Floor Statements

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

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

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. CARDIN pertaining to the introduction of S. 1899 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I take this time to explain a bill I am filing today that will establish universal health coverage called Universal Health Coverage Act. Let me tell you why I am introducing this bill.

Our health care system provides the highest quality health care in the world if you are fortunate to get access to it. People come from all over the world to come to our great academic centers to get their health care needs met and to train their health care professionals.

In my home State of Maryland, I am very proud of the University of Maryland Medical Center and Johns Hopkins University. We have great institutions, such as the National Institutes of Health, that provide top-quality health care.

The problem is too many people cannot get access to affordable quality health care in America. We have 46 million uninsured; 9 million are children. We spend more money than any other country by far on health care, and yet our health care results do not reflect that type of investment of our public funds.

The No. 1 problem in health care in America today is the number of uninsured. We need to do something about it. The Universal Health Coverage Act does exactly that. It says every person in this country must have health insurance.

We are paying for the people who do not have health insurance. Those of us who have health coverage are paying more for our doctors and hospitals. We pay more in taxes because people have no health insurance. The reason is they have delayed diagnosis and treatment that leads to more serious illness and treatment for those who have no health insurance.

We all pay the price with higher premiums and cost. According to the Institute of Medicine, taxpayers shoulder 65 percent of the total cost of uncompensated care through subsidies to hospitals and clinics. The same study showed that poor health care status from being uninsured costs our Nation between $65 billion and $130 billion a year. It is in our interest as those who have health insurance and as taxpayers that we have universal health coverage in America.

Why does it cost more for someone who has no health insurance? With two people with the same types of conditions, it can actually cost our system more for those who have no health insurance because they do not seek preventative health care. Fewer than one-half of uninsured women ages 50 to 64 have received a mammogram in the past 2 years compared to 75 percent of women with insurance. Only 18 percent of uninsured adults over the age of 50 have had colon cancer screenings in the last 5 years compared to 56 percent of adults with insurance. Only 35 percent of uninsured Americans had dental examinations in the last year. When uninsured receive care, it is often at a much later point and is more costly and less efficient. We can do something about it.

Who are the uninsured? Another myth: Eighty-one percent of the uninsured actually come from working families. These are working families who are unable, for whatever reasons, to get affordable health care coverage. Low-income Americans with family incomes below 200 percent of poverty run the highest risk of being uninsured. More than one-third of the poor and 30 percent of the near poor with incomes between 100 percent and 200 percent of poverty lack health insurance.

My legislation is simple. The Universal Health Coverage Act requires personal responsibility, requires everyone to have health insurance, and it builds on the current employer-based system and protects government-sponsored health programs.

We would require every American to have qualified health coverage. That qualified health coverage could be Medicare, it could be our veterans health care, it could be one of the governmental programs, or it could be an employer-sponsored health plan.

We then empower the Secretary of Health to work with the State insurance commissioners to develop three low-cost plans in every State in the Nation so there will be an available product to those who cannot find an affordable health care plan.

The plans would be available for those whose incomes are below 400 percent of poverty. The reason we picked that number, 400 percent of poverty, is those above generally have the opportunity to buy insurance at work. Those below are the most vulnerable in our community.

Those who fail to enroll in any coverage would be required to pay a tax which would be equal to the premiums so that the Government can enroll them in one of the low-cost plans within their State.

This plan makes sense. It is a framework on which we can build. It says we will not tolerate 46 million people without health insurance, 9 million children without health insurance. It allows the States to do innovative approaches to deal with those who otherwise would have problems affording their health care. We expect States to act. States are already acting. States are already showing leadership. This framework will give States the incentive to move further along. Employers who now know every employee needs health benefits are more likely to provide insurance for their workforce, and there would be an affordable product because everyone would be in the system. We would not have adverse risk collection or cherry-picking by insurance companies. It gives us the framework to move forward and will allow the Federal Government to move in those areas in which the Federal Government can do best to help those who are otherwise vulnerable.

I hope we will not let this opportunity go without dealing with the No. 1 problem in our health care system, and that is dealing with people who do not have health insurance. I look forward to working with all my colleagues so we can work on a doable plan, so this country not only has the highest quality health care, but we have a system in which all Americans have access to that quality care.

Mr. President, I take this time to explain a bill I am filing today that will establish universal health coverage called Universal Health Coverage Act. Let me tell you why I am introducing this bill.

Our health care system provides the highest quality health care in the world if you are fortunate to get access to it. People come from all over the world to come to our great academic centers to get their health care needs met and to train their health care professionals.

In my home State of Maryland, I am very proud of the University of Maryland Medical Center and Johns Hopkins University. We have great institutions, such as the National Institutes of Health, that provide top-quality health care.

The problem is too many people cannot get access to affordable quality health care in America. We have 46 million uninsured; 9 million are children. We spend more money than any other country by far on health care, and yet our health care results do not reflect that type of investment of our public funds.

The No. 1 problem in health care in America today is the number of uninsured. We need to do something about it. The Universal Health Coverage Act does exactly that. It says every person in this country must have health insurance.

We are paying for the people who do not have health insurance. Those of us who have health coverage are paying more for our doctors and hospitals. We pay more in taxes because people have no health insurance. The reason is they have delayed diagnosis and treatment that leads to more serious illness and treatment for those who have no health insurance.

We all pay the price with higher premiums and cost. According to the Institute of Medicine, taxpayers shoulder 65 percent of the total cost of uncompensated care through subsidies to hospitals and clinics. The same study showed that poor health care status from being uninsured costs our Nation between $65 billion and $130 billion a year. It is in our interest as those who have health insurance and as taxpayers that we have universal health coverage in America.

Why does it cost more for someone who has no health insurance? With two people with the same types of conditions, it can actually cost our system more for those who have no health insurance because they do not seek preventative health care. Fewer than one-half of uninsured women ages 50 to 64 have received a mammogram in the past 2 years compared to 75 percent of women with insurance. Only 18 percent of uninsured adults over the age of 50 have had colon cancer screenings in the last 5 years compared to 56 percent of adults with insurance. Only 35 percent of uninsured Americans had dental examinations in the last year. When uninsured receive care, it is often at a much later point and is more costly and less efficient. We can do something about it.

Who are the uninsured? Another myth: Eighty-one percent of the uninsured actually come from working families. These are working families who are unable, for whatever reasons, to get affordable health care coverage. Low-income Americans with family incomes below 200 percent of poverty run the highest risk of being uninsured. More than one-third of the poor and 30 percent of the near poor with incomes between 100 percent and 200 percent of poverty lack health insurance.

My legislation is simple. The Universal Health Coverage Act requires personal responsibility, requires everyone to have health insurance, and it builds on the current employer-based system and protects government-sponsored health programs.

We would require every American to have qualified health coverage. That qualified health coverage could be Medicare, it could be our veterans health care, it could be one of the governmental programs, or it could be an employer-sponsored health plan.

We then empower the Secretary of Health to work with the State insurance commissioners to develop three low-cost plans in every State in the Nation so there will be an available product to those who cannot find an affordable health care plan.

The plans would be available for those whose incomes are below 400 percent of poverty. The reason we picked that number, 400 percent of poverty, is those above generally have the opportunity to buy insurance at work. Those below are the most vulnerable in our community.

Those who fail to enroll in any coverage would be required to pay a tax which would be equal to the premiums so that the Government can enroll them in one of the low-cost plans within their State.

