportunity before us in the legislation that we are considering to help our children, not only to continue the benefits for 6.6 million children but so that we can add another 3 million out of the 9 million who currently have no health insurance.

We have to do more, but this is our opportunity today, and we have to take advantage of it. Our health care system is in crisis.

Earlier this week, I introduced the Universal Health Coverage Act, which would require everybody in this country to have health insurance. I think it is essential that we address the major problems in our country of so many people being without health insurance. We should start with the children, and we can do that with the legislation that is before us.

Why is that important? Well, we know that children who are enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance Program or have insurance are much more likely to get primary health care. They won't use the emergency rooms as much. If you don't have insurance, you have no choice but to go to the emergency room. We have improved health care outcomes if the child has health insurance. We know they are much more likely to have immunization and primary health care.

I want to comment that--again, talking about families and individuals--the Finance Committee held a hearing on the Children's Health Insurance Program. The Bedford family from my city of Baltimore came down here and testified.

Mrs. Bedford said:

We no longer have to decide whether a child is really sick

enough to warrant a doctor's visit.

The Bedford family enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance Program in Maryland. The program is working. Without this legislation, we will have to reimpose freezes on enrollments and people will lose coverage. It happened

in my State. This is a bipartisan bill, and I compliment my colleagues for bringing forward a bill that we can get enacted into law.

In Maryland, we started a program on July 1, 1998. About 38,000 children were enrolled at first, and we are up to 101,000 children enrolled today. Maryland will get an increase in this bill from $67 million to $189 million. We will be able to enroll 42,000 more children in the State of Maryland. It is an important program.

I also compliment the committee for including outreach so that we can reach families who don't know how to enroll, or whether they are qualified to enroll, so we can get more families and children enrolled in the children's health care program.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to take advantage of the opportunity that we currently have before us. This is an opportunity in which we can make major progress in dealing with those children in our community who will either lose their coverage because we take no action, and those who currently have no insurance whom we can get enrolled in this program. It is a valuable program. We have an opportunity to move forward. So I urge my colleagues to support the fine effort of the Senate Finance Committee in bringing forward this legislation.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I send to the desk the modification of amendment 2567.

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

Mr. President, I thank Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley who helped on this amendment. It has been cleared. It deals with the dental, or oral, health care in the underlying bill. The bill provides for $200 million to help States expand dental care within the Children's Health Insurance Program.

This amendment adds additional provisions that would require the States to describe these benefits as they do other benefits and how they would improve the benefits to our children. It expands Web information so individuals will have a better understanding as to what providers are available for dental care in their community. It has certain studies as to the status of dental health care and oral health care for our children.

Again, I thank the leadership of the committee for their help. I also offer this amendment on behalf of Senators Mikulski, Bingaman, and Collins. I thank them for their help in putting this amendment together.