This plan makes sense. It is a framework on which we can build. It says we will not tolerate 46 million people without health insurance, 9 million children without health insurance. It allows the States to do innovative approaches to deal with those who otherwise would have problems affording their health care. We expect States to act. States are already acting. States are already showing leadership. This framework will give States the incentive to move further along. Employers who now know every employee needs health benefits are more likely to provide insurance for their workforce, and there would be an affordable product because everyone would be in the system. We would not have adverse risk collection or cherry-picking by insurance companies. It gives us the framework to move forward and will allow the Federal Government to move in those areas in which the Federal Government can do best to help those who are otherwise vulnerable.

I hope we will not let this opportunity go without dealing with the No. 1 problem in our health care system, and that is dealing with people who do not have health insurance. I look forward to working with all my colleagues so we can work on a doable plan, so this country not only has the highest quality health care, but we have a system in which all Americans have access to that quality care.

Mr. President, I am very happy to rise today in support of a conference report that implements the remaining 9/11 Commission recommendations.

Finally, three years after the Commission released its bi-partisan report, we are sending President Bush legislation that implements the last of those recommendations--recommendations that will improve Maryland's as well as our nation's security. This bill increases citizens' safety when they travel by air, road, or rail; improves first responders' communications capabilities; facilitates intelligence sharing at all levels of law enforcement; and protects citizens' privacy and liberty.

This conference report is the first legislation to formally authorize the State Homeland Security Grant Program and Urban Area Security Initiative, UASI, which provide funds to states and high-risk urban areas--like the D.C. Metropolitan area--to prevent, prepare for, respond to and recover from acts of terrorism. This legislation authorizes more money than previous years, but most importantly--and I want to stress this most importantly, this legislation ensures the vast majority of that funding is distributed based on risk.

In the past, too great a percentage of our first responder grants were distributed without regard to risk and vulnerability. As the 9-11 Commission final report stated:

[f]ederal homeland security assistance should not remain a

program for general revenue sharing.

By increasing the percentage of grant money distributed based on risk, this legislation moves us toward the full implementation of the Commission's prescription.

This legislation also requires the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, to consider certain factors when allocating funds based on risk including history of threats, risk associated with critical infrastructure, coastline, and the need to respond to neighboring areas; considerations critical to adequate risk assessment for many of

Maryland's communities. All of us were both outraged and deeply concerned when DHS ranked the Washington D.C. and New York City metropolitan areas in a low-risk category for terrorist attack or catastrophe, a decision that would have cost those regions millions in anti-terror funds and had devastating impacts on their ability to respond to attack had the rankings been allowed to stand. By setting criteria for risk assessment, this bill guards against future gross miscalculations.

The legislation includes several important provisions improving transportation security, but I am particularly glad to see the bill requires DHS to develop its capacity to screen all--100 percent--of maritime cargo in foreign ports before it is loaded on ships bound for the United States within 5 years. Further, the conference substitute requires that DHS be able to screen all cargo carried on passenger airplanes within the next three years. And, the legislation authorizes substantial funds--more than $4 billion over four years--for rail, transit, and bus security grants.

Not only does the legislation provide funding for improving communications systems, it also provides guidance. Maryland's first responders and administrators have explained to me that a truly interoperable communications system and a functioning incident command system require more than equipment. Practically, cooperation between and among local, state, national, and even international governments requires governance structures, protocols, agreements, and training. By providing money for staff, exercises, simulations, training, and any other activities necessary to achieve, maintain, or enhance emergency communications, this legislation addresses critical governance concerns.

But to keep us safe, different government agencies need more than the ability to communicate. They need to actually be communicating critical information and intelligence to the officials and officers who need it. The conference substitute encourages the free transfer of intelligence across agencies by authorizing government-wide standards for information sharing, and creating standards for state, local, and regional intelligence fusion centers and ensures they receive federal support and personnel.

The 9-11 attacks and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita demonstrated how inadequate information sharing and inadequate communications systems can compound disasters. Let us hope that with these changes we will never again have to witness firefighters rushing into buildings when they should have been running out or distraught citizens trapped by flood waters while national officials remain unaware of the disaster.

But this legislation does more than protect our physical safety; it contains provisions to safeguard our most cherished liberties. Recent revelations regarding FBI abuse of its PATRIOT Act authority to gather phone, bank, and credit information on thousands of citizens underscore the importance of this legislation's enhanced privacy and civil liberties protections. The bill strengthens the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board independence and expands its oversight authority. The bill requires agencies with access to citizens' private information to designate at least one senior official to serve as a source of advice and oversight on privacy and civil liberties matters. Finally, under this legislation, federal agencies must report annually on their development and use of data mining technologies so this body can ensure proper usage of any technologies that raise privacy or civil liberties concerns.

This Conference Substitute also encourages this country to look beyond its own borders to promote others' safety and liberty through diplomacy. The legislation requires the Secretary of State expand strategies for democracy promotion in non-democratic and democratic transition countries, and to expand the effectiveness of the State Department's annual human rights reports. It further supports democracy promotion through international institutions, such as the UN Democracy Fund, the Community of Democracies, and the International Center for Democratic Transition, specifically through encouraging the establishment of an office of multilateral democracy promotion. To allow ``maximum effort'' on non-proliferation by the U.S. Government, as the 9-11 Commission called for, the bill establishes a Presidential Coordinator for the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism.

We know now how closely our own safety is linked to other nations' internal security. These efforts are critical to creating a more stable Middle East and a safer world.

The 9-11 families, several of whom are my constituents, asked us to pass this legislation, and I am proud that we have fulfilled this obligation to them and to the country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, I yield to the chairman of the committee, the Senator from West Virginia, who I understand would like some time to respond to the amendment offered.

Mr. President, first, I thank Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran and the members of the Appropriations Committee for the fine work they have done on this 2008 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill.

As has been pointed out, this will provide $2.2 billion more than the President's request for homeland security. I note that it received the unanimous support of all members of the committee, and for good reason: It is an important investment in the security of our Nation. It provides the needed resources so we can deal with the security concerns in our own country, whether they be at our airports, seaports, rail stations, or in our home communities. That is what we should be doing. It should be our highest priority. I congratulate the committee for the manner in which it considered this legislation and has brought it forward. I urge us to move it forward as rapidly as possible.

Two weeks ago, Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said he had a gut feeling our Nation is at an increased risk of a terrorist attack this summer. While I hope his warnings would be based on more than a feeling, the National Intelligence Estimate released last week

supports Secretary Chertoff's instincts. Based upon the facts before it, the National Intelligence Council judged that ``the U.S. homeland will face a persistent and evolving terrorist threat.'' Al-Qaida has ``protected and regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability'' and is now as strong as it was in 2001. The NIE states that ``the United States currently is in a heightened threat environment.''

Based upon that, it is disheartening that while the intelligence community is discovering evidence of an increased threat to this country, President Bush has recommended cutting funding to grant programs that secure our ports, airports, and bolster local law enforcement and fire departments around Maryland and our Nation.

The increased funding in this bill for our port and aviation security and first responders will have a profound impact on my State of Maryland.

Let me start with the Port of Baltimore. It is one of our country's most important ports and a significant economic engine for our entire region, providing more than 33,000 jobs in Maryland and generating $1.5 billion in revenue every year. It is the Nation's eighth largest port, handling about 2,000 ships and 3l million tons of cargo each year.

With the size of the Port of Baltimore, proximity to Washington, workload, and productivity come increased risks. That is why I was a strong proponent of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006, the SAFE Port Act of 2006. This bill authorized more funding for programs that are critically important to the security of our ports, including risk-based port and cargo security grant programs, the development of a long-range ship-tracking system, the development of a biometric transportation security card for port workers, and development of a system to identify high-risk containers.

These were all programs that, after hearings in the Congress, we felt were critically important to secure our seaports.

You can imagine my dismay and the distress of the public safety officials and emergency planners in Maryland when President Bush, who signed the SAFE Port Act, did not propose to fund many of the new activities that legislation authorized. I am grateful to the Appropriations Committee for recognizing the risk to the Port of Baltimore and other ports around the country. It provided the funds so we can move forward with those initiatives.

The bill will provide $15 million above President Bush's request to hire additional port security inspectors, conduct vulnerability assessments at 10 high-risk ports, and develop a long-range vessel- tracking system so we can monitor ships as they travel around the world.

Most importantly, this bill provides $400 million in port security grants, $190 million above the President's request as authorized--as authorized--by the SAFE Port Act of 2006, which the President signed. These grants will provide Maryland with critical support to improve perimeter fencing, underwater detection capability, and enhanced video surveillance systems.

I am pleased the committee recognizes the importance of the Coast Guard's presence at Curtis Bay, MD, and notes it is a ``critical component of the Coast Guard's core logistics capability'' and ``directly supports fleet readiness.''

The committee further recognizes the vital role the yard has played in ``the Coast Guard's readiness and infrastructure for more than 100 years'' and recommends ``that sufficient industrial work should be assigned to the Yard to maintain this capability.'' I agree, and I intend to do my best to make sure the committee's recommendations are, in fact, followed.

The bill provides $15 million above President Bush's request to address a shortage of Coast Guard boats and qualified personnel to allow the Coast Guard to enforce security zones and protect critical infrastructure.

The bill provides $60 million above the President's request for the establishment of Coast Guard interagency maritime operational centers authorized, again, by the SAFE Port Act of 2006, which will improve collection and coordination of intelligence, increase information sharing, and unify efforts among Federal, State, and local agencies.

The bill gives equal attention to transportation security, providing $3.7 billion for transportation security improvements, $764 million more than the President's request. This funding includes $400 million for rail and mass transit security grants, $529 million for explosive detection systems, and $41 million for surface transportation security. The bill provides the needed funds for passenger and luggage screening.

These grants will provide much-needed funding to protect airports in Maryland and across the Nation. In the past, I have worked with the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, to bring the latest high- tech devices to Baltimore, including state-of-the-art equipment to scan baggage and passengers for explosives. I am proud the BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport was the first airport in the Nation to have a fully federalized screening workforce after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Despite continued threats to aviation security, President Bush sought to cut funds to purchase and install explosive detection equipment at airports by 17 percent. Once again, I thank the committee for not following the President's recommendation in that area.

This bill provides $66 million for TSA air cargo security, $10 million above the President's request. When combined with the $80 million included in the fiscal year 2007 emergency supplemental appropriations bill, these funds will put TSA on a path to screen all cargo placed on passenger aircraft, and that is what we should be doing.

The bill provides nearly $530 million, almost $90 million

above the President's request, to purchase and install

explosive detection equipment at airports around the country.

We need to do that. We need to have the latest equipment for

explosives at our airports.

I am disappointed the committee was forced to shift $45 million from container security to secure pathways, such as airfreight. We should not be in a position where we have to make those kinds of choices.

We must do more to ensure the safety of the Nation's chemical facilities. Enhanced security requires strong regulatory standards and policies attuned to the risks faced by the communities surrounding such facilities. In December 2006, the Bush administration proposed regulations to preempt State and local governments from adopting stronger chemical security protections than those proposed by the Federal Government. While the Federal Government must ensure chemical facilities meet minimal safety standards, States must retain the ability to set stricter standards to address the unique needs of their local communities. This bill ensures the essential ability of States to pass and enforce tougher chemical site standards than existing Federal standards, and it provides an additional $15 million to help States meet those standards.

Again, I applaud the committee for providing that help. It is very important to the area I represent in Maryland, where we have so many chemical plants.

Despite tragically ample proof in the wake of Hurricane Katrina that State and local governments were unprepared for a major natural disaster or terrorist attack, the President's budget proposes a $1.2 billion cut in vital homeland security grant programs that provide critical support to local law enforcement and firefighting departments.

I know we all talk about how important these agencies are, our local firefighters, our local first responders. The President's budget cuts those funds. I am pleased the Appropriations Committee did not follow the recommendation of President Bush but instead increased funding by $1.8 billion over the President's request for our States and cities to improve their ability to respond to attacks and natural disasters.

These allocations include $560 million for firefighter equipment grants, $525 million for State homeland security grants, $275,000 more than President Bush's request, and $375 million for law enforcement and terrorist prevention grants.

The committee also provided FEMA with $100 million to rebuild its core competencies and improve management. I hope the Agency will make wise use of these additional funds.

Emergency preparedness officials in Maryland are especially happy to see

increased allocations in FEMA's budget for predisaster mitigation. Increased preparedness funding will lead to long-term savings by decreasing subsequent damage claims. Most importantly, increased preparedness ensures we are ready to keep our people out of harm's way.

I am pleased the bill contains critical resources to develop and implement improved detection and communications technology, improve communications, and improve and streamline intelligence-gathering agencies. Better technology and intelligence are a critical part of us being prepared against threats. We need to do better on intelligence gathering, and this bill provides help in doing that.

Congress can provide resources, but we cannot legislate appropriate action by DHS officials. All of us remember with outrage how DHS officials placed the Washington, DC, and the New York City metropolitan areas in a low-risk category for terrorist attacks or catastrophe. That decision was ridiculous. That decision, if it had been allowed to stand, would have cost those regions millions of dollars of antiterrorist funds and would have had a devastating impact on their ability to respond to attacks. Last year, many of DHS's grants were not released until December 29, 2006, the day before the end of the fiscal year. When the money Congress appropriates sits around in Washington for more than 11 months, Americans certainly are not any safer. The delay in releasing funds undermines the budget and plans of emergency response agencies in all our communities. The appropriations bill will penalize DHS for releasing grants late--a reduction of $1,000 per day when mandated timelines are not met. Local officials are hamstrung waiting for guidance and grant moneys from DHS. Once again, I thank the Appropriations Committee for putting that provision in the bill.

This bill takes other unusual measures, such as requiring the Department to submit expenditure plans for key programs to the committee for review before funds will be released. We saw the devastating results of incompetent management in the disastrous days before, during, and after Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast in 2005.

At the beginning of this month, the Washington Post reported the Bush administration had failed to fill roughly one-quarter of the top leadership posts at DHS, ``creating a `gaping hole' in the nation's preparedness for a terrorist attack or other threat.'' These are serious problems the administration needs to address immediately.

Earlier this year, the Senate passed S. 2, a bill implementing many of the remaining 9/11 recommendations. Ever since I served on the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, I have strongly supported the 9/ 11 recommendations that we distribute homeland security money based on risk and ``be mindful of threats'' increased security measures will pose ``to vital personal and civil liberties.'' In other words, put our money where it is needed based on risk assessment, but be mindful of civil liberties.

S. 2 increases the amount of grant money distributed based on risk, and it strengthens protections for all our most cherished liberties. I hope the Senate will get a chance to pass the conference report to this bill before the August recess. I look forward to sending it to President Bush for his signature. It nicely complements the appropriations bill we are poised to pass in the next day or two.

Nearly 6 years ago, on a sunny September morning, Americans received a terrible wakeup call, telling us we can be attacked here and we need to do more to protect ourselves. Congress took that responsibility to heart, passing legislation empowering the President to protect our Nation.

I am proud to offer my support for this critical bill. Given the current state of our national security and the most recent NIE report, it is imperative we pass this bill immediately. There is no time for delay.

Once again, I thank the leadership of the Appropriations Committee for bringing this bill forward. It deserves our support. I hope we will have a chance to vote on it within the next day or two so this bill can become enacted in a timely way to meet the needs of our Nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 25, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to explore the U.S.-China trading relationship, with analysis of the current status of trade between the two nations and the impact of U.S.-China trade on U.S. manufacturers, consumers, and workers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 25, at 11:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the business meeting is to consider pending calendar business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 25, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to hear testimony regarding the nominations of Dr. Tevi David Troy to be Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services, Department of Health and Human Services; The Honorable David H. McCormick to be Under Secretary for International Affairs, U.S. Department of the Treasury; Mr. Kerry N. Weems to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; Mr. Peter B. McCarthy to be Assistant Secretary for Management and Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department of the Treasury; and Mr. Charles E.F. Millard to be Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 25, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on the Peace Corps.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 25, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Pakistan.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 at 10 a.m. in SD-106 and on Thursday, July 26, 2007, at 10 a.m. in SR-325. We will be considering the following:

1. S. 625, Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

2. S. 1183, Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act

3. S. 579, Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2007

4. S. 898, Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act of 2007

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 25, 2007, at 10 a.m. to consider the nomination of Dennis R. Schrader to be Deputy Administrator for National Preparedness, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 25, 2007, at 10 a.m., in order to conduct a hearing to receive testimony on S. 1487, the Ballot Integrity Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight: Gulf Coast Disaster Loans and the Future of the Disaster Assistance Program,'' on Wednesday, July 25, 2007, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 25, 2007, in order to conduct a hearing on VA health care funding. The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee be authorized to conduct a hearing entitled, ``A Local Look at the National Foreclosure Crisis: Cleveland Families, Neighborhoods, Economy Under Siege from the Subprime Mortgage Fallout'', in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, Wednesday, July 25, 2007, from 9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 25, 2007, at 3 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Road Ahead II: Views from the Postal Workforce on Implementing Postal Reform,''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 25, 2007, at 2 p.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Oversight of EPA's Environmental Justice Programs.''

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

Mr. President, I take this time to speak in favor of the Durbin amendment. I thank my colleague from Illinois for introducing this important amendment. It gives us an opportunity to provide for equal access to justice in this country.

There is a problem today in our legal system, and it is the cost of legal education. The average attorney who graduates from law school will have $70,000 of debt in addition to the $16,000 of average debt in attending an undergraduate school. When you have that type of debt, it affects your career choice.

Today, we want to make sure we get the best qualified attorneys going into public interest law, whether it is as a prosecutor or whether it is as a public defender. I think Senator Harkin will be here, either later tonight or tomorrow, to talk about the civil legal services, and the average starting salary for a legal aid attorney is $36,000 a year. For a public defender or for a prosecutor, it is not much higher than that. How can you possibly take a career in those fields and still be able to pay off your loans?

The Durbin amendment does something about it. It came through the committee on which I have the honor of serving, the Judiciary Committee. I think it is a well-balanced approach. I know we will probably have a chance to vote on this tomorrow--I don't believe we will vote on it tonight--but there will not be debate time available tomorrow, and I wanted to come to the floor and urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

If Senator Harkin offers his second-degree amendment that deals with civil legal services, I hope this body will also support that amendment.

I yield the floor.

Will my colleague yield?

I thank my colleague for his leadership on this issue. I know he has been working for many years to get this accomplished, and I hope this is the vehicle on which we will get it done. I had the chance to chair the Maryland Legal Services Corporation and chaired a commission in Maryland looking to services for our population, and there are not enough attorneys who will handle poverty law. There are not enough attorneys who will handle public defender cases. It is difficult to get experienced prosecutors today because you can go into a private law firm and make a lot of money, much more than you can as a public defender or legal aid attorney or as a prosecutor.

The Senator's legislation gives us a chance to say we want to make sure every citizen in our State has equal access to justice in our State. I applaud him for it. I think this is what we need to do. We have a chance in this bill to get it done. I thank the Senator for bringing it to the floor, and I support his amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the higher education amendments before the Senate. This bill works toward one of the most important responsibilities elected representatives shoulder: opening the doors of educational opportunity for each American child and every American family.

Last week, the Senate took a critical step toward making college more affordable by passing the Higher Education Access Act, legislation that increases Pell grants, caps student loan repayments, and provides loan forgiveness for those who enter and stick with careers in public service.

But we must actually control college costs if we hope to make permanent progress on college affordability. The legislation now before the Senate would not only allow the Secretary of Education to highlight those colleges and universities whose tuition increases are out of line with their peers, it would allow the Secretary to study what factors are driving soaring higher education costs in this country and identify what measures could be utilized to bring them under control.

Even with this effort and the important measures passed last week, most students and their families in Maryland and around the Nation will still have to borrow money to make their college dream a reality.

Today, that means completing lengthy and confusing Federal and school-based student aid applications. Once those applications are submitted, families must decipher various colleges' price estimates and various banks' descriptions of loan terms and conditions. Financial award letters often contain inconsistent definitions and formats to describe the cost of attendance, the financial aid offered, and the costs associated with various types of loans. Too many banks provide inadequate information about their rates and terms. As a result, families are unable to shop around for the financial

aid package or best loan rates and are ill-prepared for post-graduation monthly payments. Jim Guest, president of the Consumers Union, has said that ``[f]inancing a house or car can be confusing, but it's nothing compared with trying to pay for a college education.''

In the face of such confusion, many students and their families turn to financial aid officers to guide their choices. But throughout this year, thanks to the New York Attorney General and my distinguished colleagues on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, we have learned that some financial aid officers, including, unfortunately, some from Maryland, were not giving families honest advice. Some financial aid offices were receiving expensive gifts, travel and other kickbacks from lenders and in return recommended those lenders to students, even if the product was not in the students' best interest.

This important legislation takes critical steps to reform the entire student loan system so that students and their families will receive timely, accessible, and reliable information and can make wise college financing decisions.

First and foremost, the legislation would simplify the financial aid process for all students and their families.

The bill reforms the Federal financial aid application. The Free Application for Federal Student Aid, FAFSA, is currently 10 long pages full of complex questions. Its length and complexity create an unnecessary obstacle for low- and middle-income students seeking the aid they need to attend college. The higher education amendments simplify the FAFSA by creating a new two-page EZ-FAFSA for low-income students, and phasing out the current seven-page FAFSA for all applicants within 5 years.

Further, the bill creates a pilot program that allows students to receive an aid determination or estimate in their junior year of high school. Rather than making complicated decisions in a frenzy of paper and options, the bill facilitates student planning, giving families time to investigate their financing options.

This critical bill makes sure that those options are easier to understand. The bill requires the Secretary of Education work with colleges and universities to develop several model price calculators that would give students an institution's actual net price. With these bottom-line prices in hand--in clear and consistent terms--families will be better equipped to make the right college and financing choices.

Plus, the bill requires lenders clearly disclose the terms of their loans and again asks the Secretary of Education to develop a consumer- friendly format so that families receive information in a consistent and accessible way.

But critically important, the bill protects students by ensuring colleges recommend lenders based on students--not banks' or financial aid officers'--best interest.

The bill requires that colleges adopt and enforce a code of conduct that prohibits the college or any of its employees from accepting any significant gifts, trips, services, or other benefits from lenders, period. If a college chooses to select a ``preferred lender,'' it must provide the Secretary of Education and the public a clear report explaining why the preferred products are in the best interest of students or their parents.

These provisions take critical steps towards cleaning up the student loan industry by removing the conflicts of interest that compromised the advice and integrity of too many financial aid offices and officers.

Beyond the student loans, the higher education amendments make more grant aid available to students in Maryland and around the nation. This bill expands eligibility criteria for Academic Competitiveness Grants, ACG, and National Science Mathematics Access to Retain Talent, SMART, grants; expands critical opportunities and services provided for low- income, first generation, and homeless college students under Federal TRIO Programs; increases grants to States to provide its young scientists and mathematicians with scholarships; and increases colleges' ability to reach out and prepare younger students for college through partnership programs. The bill makes it easier for colleges to use grant money to provide financial counseling and for students to engage in public service opportunities as part of their work-study obligations.

Grant programs encourage colleges to build partnerships with the business community to address the Nation's workforce needs and to build programs that teach all students, and especially minority students, foreign languages and encourage them to enter international service fields. The bill creates a new grant program for predominantly Black institutions to enhance their capacity to service more low- and middle- income Black American students; and a new grant for colleges to develop and improve their campus safety and emergency response systems in the wake of the terrible tragedy at Virginia Tech.

What do these changes mean for Maryland students? Well, instead of filling out a seven-page monstrosity, students will have access to a simpler two-page form, and eventually an on-line smart form that tailors later questions as a student answers earlier ones and may even be able to populate information from forms submitted to the IRS and other Government agencies.

Students will know their financial needs by their junior year of high school, enabling their family to examine straight-forward and honest documents outlining financing options. Families will be able to rely on financial aid officers for honest advice and will have greater access to financial aid counseling. Expanded grant eligibility requirements will give Maryland students increased access to grants and a better ability to pursue their dreams. St. John's students in Annapolis, for instance, will now be able to apply for SMART grants whereas this unique institution's absence of formal majors was a barrier to student eligibility in the past. Students who choose to go to school year round will be eligible for a second Pell grant. The books and supplies allowance for Federal work-study students will go from $450 to $600.

Perhaps most important, this bill takes steps toward addressing one of the most critical education problems we have in this country: a growing teacher shortage. As you know, Mr. President, teachers are our most valuable resource when it comes to educating our Nation's children. According to research, teacher quality is the schooling factor with the greatest effect on student achievement. Good teachers can make up to a full year's difference in learning growth for students and dwarf the impact of any other educational investment, even smaller class sizes.

But between the retirement of hundreds of thousands of baby boomers, efforts to reduce class sizes, and the No Child Left Behind law's raised standards for new teachers, school systems across the Nation can't find enough qualified recruits to fill their class rooms.

Maryland is no different. In 2006, the Maryland Higher Education Commission found that the State ``is not producing or attracting enough teachers to fulfill the staffing requirements of the State's school systems, especially in high need certification fields.'' High turnover only makes the problem worse.

It is widely accepted that it takes 5 years to master the complex art of teaching. But one-third of new teachers leave the profession within 3 years, half within 5 years, and attrition is greater in schools in low-income, urban districts. Of the estimated 6 million people in the U.S. with teaching backgrounds or credentials, only 3 million are actually teaching. Not only does the turnover leave our classrooms without teachers, but recruiting and training new teachers costs the country $7 billion a year.

Because research shows even modest monetary incentives lower teacher attrition, especially in high-risk school districts, I introduced the Master Teacher Act of 2007 to reward ``master teachers'' with a 25- percent Federal tax exemption on their salary for 4 years if they agree to teach in a school that is not meeting No Child Left Behind's annual achievement goals. That legislation is now before the Senate Finance Committee.

But more must be done to attract our best and brightest to teaching and then keep them there. Most professions, require new entrants go through extensive formal or informal apprenticeships before taking on the profession's full responsibilities. Not many graduate

law school and the next day walk into a courtroom and try a death penalty case or graduate medical school and immediately walk into an operating room to perform open-heart surgery. Those professions require decades of training post-graduation. Teaching is an equally complex profession, melding academic theory and practice, and carries enormous responsibility for children's personal and our Nation's collective economic future.

But too many teachers are thrown into a classroom with their own students, many with complex social, emotional, and learning needs, without sufficient training or support. And too many leave the profession feeling frustrated, defeated, and disheartened. Studies have shown a connection between support in the first year and teachers' moving between schools and leaving the profession. A helpful mentor, as reported by teachers, significantly reduces the chances of quitting in the first year. Common planning time and collaboration with other teachers are strong predictors of teachers' decisions to stay in a school and the profession.

The higher education amendments will improve teacher quality, training, and retention by promoting high-quality and effective teacher preparation programs for new and prospective teachers, and help high- need schools by focusing on recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers in high-need schools.

The bill creates competitive grants for innovative teacher preparation programs that address the need for stronger teaching methods and better teacher support. The bill provides a competitive grant for college level preparation programs that include evidence- based teaching methods, mentoring programs for the teacher's first 2 years in service--called induction programs--and new accountability measures to allow programs to improve the training offered.

The bill also provides grants to teaching residency programs, programs that provide participants a 1-year stipend to engage in a guided teaching apprenticeship with a master teacher that integrates theory and practice and includes master's degree coursework. These residency programs must place participants in high-needs schools and work with local school districts to develop an induction program to provide continued support to residents once the program ends. These programs must also contain accountability measures methods that allow for program evaluation and improvement.

I want to express my gratitude to Senators Kennedy and Enzi and the rest of my colleagues on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee for all their hard work and leadership in bringing such a comprehensive and innovative bill to the floor.

Mr. President, I first ran for elected office in my home State of Maryland at the age of 22. I sought elected office because I believed that government can make a difference in people's lives. This bill, reauthorizing the Higher Education Act of 1965, does just that, and I am proud to offer my support.

Madam President, I also thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for their extraordinary leadership in bringing forward the Higher Education Access Act. I think this is one of the most important bits of legislation that we will be considering during this term of Congress. To me, it speaks to one of the highest priorities of our country, and that is making education--quality education--available to all of our families.

Affordability of higher education is a critically important issue affecting families throughout our Nation. In 1965, we made a commitment in the Higher Education Act that every family--every family in this country--should be able to send their children to college and that the financial considerations should not prevent a family from allowing their children to get the benefits of higher education in America. We enacted the Pell grants, which was a huge program at the time, opening opportunities to many families who had never had it before.

Over the last 20 years, we have seen a considerable erosion of the affordability of higher education to families in the United States. In the last 20 years, college costs have increased threefold. Yet the buying power of Pell grants has actually declined during the past 20 years. Madam President, 20 years ago, 55 percent of the cost of a public 4-year college could have been financed through Pell grants. Today, it is less than one-third. It is estimated that 400,000-- 400,000--children in our country each year see the doors of higher education barred to them because they just can't afford to pay the tuition and costs of going to a postsecondary school. This is important to our country.

When I graduated from college, 15 percent of the new jobs required some form of postsecondary education. Today, that number is in excess of 60 percent. This is important for the individual, in order to benefit from the opportunities of America, but it is important for our country. If we are going to be competitive internationally, we need to have an educated workforce. So this is a public investment. It is not just for the individual. It benefits our Nation by allowing it to continue to grow economically so that our standard of living can increase.

The cost of higher education can determine what school an individual will attend because the cost affects many families who may say: Gee, I know you could benefit from going to this particular college or university, but we just can't afford it, so we will try this college or university. That second choice may work and it may not.

The cost of higher education also affects the careers that graduates choose because they have these huge loans they have to repay. We have students who would like to become teachers or would like to become nurses or go into law enforcement or some other field they feel a talent for or are committed to, but they take a look at their college loans and they have to opt out in order to repay those loans. So we lose out on the creativity of those college graduates.

Finally, the cost of higher education may also affect when a graduate starts a family or whether he or she can buy a home.

This financial burden truly has affected much of this Nation--the type of country that we are--and that is why this legislation, to me, is one of the most important that we will be considering during this term in Congress.

Fifteen years ago, about half the students in colleges took out loans. Today, that number is over two-thirds. The average debt for a college graduate is $19,000. We have a chance to do something about it in this legislation.

I might point out to my colleagues that, along with Senator Snowe, I have introduced the Master Teachers Act of 2007, which provides a Federal tax incentive for teachers who go into careers to help underserved areas, such as our rural areas and those areas where the schools are not meeting the expectations of No Child Left Behind--high poverty areas. That is an important bill that will help.

But we have an opportunity in this legislation to make a major difference in the affordability of higher education. I was proud to be a part of the Budget Committee, and I congratulate the leadership of our Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, for finding a way in which we could consider this legislation and to say that our priority is in higher education and making quality higher education affordable to American families.

Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi have taken up that charge in bipartisan legislation that we have before us. It clearly moves us in the right direction to help families in this country and to help our Nation become more competitive.

This legislation provides $17 billion of additional college aid to students, the biggest increase since the GI bill. Pell grants that currently max out at a little over $4,300 will be increased to $5,100. It also increases income levels, making more students qualified to receive Pell grants, and caps the monthly loan payment at 15 percent of discretionary income.

This is a huge improvement on affordability for families. College graduates now know they will be able to work after they graduate and can go into careers they want to go into, knowing there will be a limit as to how much they have to repay on an annual basis from their discretionary income on their college loans. That is a major policy statement we are making, that we want college graduates to go into fields where they can best contribute to our society.

It does a lot more. It protects working students. They are not penalized because they are working. That is an important policy. It encourages public service, with a loan forgiveness program for those who go into public service and commit to a 10-year requirement. I think that, again, is a policy that is important for our country--to say, yes, we do want young people to go into public service.

It is fiscally responsible. There are offsets to make sure we are not adding to the deficit. It holds colleges accountable. If the cost of a college exceeds its peers', there are ways the

public can put on pressure to keep college costs down.

This bill is very important. It helps families in Maryland. This bill will provide $32 million in new grants next year to families in my State of Maryland, and, over the 5-year period, $273 million in new grants.

For the historically Black colleges and universities, it will provide $5 million in new grants next year, and $40 million in new grants over the 5 years of this legislation.

The bottom line: More families in Maryland are going to be able to afford to send their children to college. More children will be able to go to their first preference, as far as the school they want to attend, which college or university, and will not be prohibited because of the costs. There will be more opportunities for so many families that have been left out of the American dream in my State of Maryland and more Marylanders will be able to choose the type of career where they can best add to their own self-fulfillment and to help our community.

This is an important bill. To me it speaks to the priorities of what this Nation should stand for. I am proud to urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 19, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a vote on the nominations of the Honorable Bijan Rafiekian, of California, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States; Ms. Diane G. Farrell, of Connecticut, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States; Mr. William Herbert Heyman, of New York, to be a Director of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation; Mr. William S. Jasien, of Virginia, to be a Director of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation; and Mr. Mark S. Shelton, of Kansas, to be a Director of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. Immediately following the vote, the Committee will conduct a hearing on ``The Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 19, 2007, immediately following the first rollcall vote at 12 p.m., to conduct a vote on the nominations of the Honorable Bijan Rafiekian, of California, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States; Ms. Diane G. Farrell, of Connecticut, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States; Mr. William Herbert Heyman, of New York, to be a Director of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation; Mr. William S. Jaisen, of Virginia, to be a Director of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation; and Mr. Mark S. Shelton, of Kansas, to be a Director of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 19, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this meeting will be to consider and approve the following bills: S. 1492, S. 1769, S. 1780, S. 1582, S. 1771, S. 1778, and to consider nominations for promotion in the United States Coast Guard (PN 609 and PN 610).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 19, 2007, at 9:45 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1634, a bill to implement further the act approving the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 19, 2007, at 2:15 p.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Aviation Financing: Industry Perspectives.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 19, 2007, at 10:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Iraq.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 19, 2007, at 10:30 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Military's Role in Disaster Response: Progress Since Hurricane Katrina.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 19, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting to consider pending business, to be followed immediately by a hearing on discussion draft legislation to amend and reauthorize the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, July 19, 2007, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen room 226.

Agenda

I. Bills: S. 1145, Patent Reform Act of 2007 (Leahy, Hatch, Schumer,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Judicial Nominations'' on Thursday, July 19, 2007, at 2:45 p.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226.

Witness list

Panel I: The Honorable Thad Cochran, United States Senator [R-MS]; The Honorable Trent Lott, United States Senator [R-MS]; The Honorable Patty Murray, United States Senator [D-WA]; The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison, United States Senator [R-TX]; and The Honorable John Cornyn, United States Senator [R-TX].

Panel II: Jennifer Walker Elrod to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit.

Panel III: Richard A. Jones to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington; Sharion Aycock to be United States

District Judge for the Northern District of Mississippi.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 19, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 19, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled, Great Expectations: Assessment, Assurances, and Accountability of the Mayor's Proposal to Reform the District of Columbia Public School System.

Mr. President, I welcome the debate on the U.S. role in Iraq, and I urge my colleagues to allow us to vote on the issue. I think each of us was elected to cast our votes and this is the most critical issue that is facing this Nation and we should be able to cast a vote on this issue, hopefully tonight.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by Senators Levin and Reed to the Defense authorization legislation. It is similar to the provisions Congress originally passed on the emergency supplemental appropriations bill that President Bush vetoed.

We now have more information than we did 3 months ago when we acted on the supplemental appropriations bill. We know the President's surge policy has not worked. By the President's own assessment, the Iraqis have failed to meet the most important interim benchmarks required for stability in Iraq. The Levin-Reed amendment would change our mission in Iraq to limit U.S. involvement to conducting counterterrorism operations, protecting U.S. forces and military infrastructure during redeployment, and training Iraqi forces.

It would set a deadline of April 30, 2008, for all U.S. combat troops to be removed from attempting to quell the civil war in Iraq. We should not wait a single additional day in changing the U.S. mission in Iraq.

I have opposed the war from the inception. In October 2002, I voted against giving President Bush the authority to use U.S. troops in Iraq. I have likewise opposed the President's management of this war. The administration misrepresented or ignored intelligence about Iraq. The administration's effort to garner international support for the war was totally inadequate. Our troops went to Iraq without adequate equipment. The President failed to prepare for the insurgency. The leadership in the White House wrongfully ordered the dismantling of the internal Iraqi police, putting the local communities at the mercy of the insurgents.

Our Nation and the Iraqis have paid a heavy price for the administration's mistakes. To date, over 3,600 U.S. soldiers have died and over 23,000 have been wounded, many sustaining life-changing injuries. Seventy-seven of the brave men and women who have lost their lives have been from Maryland. U.S. taxpayers have spent at least $320 billion so far. According to the Congressional Research Service, the war in Iraq currently costs $10 billion per month.

These expenditures represent lost opportunities in our own country.

Tragically, we have lost our focus in the war against terrorism. Afghanistan is not secure, and Osama bin Laden is still at large. For over a year, there has been a significant increase in the level of violence in Iraq. The main reason for this escalation has been sectarian violence.

U.S. military commanders have confirmed that the Sunni-Shiite conflict is the greatest source of violence in Iraq. Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, and the presence of American troops in the middle of a civil war is counterproductive. In fact, there is not one civil war raging in Iraq, there are many civil wars in Iraq. In Baghdad, Sunnis are fighting Shias. In Anbar and Diyala, Sunnis are fighting each other. In southern Iraq, Shiites are fighting each other. And around Kirkuik and Mosul Kurds are fighting Sunnis.

Our first priority should be to remove our troops from the middle of these civil wars. The Levin-Reed amendment will do just that. In order to bolster our military and refocus its attention on the global terrorism threat, this Congress has attempted, on more than one occasion, to redeploy U.S. forces and change the mission of our operations in Iraq.

President Bush and a minority in Congress have rebuffed this effort. Instead, President Bush proposes a strategy he claimed would improve the situation in Iraq: increasing the number of troops deployed, and stepping up traditional counterinsurgent operations.

According to President Bush, increased U.S. troops would stabilize the country so that its national leaders could operate in a safe environment in which to reach political agreement on oil and revenue sharing laws and amend their constitution. Furthermore, so the theory went, increased U.S. troop levels would enable us to accelerate training initiatives so that the Iraqi Army and police force could assume control over all security in the country by November 2007.

President Bush sent over 28,000 more soldiers into Iraq with the hope of fulfilling the goals of his plan. President Bush insists on continuing this surge policy. But the so-called surge is not working. Some of the most brutal acts of sectarian violence have occurred during the surge.

For example, in March of this year, a truck bomb in a Shia neighborhood killed 150 people. The Shia-controlled police units responded by systematically kidnapping and murdering 70 Sunnis. This is not an isolated episode.

Approximately 600 U.S. soldiers have died during the surge, and more than 3,000 have been wounded. Violence in many sectors of Iraq has increased. Despite the valiant effort of our troops, terrorist attacks in Iraq and around the world continue to rise. Tensions between countries in the Middle East region are growing.

Middle East autocrats have an even firmer grip on power. The Arab- Israeli conflict has deteriorated. Our military is stretched thin. And the most recent intelligence analysis reports that the al-Qaida group that attacked our Nation, the al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan, is stronger now than at any time since September 11, 2001.

The 2007 emergency supplemental appropriations bill required President Bush to report to Congress and the American people on the progress Iraqis are making in achieving certain benchmarks. These benchmarks were established so there could be a new way forward in Iraq with regard to securing civilian populations, establishing the Iraqi security force's capacity, and supporting an Iraqi Government that would have credibility and confidence at the national and provincial levels.

We now have received the first report from the administration. This assessment confirms the failures of the President's policies in Iraq by his own objectives. The Iraqis have failed to make satisfactory progress in key areas. For example, it is critical, critical for the Iraqi Parliament to pass legislation ensuring equitable distribution of the hydrocarbon oil revenues. Without such legislation, it is difficult to believe that the ethnic communities will have confidence in their central government. The Bush administration's assessment on this benchmark: not satisfactory.

Another benchmark concerns disarmament of the militias. We have heard about the militias and how they run their own affairs and take over ethnic communities. It is necessary that the Iraqi security forces be the national military. Eliminating militia control of local security is an additional benchmark. The Bush administration's assessment on those key benchmarks: not satisfactory and unsatisfactory.

Our goal has always been for the Iraqi commanders being able to make tactical and operational decisions without political intervention to uncover and pursue all extremists on all sides. The Iraqi security forces provide even-handed enforcement of the law. That is critical if the Government is going to have the confidence of its people. The Bush administration's own assessment on these benchmarks: unsatisfactory.

It is critical that the Iraqi security forces be able to operate independently. This benchmark is particularly important if we are going to be able to

draw down on the U.S. troops in Iraq. The Bush administration's assessment on this benchmark: not satisfactory.

The interim report the administration released last week confirms that Iraqi security forces still cannot be trusted to enforce the law fairly. Some have taken part in sectarian violence, and some even have turned on American troops.

In order to have national reconciliation and the political elements for stability in Iraq, it is necessary to enact and implement debaathification reforms; another critical benchmark that was established with the United States and the Iraqis. The Bush administration's assessment on this benchmark: not satisfactory.

Most troubling, the Iraqi Government is seriously weakened, and many predict its collapse. The major Sunni party is currently boycotting the Government. Without Sunni participation, meaningful progress on any key political benchmarks is impossible.

Whatever progress the President's interim report claims, it is clear that our military has not curbed sectarian violence, nor has the troop escalation provided sectarian influence over and infiltration of the Iraqi security forces, or forced Iraqi political leaders to make the tough decisions necessary to move forward toward peace.

I think it is time to acknowledge that President Bush's troop escalation has failed. It has failed to make Iraq more secure. The Iraqi Government remains incapable of organizing its security forces or its legislature to achieve a semblance of stability or political reconciliation.

It is time to change the mission in Iraq. The cost of further delays in lives, material, treasure, standing in the world, is just 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. Wait for what? For new evidence of failure to accumulate, for news that more American soldiers have died and Iraqi civilians have been killed?

It is critical for the United States to change policy in Iraq, and it starts by removing our troops from the middle of a civil war. The Levin-Reed amendment would do that. Our new mission must recognize that the opportunity for sweeping regional change, if it ever existed, has passed.

Instead, we need to focus on realistic objectives which include preventing the conflict in Iraq from igniting a broader regional war and preventing genocide.

Unfortunately, we cannot rewrite history. The United States does have a responsibility toward assisting the Iraqis and working for peace in that region. It is in the interests of our country to do that. There is no easy path to achieve the objectives of stability in Iraq and protection of all of its ethnic communities.

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.

The efforts will most certainly include stepped-up diplomatic efforts. Iraq's neighbors have a stake in Iraqi stability. The war in Iraq has produced hundreds of thousands of refugees. An escalation of the conflict will mean even more refugees, which is a major concern to Iraq's neighbors.

An escalation in the conflict means the spread of fundamentalism and sectarian violence, and an increase in basic crime and lawlessness, not just to Iraq but to the region.

We must support and broaden efforts made to create the International Compact for Iraq, a 5-year plan launched this past April under the auspices of the United Nations with benchmarks for Iraq's national reconciliation and economic reconstruction.

That compact includes formal commitments of support from the international community. But we must begin to have a broader diplomatic and economic vision in the Middle East that includes engaging both the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The various agencies of the United Nations are best suited to tackle the myriad problems plaguing Iraq. Matters of security, training, economics, and community development and providing electricity, water, and sanitation service are all areas where the United Nations has expertise.

Just as important, the United States should request OSCE to assist Iraq as a partner for cooperation. There is precedent for this. Afghanistan has already moved in that direction. Afghanistan has begun participation in OSCE proceedings under this program. This status could allow OSCE to assist Iraq with collective border security, police training--which is desperately needed--immigration and religious tolerance efforts.

Engaging the UN and OSCE could help initiate much needed multilateral and bilateral engagement with both friendly nations such as Turkey and with hostile nations such as Iran and Syria.

Engagement of the international community to deal with Iran and Syria's destabilizing regional policies is a critical factor that is needed and a renewed effort to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Iraq should request assistance from the United Nations and other international forces to help prevent continued ethnic cleansing. According to the United Nations 2005 World Summit, a high-level plenary meeting of the 60th session of the General Assembly, states have a responsibility to protect their population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. This is an international responsibility, not solely a U.S. responsibility.

I believe the strategy I have just outlined presents the best chance of helping the Iraqis negotiate a government and a governmental structure that has the confidence of its people, that protects the rights of all of its citizens, and builds the democratic institutions such as an independent judiciary and a market-based economy that are so vital to a successful country.

There is a difference between being resolute and being stubborn. We can no longer ignore overwhelming evidence or recoil from the cold reality the facts on the ground reveal. President Bush's policies have failed. The world has an interest in a safe and secure Iraq. I believe efforts to rebuild the country must be a shared responsibility among nations.

There is no more time for delay. It is time to change the mission, redeploy our troops currently stationed in Iraq, and internationalize the effort to bring stability to that country and to the Middle East. Such a strategy could give the Iraqis a real hope for peace and give Americans the best chance to achieve our objectives in that region of the world.

Our soldiers have honored our country by their incredible service. We owe it to our soldiers to change our mission now so we have the best chance to achieve these objectives.

I yield the floor.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Madam President, today I wish to honor the exemplary service of a group of my constituents from Catonsville, MD, who have recently returned from their week-long volunteer trip to Kiln,

Mr. President, first, let me thank my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, for yielding me this time and for his leadership on behalf of working families and among the poor American workers.

I listened with great interest to the Republican leader talk about the concerns of protecting workers' rights to a secret ballot. He had one complaint. It seems this legislation is lopsided in taking away the right of a secret ballot. The Republican leader then said, well, we are going to not be quiet about this. We are going to talk about this and make sure people understand exactly what this bill does.

What I don't understand, and I think people listening to the debate will not understand and be somewhat confused about, is if you read H.R. 800, you will see the protection for a secret ballot is preserved. It is an option the workers have to be able to have a supervised election. It is still in this law. I think they are going to be more confused because we have a vote tomorrow where we are going to have a chance to bring this bill before this body where we can have a full debate and consider amendments.

Quite frankly, I have heard from a lot of my constituents about this legislation--some for, some against. Workers are concerned about the tactics being used by some employers to prevent unions from being able to collectively bargain. There are worker intimidations, where workers are fired; there are threats made that plants are going to be relocated if they dare choose to be represented by a union; there is propaganda put out by employers that is downright intimidating. Those things do happen and they deny workers the real freedom of choice.

Some employers have expressed concerns about the arbitration provisions in this legislation and about making sure they do preserve an equal opportunity to be able to talk to their employees. These are matters we can debate, if the Republican leader will allow us to bring this issue to the floor. After all, he said he wanted an open debate on this subject. Let us have an open debate. There are troubling concerns in this country. Nothing is more American than an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. America's great economic strength has been created because of fairness in the workplace, because of collective bargaining, because of the importance of workers in our economy, and effective collective bargaining. But as Senator Kennedy pointed out a few minutes ago, we have some very troubling economic trends in this country--very troubling.

Real wages for U.S. workers are lower today than they were in 1973, even though productivity has increased by 80 percent. We do pride ourselves that each generation of Americans will live a more prosperous life than in previous generations. That will not be true for a large number of Americans. Today, wages are not keeping up with productivity. There is a problem in the workforce, and it affects all of us in this country. We need to do something about it.

Real median household income in my own State of Maryland has declined by 2.1 percent from 2000 to 2005. We find a widening of the income gap in America, a widening of the wealth gap in America. We should be moving to narrow that gap, not to see it continue to increase. We have a problem we need to deal with, and this legislation, H.R. 800, gives us an opportunity to debate these issues and determine whether the decline of unionization is one of the factors in contributing to these difficult economic trends.

CEOs are now paid 411 times what workers are paid in America--411 times. In 1990, it was bad enough at 107 times--once again, a widening of the gap. I remember when I was in college talking about the strength of America. The strength of America was that in all the western economic powers we had the narrowest gap between wealth and income. Now we have the widest. We need to do something about it. Unionization helps bridge that gap.

What has happened to unionization? In 1973, 24 percent of Maryland workers worked in a company that offered union representation. In 2006, that number dropped to 13 percent.

The United States has exercised international leadership. I listened as my colleagues talked about the letters we have written to other governments. We have been the leader in saying that workers rights is an international human rights issue. It is. America should be exercising leadership internationally on these issues. Some of us have argued on trade legislation that we should be doing a better job in protecting international workers' rights. But it also starts with what we do here at home, and we should be troubled that nationwide only 12 percent of U.S. workers have a union in the workplace. Surveys show that 53 percent want to have unions in the workplace.

I listened again to what the Republican leader said about secret ballots, and I know there is a disconnect here, because, again, this legislation doesn't

get rid of that. What this legislation tries to say is we want workers rights to be adhered to. If the majority wants to have a union, they should be able to have a union without intimidation from the employer. And if the majority does not want to have a union, they should be able to do that without intimidation from the union. Both are true. But in today's workplace, it is not balanced. H.R. 800 gives us the opportunity to debate this issue and, hopefully, act on this matter.

Why do we need this? As I have pointed out, we already have documented examples. Senator Kennedy pointed out how many back wages have had to be paid because of wrongful firings. We can go through the list, but it is clear it is not effective today--not effectively giving workers a real freedom of choice.

This bill increases the penalties for illegal activities; allows the majority will of employees in joining a union; gives the framework for achieving negotiated contracts. It is a comprehensive bill. It is a bill that deals with more than just one subject, as the Republican leader keeps mentioning. It is a bill that tries to say, let us do a better job so that workers rights are protected in our economy and that workers who want to join a union are able to join that union and those who do not are equally protected.

We will never be able to get into that debate unless 60 Senators join us tomorrow to vote to bring up this issue. As the Republican leader said, this is an issue that shouldn't be kept quiet. Everybody should know where people stand on it. Tomorrow, Senators will have a right to do that by voting to bring this issue forward so we can have this debate in this body and in this Nation.

We should take every opportunity we can to act on behalf of protecting the rights of workers and working families here in this Nation. The statistics tell us we are not doing what is necessary for the growth of our economy. We need to make sure everyone prospers by our economy and we are not doing everything we need to do in that regard. That is why this Senator will vote to allow us to move forward to consider H.R. 800 when this issue is before us tomorrow.

I thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership over so many years on these issues. He has been truly our leader in trying to speak up for what this Nation should be standing for. We are proud of the economic growth of America. Let us make sure all families can prosper in that growth. Senator Kennedy has been our champion on those matters.

I urge my colleagues to support the effort to consider this legislation.

I will be glad to yield.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy for those comments and those questions.

As I said, I was in college during the 1960s, and I did listen to my professors when they talked about the strength of this country, and it was unions that brought us the sensitivity in the workplace to provide health care benefits for people who never had health care insurance, who brought retirement plans for people who didn't have economic security when they retired. We made tremendous progress during the 1960s, the 1970s, and the 1980s as more people got health insurance and as retirement plans were readily available to workers.

When we look at the record today, we find 46 million people without health insurance and we know there has actually been a reduction of employer-provided health benefits in this country. Every year more and more of the cost of health care is being put on the backs of the employees. There has been an erosion of middle-income families being able to afford health care, so many are now forced into bankruptcy because they can't pay for health care bills.

For two-thirds of Americans, when they retire, Social Security is their largest source of income. It was never intended to be that way.

We always thought private retirement would be a major security for people when they retired. We have not met those goals. So we have a shrinking middle class in America, and the middle class is critically important, as Henry Ford said, for the manufacturers and producers and farmers to be able to sell their wares here in America. To have economic strength, you need to have the middle class. You need to have the sharing of wealth among the people of this country, and we do not have that in America today. We are moving in the wrong direction. I think that is what troubles me the most. I know how important a growing middle class is to an economy, to the economic strength of our entire country, so everyone can benefit from this great economy. I agree, we have a great economy. We are the strongest economy in the world. But we have to tend to it, we have to deal with it. Protecting the growth of worker rights will help everyone in our economy, including the owners of our large companies. That is what is so troublesome about this debate. It is not employers versus employees. We want a level playing field. We want companies to grow in America because we want more good jobs in America and we want employees to be able to get fair compensation for their work. That is what this debate should be about.

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for bringing this issue forward because it really does talk about what type of country we want for our children and our grandchildren.

The Senator is absolutely right. To bring home the reason this is needed today, 53 percent of workers would like to have a union in their employment. Only 12 percent today have union opportunities. The will of the worker today is not being adhered to because of the tactics used by some employers to prevent a fair and open process for employees to choose a union.

Just to underscore one more time, this is allowing the employees to have the freedom of choice. We will never be able to get to a full debate unless we get the opportunity to proceed with this legislation, and that is what this vote is about. I think the point of the Senator is very well taken. This is not taking away private, secret ballots. That is still an option which is available to the employees. But it allows the employees to have a level playing field, which in many cases today is not true.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.